GM Handling the System

[karlindel]

I was wondering what people thought of a game in which the GM handles all of the system aspects of the game, including dice rolling, so that all the players do during the session is roleplay. I have run a successful campaign in this format in the past, and I am likely to try to run another one sometime. I wanted to see what other people's experiences with this style of play are, if any, and also get ideas from people on how to handle this kind of game.

What do you think are the advantages/disadvantages of this style of play? Would you enjoy playing in this kind of game? What would a GM have to do to convince you to play in this kind of game? What problems do you think such a game would be likely to run into?

What system would you recommend for a game like this? What, if any, changes do you think would have to be made to support this style of play? What would you do to keep things running smoothly at the table?

 

[SiderisAnon]

In a way, Amber does this since it is entirely diceless. The GM makes the decision on whether something works based on comparing your traits to the opponent's traits, with modification for things like situation, conditions, and good roleplay.

However, I believe the only way this can work is if the players have complete trust in the GM. There is no "blame the dice" when things to right or wrong; it's all on the GM's head.

Even in games where I had a player who could not handle the math and so we had to tell them what die to roll and what they wanted to get, the players still wanted to roll their own dice. It gives the players a feeling that they have a measure of control, even if it's only because they're rolling the random objects. (Some players won't use electronic dice rollers because they feel it takes it too much out of their control.)

Personally, I would not play more than a one-shot with a system where the DM does all the rolling, with the exception of one GM. (This is the GM who ran Amber.) For me, part of the game experience is rolling the dice.

 

[Stumblewyk]

Personally, I would not play more than a one-shot with a system where the DM does all the rolling...

This. I'd be willing to give it a try, but part of the thrill of P&P RPG's for me (and I suspect many other players as well) is the excitement that comes with a die roll - will it or won't it hit? Will I roll minimum damage again, or maximize damage even though I didn't crit? That sort of thing.

Frankly, I've always been of the opinion that non-combat situations, when handled well, never need dice for a resolution. If you're doing your job as GM and have interested, invested PCs, dice never have to come into play outside of a fight. But in my opinion, when in combat, taking dice away from the player is just cruel and decidedly unfun.

 

[Umbran]

I've run games like this.

Overall, it is a lot more work for the GM. I'd only use it for games where the effect I'm looking for really requires that the players not interact much with the mechanics. For those few instances, it can be a major flavor enhancer, but most of the time, it just bogs things down.

For this kind of thing, the simpler the rules, the better. The more rules-driven choices the PCs have to make, the more difficult the technique is.

 

[Gilladian]

As a GM, I'd go under trying to do this, even with a simple rules system like Microlite20 or BECMI.

And why would you want to? A PC not understanding the comparative strengths and weaknesses of his character, not being able to easily recognize when he or she is in trouble, and not know when they have the skills to handle a situation, would drive me CRAZY as a player...

 

[amerigoV]

Players these days are way too lazy as it is. I look to push MORE to them, not more to me.

I'd play a one-shot under this, but I like tossing the dice. Savage Worlds has brought even more dice-fun for me since the dice Ace/Explode in that system.

 

[Umbran]

And why would you want to? A PC not understanding the comparative strengths and weaknesses of his character, not being able to easily recognize when he or she is in trouble, and not know when they have the skills to handle a situation, would drive me CRAZY as a player...

No doubt, many players would view it that way, and you'd not want to use this with those players.

However, there are benefits, including:

It lends a bit more verisimilitude to risk assessment. If you're a rules-junkie, you know how you stack up against any given monster. If you don't have the rules to go by, you must go by the GM's descriptions, and foggier ideas of what you're up against. It thus tends to discourage combat solutions except when absolutely necessary, which for some will be seen as a bonus.

When you've got a bunch of players who already know the game, it can return some of the "newness", mystery, and exploration to a game, by making people less familiar with what they're dealing with.

Done properly, running blind calls for far more evocative descriptions from the GM, which can be a lot of fun.

Also, it means the players don't have to learn the rules!

 

[NewJeffCT]

I don't think I could do that as a DM - I'm busy enough at the table as it is without rolling dice for everybody else. Plus, with my luck rolling dice, my players would kill me if I even thought of rolling for them!

Also, I think I would prefer to roll them myself as a player as well.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Unless the game itself is geared towards diceless play (someone already mentioned the Amber Diceless RPG), I do not like it.

I have played in games before where this was the case, and found that it it not for me.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Earlier editions of D&D are close enough for me. I like to roll my own fate as a player when it is called for but I am fine with the DM handling the mechanics behind the screen. For example I enjoy rolling my attacks in combat but I don't care if I know the target number before rolling.

So yeah, let the DM handle the rules and let me focus on the in game situations from a character perspective, just let me toss the bones.