D&D General Players make the rolls and Defensive Reactions

[coolAlias]

While I like the idea in general, I think that even though it may enhance the player's fun to have them roll all the dice, it would certainly detract from mine.

I have a lot of fun rolling dice for NPCs and monsters - makes me feel like I'm playing, too, rather than just refereeing.

 

[dave2008]

While I like the idea in general, I think that even though it may enhance the player's fun to have them roll all the dice, it would certainly detract from mine.

I have a lot of fun rolling dice for NPCs and monsters - makes me feel like I'm playing, too, rather than just refereeing.

Yep, I was going to say the same thing. I've done it a bit and it, IME, makes thing move a little quicker, but I (the DM) missed the rolling.

 

[GMMichael]

It puts the drama in their hands, but, obviously, removes 'fudging' from behind the DM screen.

Erm, the DM controls the DC. Fudge on.

 

[JeffB]

Indeed I enjoy players roll all the dice, whether Dungeon World, BlackHack* or using the old 3.5 UA version converted to whatever version of D&D- It's easy enough to make 4E or 13A defenses into modifiers and have players roll. Haven't done it in 5th, but I don't see why not.

I thought I would hate it, but I enjoy seeing the players roll for "defending" more than I do rolling for "attacks".

*Not crazy about roll under systems, but BH has some neat mechanics. I like it's simple initiative: make your DEX roll or you go after your opponents do

 

[Charlaquin]

I've never had anyone explain why that is so wrong other than it's not the "proper" way to play or what they do as an alternative.

Yes you have, repeatedly and at length. You just haven’t agreed with the things other people find wrong with it. And that’s absolutely fine, if your way works for you, more power to you.

As for what I do as an alternative, I roll a Charisma (Deception) check for the merchant if they’re lying, and describe some kind of tell if it doesn’t beat everyone’s passive Wisdom (Insight).

 

[5ekyu]

Yeah - that's the other reason I haven't thought a lot about it for 5e - at least until 6th level or so I think the pcs are too fragile and the encounters too swingy to trust that I could make it work. Even after that, I'm not positive it would work. 4e and 13A are the only editions I've been comfortable with letting the dice fall where they may - if the PCs go down in those editions it's because they screwed up or had bad luck, not that the encounter they were facing was accidentally harder than I intended it to be. (If I'm planting clues that the encounter is too hard for them it's on them if they ignore it and go in swinging. If the encounter design rules are busted and I have to use trial and error to feel out how difficult a challenge really is, I need more control to fudge a busted encounter into something closer to the challenge I meant to give them.)

Well, obviously if you are uncomfortable with it, dont think it will work, not something yo les inyo.

I can say for me, with a couple 5e campaigns now and some shorter runs eith it - PAR has worked fine. I haven't touched a fie (except when player ) in ages in multiple systems and 5e and encounters plsy just fine.

Thrn agsin, I always felt if the encounter isn't going to survive the dice, thats on the encounter not the dice or rules.

Three Rs - robust, reactive and resilient. The keys to envounters.

 

[5ekyu]

I am trying to find ways to make it more worthwhile... or easier to give it some zing.

Not sure what you mean by easier.

Its "roll your armor" or "roll d20 and add your AC"

Its "roll your DC" or "roll d20 and add your spell DC"

To me the value is in the "in your hsnds" up front nature of the play with PC "actions" or "active" at all times.

As for zing, to me that's in the scene, not the dice.

 

[Garthanos]

As for zing, to me that's in the scene, not the dice.

For me its about options that make a difference ... when we go to attack or cast a spell huge numbers of options have been presented which make the action both vivid (aka zing) and involve a choice with some impact (this makes it feel actually in your hands more than dice do) . Rune Quest had basic parry and dodge as options, the second could be seen as immediately effective vs multiple attacks but sacrificing position.

 

[Oofta]

Yes you have, repeatedly and at length. You just haven’t agreed with the things other people find wrong with it. And that’s absolutely fine, if your way works for you, more power to you.

As for what I do as an alternative, I roll a Charisma (Deception) check for the merchant if they’re lying, and describe some kind of tell if it doesn’t beat everyone’s passive Wisdom (Insight).

What you call rules I call one interpretation. As far as the OP, I'm not a big fan of Angry ... I assume you are.

I think D&D is a game meant to be interpreted and spun to fit the group so I disagree with anyone that makes a blanket "playing it the way I do is the only correct way to play".

As far as who rolls the die, I prefer the mix of 5E. Maybe it's just the traditionalist in me, but for the most part I don't think it really matters all that much in the grand scheme of things. I prefer a game where DM and player switch off between rolling for results and it doesn't matter much which particular actions are resolved by whom as long as it goes back and forth. Personally I like rolling saves for my monsters because I do it faster since I have a system where I roll multiple dice at once.

 

[Charlaquin]

What you call rules I call one interpretation. As far as the OP, I'm not a big fan of Angry ... I assume you are.

When did I call anything rules?

I wouldn’t call myself a “fan” of Angry. I think he’s a jerk, and I find many of his expressed views pretty repugnant, but I have found much of his DMing advice to be very useful.

I think D&D is a game meant to be interpreted and spun to fit the group so I disagree with anyone that makes a blanket "playing it the way I do is the only correct way to play".

I agree. Has anyone made such a statement?

As far as who rolls the die, I prefer the mix of 5E. Maybe it's just the traditionalist in me, but for the most part I don't think it really matters all that much in the grand scheme of things. I prefer a game where DM and player switch off between rolling for results and it doesn't matter much which particular actions are resolved by whom as long as it goes back and forth. Personally I like rolling saves for my monsters because I do it faster since I have a system where I roll multiple dice at once.

I also prefer a mix. As I mentioned in my earlier post in the thread, my preference is that the active party always rolls, whether that be GM or PC - with the caveat that in some cases there’s a lot of room for interpretation on who is the active party.* But that’s just my own preference. Players always roll and GM always roll are equally valid ways to run the game if that’s what one prefers.

*To me the NPC telling the lie is the active party, to you the PC trying to catch the NPC in a lie might be the active party. To me the wizard just drops a fireball on an area and the creatures in the area have to actively try to get out of the way, to some the wizard might need to actively try to aim the spell and the creatures in the area might use a passive defense. I think all of these are valid interpretations, which is part of why D&D needs a human being running the show, making those judgment calls.