Do monsters/NPCs really need to roll any dice?

[ExploderWizard]

If the die rolls affect the PC's then yes, the monsters should roll. NPC vs NPC, the DM can just make up the results unless he/she wants to resolve such actions which may bore the players unless they can participate somehow.

 

[jensun]

New school design does not consider this method necessary to play the game. In 4e for example PCs roll to attack monster defenses: the saving throw that used to be is no more.

This isn't really entirely accurate. Sticking with 4e a PC must roll to hit with a spell or physical attack. A monster has to roll to hit when attacking the PC's. If either inflicts some sort of ongoing effect then the target, whether PC or NPC, get a saving throw to see if it continues to effect them (assuming its not a 1 round thing).

 

[xechnao]

Do you think this might be a little boring for the person behind the screen?

A valid point. But should the DM be someone who runs an adventure for the PCs or one that plays against the PCs and thus the thrill of rolling dice for his monsters? Btw, the game will still be under the same randomness as it was before.

 

[xechnao]

If the die rolls affect the PC's then yes, the monsters should roll.

Why? If you faced a monster -not that it is going to happen, but lets play pretend- you would still feel the action or what is happening regarding the monster or the NPC through yourself. And since the game is about your PC, you controlling your PC it makes sense you make the roll.

 

[xechnao]

While that's certainly true, I thought the OP was posing a D&D question, not a general "other game system" question.

I pose the question in general, which includes D&D.

 

[xechnao]

This isn't really entirely accurate. Sticking with 4e a PC must roll to hit with a spell or physical attack. A monster has to roll to hit when attacking the PC's. If either inflicts some sort of ongoing effect then the target, whether PC or NPC, get a saving throw to see if it continues to effect them (assuming its not a 1 round thing).

Yeah, I know. But I felt it was accurate to use it as an example to serve my purpose, ie make people understand what I am trying to talk about.

 

[jdrakeh]

There's an older, fun, game system called Legendary Lives that uses a semi-diceless system where NPCs and monsters have a set attack/damage rating, which a PC must roll better than in order avoid being hit and damaged. The system works on the simple principle that if PCs do nothing to defend against attacks, an attack will hit them.

 

[Obryn]

Well before 4e, I was considering changing 3e to an "Actor Rolls" system. So, your saves would become static defense scores, just like your AC. I like the simplicity of this system, in that it's always the character/monster doing things who's rolling dice. About the only awkwardness here was that I didn't want to roll attacks for poisons and traps - but I've gotten over that.

Now, I also kind of dig Unisystem's "Players Roll" system. I'm not 100% sold on it, but that might just be because I haven't used it enough yet.


So yeah, mathematically it's all identical so long as you give some thought to how ties are resolved, and so long as you reverse the criticals when necessary. If, that is, you want to keep the probabilities the same.

For example, let's say a character's AC is 15. A monster has an attack bonus of +5. They therefore need to roll a 10 or better to hit - which gives them a 55% chance of striking.

If you want to change this around to a player-rolls model, the monster's attack score becomes 15. The character needs to roll a d20 + their "AC Bonus" to dodge. If you just subtract 10, this gives them an AC bonus of +5, meaning they'd need to roll a 10 or better to dodge - or a 55% chance the monster will miss. This swings the probability by 10% from the other way around.

For this to work, and to keep the math the same, you'd need to subtract 11 from all the static scores instead of 10; or else add 11 to a monster's attack score instead of 10. The alternative is to declare that ties fail on a dodge, but I think that would get overly complicated.

Also, imporantly, a 20 on a dodge roll does nothing, while a 1 on a dodge roll means the monster crits. It's another difference to remember, but certainly possible.

-O

 

[The Shaman]

A valid point. But should the DM be someone who runs an adventure for the PCs or one that plays against the PCs and thus the thrill of rolling dice for his monsters? Btw, the game will still be under the same randomness as it was before.

Well, I'm not a Wii: I'm there to enjoy the game as much as anyone else around the table, and for me that includes throwing the dice once in awhile.

If I understand you correctly, you feel that putting control of all the random results in the hands of the players fosters immersion. But many of the things I roll for behind the screen are for things the characters would not know about until or unless they experience it directly. As a player that would break my immersion, not enhance it.

So I'm not really seeing the advantage here.

 

[Umbran]

A valid point. But should the DM be someone who runs an adventure for the PCs or one that plays against the PCs and thus the thrill of rolling dice for his monsters?

False dichotomy. Sorry, but having some thrill at rolling the dice and seeing what happens is not, imho, linked to being "against" anybody. The element of chance introduces the tension of the unknown - but a DM who isn't involved in rolling dice doesn't get to be part of that tension.

RPGs are fun because they are engaging - good games always give you something to do. This holds for the DM as well as the players. If the DM doesn't roll dice, that's removing a major thing that is keeping him engaged with the game. If the DM isn't rolling dice, your are moving him one step toward being a bookkeeper during fights, which may not be much fun.

The resource-bidding model, for example, could be run with a flat "PC must bid this high to succeed" form, but generally doesn't. The GM makes bids for the NPCs/monsters, because that's interesting to do, and keeps the GM in the game.

Remember, from a mathematical point of view, having just the players, just the DM, or both rolling dice can be made equivalent, right? So, why don't you argue that having the DM roll all the dice would be better? It could probably be made even faster than if the players roll.

We don't do that because it'd be kind of dull of the players. Same goes if you turn it around.

Any resolution mechanic should have involvement of all involved parties, IMHO.