GM no-roll

[Umbran]

Wrong.

No. Not wrong. I said TYPICALLY, not exclusively. My statement allowed for some exceptions.

If you are going to argue with me while ignoring what I actually write, there's not much point with engaging with you on the rest of it.

 

[loverdrive]

None of the games I'm currently running involve dice at all, but generally: I prefer games to have some kind of symmetrical resolution system, so "GM never rolls" is a downside for me. Not a deal breaker downside, but something I'd not choose when I have an option.

 

[Theory of Games]

I was participating a similar discussion over on Big Purp before being BANNED for daring to type words!

I like how Cypher system handles PFG (Player-Facing Gameplay), but there's still things you can't do: like Secret Rolls (for stuff like Deception and Stealth). Some players can't handle knowing what their character doesn't know. Also I find rolling a natural 20 against a PC is richly rewarding. Especially during combat.

Specifically during combat

 

[dragoner]

These threads ... I like rolling dice as both gm and player, I mean love it, the tactile feel of them, the clickity clack, good stuff. Though I don't like rolling against myself as the players look on, and also not thrilled at having to roll 3x as much say as if the pc's have 10 opponents.

 

[Li Shenron]

I wouldn't mind being a player in a game where the GM never rolls.

But as a GM, I would have less fun if I can't roll for the monsters.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I think it's fine in games designed like that, but I don't see a need to shoehorn it into games that are not. Different games are different for a reason!

Yeah, exactly. I don't choose games based on it. I enjoyed Numenéra and found the lack of need to roll nice mostly because it meant I could walk around a lot more than usual. I probably wouldn't like it for Pendragon as the game feels much more competitive in nature and the increased swinginess of both sides rolling works for me.

Horses for courses.

 

[Kromanjon]

I like all kinds of rpgs, even the player-facing ones. Like some have said though they need to be designed towards that purpose. For those saying D&D could never have it though I think a new 6th edition reworked to have only player facing rules would probably work just fine, especially as D&D seem more focused towards the PCs actions anyway. One example that didn´t show up in the OP was Vulcania, a steampunk rpg with player-facing rules where you only need a d12 for all rolls.

The times when a player-facing system might brake down is when rolling for perception, or other kinds of hidden rolls, and when the GM would roll against himself such as when two NPCs take actions against each other.

 

[Duke_]

I said most of this over on the purple site already, but it doesn't make much difference to me, because they're just not very different. Look at the gameplay loop for most RPGs. It can generally be described as this:

1. The GM presents a situation with an obstacle.
2. The player(s) state how they try to overcome the obstacle.
3. If failure is both possible and interesting, the GM sets a difficulty and tells them what to roll against. There may or may not be negotiation ("can I use X ability instead because I'm doing Y?").
4. Dice are rolled (or cards drawn or whatever).
5. The result is compared to the difficulty or target number.
6. The outcome is narrated.
7. Go to 1.

The only step that's changing hands is #4, the basic physical act of throwing and reading the die, and only some of the time. I know some people believe it frees them up to narrate or whatever, but in the above light, it really doesn't take the steps that actually require thought and decision-making away from the GM.

I also see people saying that it's faster. Again I disagree, because I can throw and read the die much faster than I can say "roll to defend, your difficulty is 15. (Wait for roll and player to tell you.) Okay, that's a failure." I think most people can think much faster than they can talk. My games would play faster if the players never rolled and I did all the rolling, but good luck selling that game.

So put me down as mildly opposed, because I kinda like to roll dice, and I don't think the supposed benefits are actually realized at the table. It's not just me theorizing either; I've run these types of games.

But I barely care at all. It wouldn't stop me from playing or running a game that I otherwise think looks cool.

 

[zakael19]

I said most of this over on the purple site already, but it doesn't make much difference to me, because they're just not very different. Look at the gameplay loop for most RPGs. It can generally be described as this:

1. The GM presents a situation with an obstacle.
2. The player(s) state how they try to overcome the obstacle.
3. If failure is both possible and interesting, the GM sets a difficulty and tells them what to roll against. There may or may not be negotiation ("can I use X ability instead because I'm doing Y?").
4. Dice are rolled (or cards drawn or whatever).
5. The result is compared to the difficulty or target number.
6. The outcome is narrated.
7. Go to 1.

The only step that's changing hands is #4, the basic physical act of throwing and reading the die, and only some of the time. I know some people believe it frees them up to narrate or whatever, but in the above light, it really doesn't take the steps that actually require thought and decision-making away from the GM.

I also see people saying that it's faster. Again I disagree, because I can throw and read the die much faster than I can say "roll to defend, your difficulty is 15. (Wait for roll and player to tell you.) Okay, that's a failure." I think most people can think much faster than they can talk. My games would play faster if the players never rolled and I did all the rolling, but good luck selling that game.

So put me down as mildly opposed, because I kinda like to roll dice, and I don't think the supposed benefits are actually realized at the table. It's not just me theorizing either; I've run these types of games.

But I barely care at all. It wouldn't stop me from playing or running a game that I otherwise think looks cool.

I think a couple things are different in that core loop in many "GM doesnt roll" games I've experienced:
a) you tend to resolve things at a different scope with a single roll, so the narrative feels like it's moving more places/resolving a higher amount of conflict at once.
b) not all, but many (most?) games where the GM doesnt roll don't have a separate turn-based combat subsystem. That often breaks your flow above pretty significantly. (note that combat in, say, DW often takes just as long as a standard 5e combat - but boy does it feel different to me to actually play)
c) most of the time you're interpreting a result against a static set of outcomes, not comparing vs a generated or chosen DC; and the player usually has a smaller decision set (eg: if a player makes a move in a PBTA - they're adding + stat and you're adjudicating the outcome space).

So while a game that has things like "ok make an athletics roll to climb the wall" and a game that has things like "ok yeah roll your Prowl like you said to see if this works out" may sound and roll very similar in the moment, the rest of the game around the latter feels like it's going different places because you never break out of that fairly simple resolution.

 

[Duke_]

I think a couple things are different in that core loop in many "GM doesnt roll" games I've experienced:
a) you tend to resolve things at a different scope with a single roll, so the narrative feels like it's moving more places/resolving a higher amount of conflict at once.

This a completely separate thing from player-facing mechanics, and unrelated. The usual term for what you're describing is conflict resolution vs task resolution, and it's a completely different design consideration. Look no further than HeroQuest / QuestWorlds. Everything is a contested roll in that system, but you're strongly encouraged to do things like resolve an entire heist with one roll if the focus of your game isn't heists. Heck, even Savage Worlds does this to whatever degree you want to lean into the Quick Encounters rules.

b) not all, but many (most?) games where the GM doesnt roll don't have a separate turn-based combat subsystem. That often breaks your flow above pretty significantly. (note that combat in, say, DW often takes just as long as a standard 5e combat - but boy does it feel different to me to actually play)

Again, completely separate and unrelated, and again I can cite QuestWorlds as an example. It still uses the same gameplay loop, too. Can you explain exactly which step is eliminated by that?

c) most of the time you're interpreting a result against a static set of outcomes, not comparing vs a generated or chosen DC; and the player usually has a smaller decision set (eg: if a player makes a move in a PBTA - they're adding + stat and you're adjudicating the outcome space).

This is also unrelated to who's picking up the dice and throwing them. And PBTA doesn't break the loop above because there are "moves" to determine and modifiers to consider in every PBTA game I've read. In fact I find PBTA extremely slow in play because you have to decide what move is being made, what GM moves you're allowed to make on a miss or weak hit (by far my least favorite part of PBTA games), whether the player has a "take +1 forward mod", etc. That's step 3 in the gameplay loop. I don't see what steps those systems eliminate.

So while a game that has things like "ok make an athletics roll to climb the wall" and a game that has things like "ok yeah roll your Prowl like you said to see if this works out" may sound and roll very similar in the moment, the rest of the game around the latter feels like it's going different places because you never break out of that fairly simple resolution.

Sure. But exactly none of that is related to whether or not the GM rolls dice.