Do monsters/NPCs really need to roll any dice?

[xechnao]

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.

Think of the initiative roll. The player does not know who goes first but he knows that as some point he has to roll and find out by this roll. It makes sense. Same about the unknown risks. To make it more clear: similarly as with the phases of combat in D&D (initiative phase, player turn phase, monster turn phase) in GW Warhammer combat is divided in a set of phases (movement phase, melee phase, shooting phase, magic phase). It is very easy to introduce a phase for unknown but expectable events such as battlefield events or risks. Furthermore, if you want to surprise your players you could introduce a surprise mechanic whose difficulty you could scale from easy to difficult according to what you want to happen in the adventure.

 

[the Jester]

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.

The dm needs to have fun too. He isn't there to serve the players' whims. He's there to run a game, which should be fun for him. After all, the dm does most of the work in any given group (granting the very rare exception), so why should he have the least fun?

Speaking as a dm, I would have no interest at all in playing a game where everyone but me got to roll dice. I'd be, like, "Someone else can run that game. I'll be over here, running one that is fun for me, too."

 

[xechnao]

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.

I could buy into this if I had never played any video game or runned an application that rolls dice for you. The thrill I am talking about is not about the physical manuality of rolling the dice but of tying the tension of the unknown to the chances you are aware of.

 

[hexgrid]

This sounds a lot like the "Players roll all the dice" variant in the 3e Unearthed Arcana. It's also online, here:

Players Roll All The Dice :: d20srd.org

 

[coyote6]

For me, as a GM, I kind of like rolling dice. It may just be a matter of expectations and familiarity, but the couple of times I've GMed a game with a "players make all rolls" approach, I've missed rolling dice.

Also, I think this approach would only speed up play if the players are faster at rolling and adding their numbers than the GM would be at rolling & adding the NPCs', and the GM is faster at comparing totals to target numbers than the PCs would be. You aren't changing the number of rolls, just who does them, so any change in speed would be dependent on the people doing the rolls. That's something that's going to vary from group to group.

 

[xechnao]

Also, I think this approach would only speed up play if the players are faster at rolling and adding their numbers than the GM would be at rolling & adding the NPCs', and the GM is faster at comparing totals to target numbers than the PCs would be. You aren't changing the number of rolls, just who does them, so any change in speed would be dependent on the people doing the rolls. That's something that's going to vary from group to group.

The goal behind this idea is to change the number of rolls to speed up play. I believe you could design combat as it stands now with less rolls if you accept the fact that only PCs roll dice. Of course rules would have to change but character options and gameplay could remain the same, only faster. This speeding up necessity is what pushed me to try and find some solution about it. And till now I am convinced that a design where dice are rolled one time for each conflict -instead of breaking it up into sides- practically helps.

 

[The Shaman]

Think of the initiative roll. The player does not know who goes first but he knows that as some point he has to roll and find out by this roll. It makes sense. Same about the unknown risks. To make it more clear: similarly as with the phases of combat in D&D (initiative phase, player turn phase, monster turn phase) in GW Warhammer combat is divided in a set of phases (movement phase, melee phase, shooting phase, magic phase). It is very easy to introduce a phase for unknown but expectable events such as battlefield events or risks. Furthermore, if you want to surprise your players you could introduce a surprise mechanic whose difficulty you could scale from easy to difficult according to what you want to happen in the adventure.

1. So who rolls initiative for the monsters?

2. Warhammer is a miniatures wargame, not an rpg. Rpgs have different goals and objectives, in my experience, and what works for one doesn't always work for the other.

3. You still haven't answered my question: how does this increase immersion in the game?

 

[The Shaman]

The goal behind this idea is to change the number of rolls to speed up play.

I thought the goal was to increase immersion.

As an aside, "speed of play" isn't really an issue in any of the games I enjoy, but that's because I refuse to play a system that doesn't provide for quick action.

 

[maddman75]

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

Again, as someone that runs just such a game, not at all. The randomization is still there, the players roll it instead of me, that's all. There's still an element of tactics involved.

For example, I can have a vampire punch someone, and that just uses his Combat score. I can have him start a grapple, which does no damage but is easier to do and sets up some other moves. I can do a kick which is harder to do and does more damage. And so on. Instead of changing what I add to the die, it changes what the player has to hit to avoid the attack.

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.

Why? Its already random with a die roll. You aren't signifigantly changing the odds one way or another.

Using this rule does do two things. First, it does add to immersion even for a very cinematic game. I mean honestly, if you aren't rolling dice you can't fudge them. It gives the fights a very 'no holds barred' kind of feel. Second, it does speed up combat considerably.

 

[Rechan]

If the goal is to speed up play, how about removing the dice completely and instead using cards? Each player gets a number of cards, and each card has "Hit" "miss" etc. The player has to choose when he misses and when he hits, as he has only a limited number of each and can't get the hit cards back until he's played all in his hand.

Initiative can be handled similarly. You pick the initiative card for this encounter and hand it to the DM; some lower, some higher. But I've seen other games where the initiative order is actually just a 'go around the table' type deal.

But then, I'm not attached to dice at all. Randomness and "The unknown" is unimportant to me, DM or Player. The story assumes the players win, the game assumes the players win, so why muck it up with randomness. I'd rather a narrative mechanic than a randomized one.