Forsaking Dice as GM: Going full narrative

[Yora]

I've found that BECMI D&D actually plays very well with no hidden rolls, and I think it should work with ll other editions as well.
Just tell the players what their target number is for any roll once they have committed to an action. Let them see what monsters roll on attack and damage. A monster's attack roll with a known modifier is the same thing as a dodge roll against a known DC. The only difference is whose hand had touched the die. Technically I rolled the attack roll, but in practice it doesn't matter.
I even have the players roll for random encounter checks and surprise. (I only randomize myself what creatures the next random encounter will be, so I have time to think of something to give them details.) And with finding hidden things, I usually don't ask for a roll. If the players think of checking something, they automatically succeed. If a character would have good reason to know something about the setting, the player gets that information for free. No need to roll dice. Just "assume competence".

 

[Gorgon Zee]

That would be going against the agendas and principles, though. These games don't hinge on the GM's evaluation of the odds, but rather whether the stated action has weight for these characters. There shouldn't ever be an evaluation by the GM of odds happening, because that's not playing to find out.

I understand that the principle is to always to roll to find out, but taken to the extreme you are suggesting, it’s ludicrous. Even if it is only for very obvious cases, in every roleplaying game, the GM has the task of deciding whether to apply rules or simply narrate it. I have played PbtA unde many GMs, and not one of them has made me make a move for trivial tasks. If the GM evaluates the odds and decides it’s not worth a move, that is a sign of a good GM, not a bad one.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I understand that the principle is to always to roll to find out, but taken to the extreme you are suggesting, it’s ludicrous. Even if it is only for very obvious cases, in every roleplaying game, the GM has the task of deciding whether to apply rules or simply narrate it. I have played PbtA unde many GMs, and not one of them has made me make a move for trivial tasks. If the GM evaluates the odds and decides it’s not worth a move, that is a sign of a good GM, not a bad one.

I didn't say trivial tasks. Those aren't covered under the GM's evaluation of odds or outcomes, but because those don't drive the dramatic needs. If you think my statement was about walking across a room, then you've missed the preceeding context. That was already addressed and had been moved past to consequential moments.

 

[Campbell]

I understand that the principle is to always to roll to find out, but taken to the extreme you are suggesting, it’s ludicrous. Even if it is only for very obvious cases, in every roleplaying game, the GM has the task of deciding whether to apply rules or simply narrate it. I have played PbtA unde many GMs, and not one of them has made me make a move for trivial tasks. If the GM evaluates the odds and decides it’s not worth a move, that is a sign of a good GM, not a bad one.

A well designed PbtA move set will tell you what's worth rolling or not. The GM exercises their judgement as to whether or not a move applies based on the fiction. For instance the move in Masks is 'directly engage a threat'. If Superboy is fighting against gang members he is not directly engaging a threat. The text is pretty clear on this.

Besides if the GM finds there is a bunch of conflict neutral content in the game such that it becomes noticeable they are making some fairly weak GM moves.

 

[Manbearcat]

Besides if the GM finds there is a bunch of conflict neutral content in the game such that it becomes noticeable they are making some fairly weak GM moves.

I think this is the key part of this conversation that is being missed.

Yes there is always going to be brief moments of conflict-neutral transition. But if a GM is failing to spend the overwhelming abundance of table time on “fill their lives with x (danger, adventure, whatever this particular game is about)” then the GM has already failed at one of the primary tenants of their Agenda.

These games aren’t about vignettes or conflict-neutral content. They’re about conflict anchored by the baked-in premise + dramatic need derived from PC build and GMs provoking players via aggressive soft moves (“fill their lives with x”) to action (to “make moves”) to find out what happens.

Vignettes and conflict-neutral conflict aren’t about “playing to find out what happens” because the system has no say.

 

[clearstream]

Besides if the GM finds there is a bunch of conflict neutral content in the game such that it becomes noticeable they are making some fairly weak GM moves.

Perhaps that's right for PbtA, but for me there is an over-prioritising of conflict in games that I find increasingly disappointing. This endless pitting of protagonist against antagonist. I believe a really strong GM move could be one that fills players with a sense of wonder or surprise. Conflict moves are a dime a dozen. Cheap. Old hat. Weak.

Please accept this small contribution to your weekly provocations. I live only to serve

 

[Thomas Shey]

Perhaps that's right for PbtA, but for me there is an over-prioritising of conflict in games that I find increasingly disappointing. This endless pitting of protagonist against antagonist. I believe a really strong GM move could be one that fills players with a sense of wonder or surprise. Conflict moves are a dime a dozen. Cheap. Old hat. Weak.

Please accept this small contribution to your weekly provocations. I live only to serve

I'll just note that "conflict" has not traditionally always involved an antagonist. But it does imply something beyond the picaresque.

 

[Umbran]

That would be going against the agendas and principles, though. These games don't hinge on the GM's evaluation of the odds, but rather whether the stated action has weight for these characters. There shouldn't ever be an evaluation by the GM of odds happening, because that's not playing to find out.

If you feel like rolling dice for crossing the street, you can do that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you feel like rolling dice for crossing the street, you can do that.

Sigh, obvious strawman is obvious.

 

[Voadam]

A post about "fudging rolls" as a GM has made me ponder.

Have you ever considered, as a GM, never rolling dice on your end. Players still roll, you don't. Things hit or miss based on your judgement for what the story needs. If you fudge rolls, you already do this in a sense. You decide that a given attack should hit or not or should do more or less damage. What if you just gave up all pretense and just decided yourself instead of letting the dice decide?

thoughts?

I DM D&D and not other systems but this describes a lot of my non-combat situations. I narrate based on what they say they are doing, what my evaluation of the situation is and the context of their character. I may call for a dice roll on their part, I might not. If they are being jerks in their social interactions I try and have appropriate reactions and consequences rather than let dice decide. It can be like an improv scene where things develop consciously and interactively with different possibilities depending on how things go instead of one way the scene must be done.

Combat I enjoy the variations of the dice system, it is mostly structurally setup for the PCs to win but with different options and resource depletion and swings of things going back and forth and some risk of things going south. So I enjoy running combats and pitting monsters against PCs even if narratively I have an expected big picture story resolution of the PCs generally winning with varying costs.