Taking dice away from the players

[Mark Hope]

In my D&D games, players don't know their stats (abilities, saves, hit points, skill ranks etc) but they still roll their own dice. I add the relevant mods as needed. Helps immersion, keeps them guessing, yet still allows them to retain ownership and that vital sense of control and involvement in the action. I've run games this way for close to 20 years - works nicely - but I do think that players should roll their own dice (where appropriate), as that's part of the fun for many players.

 

[Nifft]

We've had sessions like that, sure.

It's not easy to predict when they'll happen, though: many players enjoy stabbing things, and the rules of every edition support -- even cater to -- stabbing.

Cheers, -- N

 

[rogueattorney]

No, but I've said before the players' goal should be the opposite:

Get the dice out of the DM's hands.

If the DM never rolls, nothing bad can ever happen to your character.

 

[chriton227]

I played in a Shadowrun game where the GM rolled all the dice, it didn't work particularly well from my point of view. Allocating dice from a dice pool is a common mechanic in Shadowrun, and being out of control of the dice makes that a lot harder to manage.

I think it was driven by the GM wanting to be in control of the game and not trusting the players. He also insisted that anyone that wasn't "present" in game had to leave the room. For D&D where the party can stay together, that isn't bad, but in Shadowrun, mages are constantly going astral, deckers going in the net, and riggers scouting with drones, and each time the GM made everyone else leave the room. It was pretty common to only be in the room for about 1/3 to 1/2 of any given session, especially if you were playing a street sam.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Well, if your first thoughts are "power grab" and "lack of respect" then I'd start to wonder what the trust issue is between you and your GM.

Two experiences that I've had with diceless:

First, a DM running a game in a classroom during class. No dice. The DM was bad. Real bad.

Second, an Amber game, where the GM couldn't even remember the rules and made stuff up when he went along. This, more than anything, has soured me on anything diceless.


So, to me, based on experience, diceless = bad game.

I'm quite aware that a poor DM can and will stack the deck against the players, and that the dice may well be an illusory shield.

However, by taking away any randomizers, the game then becomes entirely dependent on the DM's decision for anything to happen at all, good or bad, and I don't think most people can handle that kind of power well.

Brad

 

[Wik]

Two experiences that I've had with diceless:

First, a DM running a game in a classroom during class. No dice. The DM was bad. Real bad.

Second, an Amber game, where the GM couldn't even remember the rules and made stuff up when he went along. This, more than anything, has soured me on anything diceless.


So, to me, based on experience, diceless = bad game.

I'm quite aware that a poor DM can and will stack the deck against the players, and that the dice may well be an illusory shield.

However, by taking away any randomizers, the game then becomes entirely dependent on the DM's decision for anything to happen at all, good or bad, and I don't think most people can handle that kind of power well.

Brad

Except there is a randomizer - it's just not in the players' hands. Basically, you're never sure if you rolled a crit when you hit that orc. You don't know if you have an 18 strength, or a 17. When you're hit, but shrug it off, you don't know if you're at 80% of your HP total, or 70%. You are completely oblivious to the math of the game, and entirely attentive to the story.

For some groups, this can work amazingly well. I can see the charm of it - I love making characters use certain weapons, but it's hard for me to do when I can look at the rules and realize that my long sword does 1d8 damage, while that gladius I'd prefer to use only does 1d6. If I don't know the numbers... it's less of a worry for me.

This is definitely a completely different thing from "Diceless" games, which I agree can be kind of a pain in the butt. THis is a "dice" game... it just means that the players aren't the ones rolling.

For what it's worth, I've never done this. I *HAVE* done the opposite: players roll ALL the dice, which is a variant I'm quite the fan of. I'll have to do it one of these days for fourth edition... could be a lot of fun.

 

[ST]

I also dig games and variants where the players roll all the dice.

Apocalypse World (from Vincent Baker, the guy who wrote Dogs in the Vineyard) does that, and it interacts nicely with the game's structure. You're focusing on what Moves you'll make, advancing your threat Fronts, and playing NPCs, players are using their special abilities, and I don't know what it it specifically, but running it it's awesome to leave the dice on the table and let the players decide when to pick them up.

In practice it feels like you flip the usual RPG thing where "the dice represent randomness in the game world", here it's like, "the dice represent how much chaos the PCs add to the world."

I know some people feel handling dice breaks immersion and that's cool, but for me it's like, we're roleplaying the whole time, and then in the middle of it the PC takes some real, immediate action, the player picks up the dice, and something is about to go down. Rolling the dice in that situation is like a flag adding some extra 'oomph' to what the PC's doing at that moment, instead of 'ok, let me stop my roleplaying for a bit, roll the dice, then go back to what I was doing." The stakes have been raised because they picked up the dice.

 

[Salamandyr]

I prefer a mixture; the players roll the combat dice, but out of combat skill and other kinds of checks are rolled by the DM. The line of division comes down to player uncertainty. The player knows immediately if he missed in combat or not; but it's not always immediately evident if a skill failure or success is through luck (high or low roll) or skill.

It also gets rid of the "I rolled a high number, tell me what I win" mentality I sometimes see with skill checks.

 

[Umbran]

So, to me, based on experience, diceless = bad game.

Well, "players not rolling dice" does not equate to "diceless" or "The DM doesn't have rules and just makes everything up". In the "playing blind" I mentioned before the GM rolls dice all the time. The rules were bog-standard AD&D. Just all the resolution steps were on one side of the screen.

However, by taking away any randomizers, the game then becomes entirely dependent on the DM's decision for anything to happen at all

Well, that's not true. Randomizers are common, but aren't the only way to play a game. The Marvel Supers Saga rules had no randomizers - the game was resource-pool bidding based, if I recall correctly. I expect that would be easily modified to the point where the player really didn't know the stats or rules, but the GM still wouldn't determine everything by fiat.

Ultimately, unless the GM reveals the stat blocks and other game-rule information, you're on trust that the GM follows the rules to begin with. RPGs are at their root an honor-system thing.

I think folks who think of "ability to determine the results of fictional actions in a fictional universe used for entertainment" as "power"... well, yes, those people wouldn't deal well with such a system.

 

[coyote6]

Well, that's not true. Randomizers are common, but aren't the only way to play a game. The Marvel Supers Saga rules had no randomizers - the game was resource-pool bidding based, if I recall correctly.

Marvel Superheroes Adventure Game, which used the Saga System & was published by TSR, used cards as randomizers. I think you're thinking of the Marvel RPG put out by Marvel itself -- Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game.

On topic, I don't think I'd find it very fun to play an RPG with the GM rolling all the dice; it wouldn't help immerse me in the game, and I think I'd feel like I was missing out on some of the fun.

I think it would be even less fun for me to play D&D without knowing my character's capabilities; I'd probably spend more time trying to figure what I could do then I would being in character. Never mind that I don't know how I could make up a D&D character without knowing said character's abilities. (Edit: I suppose the GM would make all the characters?)

OTOH, I've had fun playing an amnesiac in GURPS -- no idea who I was, let alone what I could do. But I was rolling the dice, figuring out who I was, and figuring out my character's character sheet at the same time. (The PC was also very capable, which I'm sure helped. "Say, I seem to be regenerating very rapidly.")