On the plus side, I'd think combat would run more smoothly this way, and the GM can focus more on tactics and making the fight fun, rather than juggling dice.
On the minus side... GM's don't get to roll dice? I'm having a hard time coming up with negatives on this.
There are a few games that run this way already, with Numenera/Cypher probably being the biggest. I wasn't a big fan of how Numenera pushed so much of the mechanics onto the players, but that had more to do with burning stats than having the players roll the dice.
What say you?
UPDATE: someone on the Book of Faces pointed out that the GM can't fudge rolls. Man, it's been a long forever ago since I fudged a roll.
PDF
Posts
11 comments:
Considering how badly I've always rolled dice, it would be a godsend...
And when the PCs die the players have no one to blame but themselves...
Wonder how I can adapt this idea to BX? Hmmm...
As a GM, I would miss rolling dice. However the argument that it frees up the GM to focus on tatics is a good one.
A lot of rolls should be secret, imo. Not so the GM can fudge them, but so the players don't get information they then have to pretend they don't have. E.g.There's a big difference between rolls a 3 you don't find a trap and rolls a 19 you don't find a trap if the rolls are in the open
I don't know Numenera, but it certainly isn't the first system to take DM rolling out of the game; you saw a couple-few games back in the early 2000s coming out of the indie scene. Pretty sure InSpectres didn't let the GMs roll dice. Neither did Vin Baker's Otherkind or Ron Edwards's Trollbabe. There are others...a couple of my own designs went that direction.
I don't enjoy it...as a GM it feels like I'm not participating in the game play. As a player, these systems often put a lot of narrative control on your plate, and I've found many players are uncomfortable with this set-up.
It's okay for a lark or one-off...and can rock with the right group. But it's not great for long-term play (IMO) which is my preferred style of gaming these days.
James Mishler: Haven't crunched numbers on this, but what springs to mind is having the players roll to beat 8 + the monster's HD. You'd need to ditch AC and replace it with a bonus to this Not-the-Face roll, something like leather is +1, chain is +2, and plate is +3?
Shannon Ferguson: I love my random tables too much to totally give up on dice. ;)
Joshua Macy: that is an excellent point and the first really good argument against. Maybe keep those rolls on the DM's side of the screen? Gonna have to ponder that one.
JB: totally get where you're coming from; I'm not a fan of dumping lots of narrative responsibility on the players, either. That said, I think the two are not inextricably joined at the hip. But it is something to watch out for.
Well, whole PbtA branch of rpgs doesn't let GM roll. I like it, it skips to the part of game i find actually fun (players doing stuff), and i was never really into rolling dice that much anyway.
When I've run my table off and on in the past this way, it was the players that didn't like it. They felt like they never had a moment to breathe and plan because they were always rolling dice...their or "mine", and it actually made combats SLOWER because I was telling them what dice to roll (instead of just grabbing the dice) and then waiting to hear their results, then coming back with my DM-side narrative anyways. It doesn't sound like much extra time, but it adds up. I've never found it to be the grail it looks like on paper.
I like rolling dice. Dice are fun. It's part of the tactile experience, part of why I always want to game at a table and not over Discord. I don't find the act of rolling dice distracting, never have I said "oh man I'm rolling so many dice, I don't know what to make the orcs do this round!" Hell, some monsters shouldn't even be using tactics...gelatinous cube? Zombies? 30-50 feral hogs?
Plus, I also have a thing for random tables. I love books like the Dungeon Alphabet and that big book of d12 tables. (It's on my shelf, I can't remember the name.)
DMWieg: Yeah, not having dice to roll on my beloved random tables isn't happening; I learned how much I missed those when playing FUDGE recently.
And don't discount those feral hogs; they're nasty SOBs.
One of my friends likes to run Black Hack related stuff, which does have some GM die rolls, but in combat at least it's all only player rolls. And I really don't like it. Maybe I'm just becoming an old fuddy-duddy, but the whole idea of me as a player "controlling my own fate" doesn't do much for me. I feel like I'm rolling TOO MUCH as a player in those games. I prefer to let the GM roll for the monsters, rather than me rolling to dodge or avoid the monster attacks.
And as a GM, I don't need to be freed up to consider monster tactics or whatever. I set the pace for the game. If I need a few seconds to consider what the monsters do before I roll dice for them, I can take it. My players don't seem to mind. And also, if I were to be focusing on monster tactics, or my adventure notes or whatever, I'm not refereeing the players' rolls properly. So I don't really buy the argument that it relieves the GM of some of their burden.
James Mishler & Dennis Laffey: right now, I'm toying with a one-roll system. The player rolls a d20, I consult a foe-specific chart, and that tells me what happens to everyone involved.
On the one hand, this should move really fast at the table; I'm removing not only the player's damage roll (which also means no more rolling great on the d20 and following that up with a 1 on the damage die), but I'm taking out all of the monster rolls.
On the other, it means I need to come up with a unique combat chart for every creature. Or, at least, every creature type. And that does mean I can tweak those charts based on the location...
Post a Comment