Do monsters/NPCs really need to roll any dice?

On a mechanical level, players making all the rolls systems should work fine.

That said, I'm not fond of the idea. I feel like it takes away the sense of things other than the PC's taking action. It's a problem of perception for me.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Related to the topic, I want to ask whether there is any difference between rolling in the game or rolling before the game. For example, when I plan my combats I pre-roll my monster initiative, I pre-roll monster stealth/perception checks etc. When combat happens during the game, I have to lay out the maps and minis etc. so the more I do pregame the less time I'll take in-game.

In another game I was in, the DM prints out a list of computer generated random numbers and checks off each number as he needs to roll instead of rolling the d20. Do you feel that makes a difference from rolling?
 

1. So who rolls initiative for the monsters?

2. Warhammer is a miniatures wargame, not an rpg. Rpgs have different goals and objectives, in my experience, and what works for one doesn't always work for the other.

3. You still haven't answered my question: how does this increase immersion in the game?

1. This is the point. You do not have to roll for both PCs and monster, you can make just one roll against a target number. If it hits or higher side A wins, if it rolls lower than the tn side B wins. You adjust the tn based on the balance of forces or advantage of one side versus the other.

2. Err, especially in regards to the mechanics they have been sharing a lot. Especially the fact that you have two sides and each player rolls for the forces he controls. In fact, I believe that rpgs have different needs and that they could be further optimized than the average mindset of current rpg game design. I believe that a break from the idea that rolls are connected to sides is a step towards this direction.

3.When I presented my OP I feared that some people may misunderstood the idea I was talking about, especially regarding the effect of immersion-so I tried to preemptively touch this matter -of course, nonetheless the effort people did misunderstand things of what I am trying to talk about, lol. Anyway, sorry if this has caused some confusion
 

On a mechanical level, players making all the rolls systems should work fine.

That said, I'm not fond of the idea. I feel like it takes away the sense of things other than the PC's taking action. It's a problem of perception for me.

I fall in this camp as well. Some of this may depend on how much the DM rolls in front of the players however. As a DM, I tend to roll "in the open", especially for the more epic battles or critical rolls. Showing a natural 20 (or 1) that the DM rolled results in about as much fun (or agony) as a player doing it. While probably not the fastest system, definitely a system our group gets a kick out of.
 

On a mechanical level, players making all the rolls systems should work fine.

That said, I'm not fond of the idea. I feel like it takes away the sense of things other than the PC's taking action. It's a problem of perception for me.

A lot of it has to do with how things are described. IME it generally goes something like this.

GM: The orc lashes out with his axe, you see the blade coming toward your face! Gonna do anything about that?
PLayer: I bring my sword up to block the attack! *Rolls, adds numbers* 16!
GM: *Checks sheet, sees the Combat score is only 14* Your blade knocks his Axe aside!

I think I like how it works because it makes combat feel more like other skill checks. The GM's job is to simply describe what is. I don't need to roll dice to make anything else happen, why should I do it to make an orc stab a PC? That's another consequence of this system - the orc *will* stab the PC. It is happening because the GM said it is happening. However, if his defense is high enough, the player can change what the GM says happens.

It also makes monsters REALLY simple and easy, and cuts way down on prep time.
 

I could buy into this if I had never played any video game or runned an application that rolls dice for you.

Video games are a different beast, for one thing, and they still have to keep you engaged in order to be entertaining.

Applications that roll dice for you still have you in the process.

The thrill I am talking about is not about the physical manuality of rolling the dice but of tying the tension of the unknown to the chances you are aware of.

Yes, and if the DM doesn't have any random elements, it is more difficult to tie the tension to him. The DM becomes less involved.

There is a continuous scale here, from the DM doing everyhting, to the DM doing nothing. Imagine a system where the DM handled none of the combat at all - he chooses some monsters, puts them into a computer program, and then lets the players interact with it - he can walk out and get a cup of coffee. Now, clearly you aren't going all that far, but it is a step in that direction.

Here's the real question - honestly, what is taking up the time in combat? I'm betting it isn't the dice rolling. Rolling dice takes mere moments - maybe two seconds. The time is taken up in making decisions and processing events in serial - one after another, rather than two or three at a time.

Shifting the dice rolling thus doesn't eliminate the real time-sucker. Why eliminate something that keeps the DM engaged, when it isn't the thing that's actually causing the problem?
 

the DM doesn't have any random elements
But how is this any true? The players have random elements regarding their characters. The DM has the random elements regarding the rest of the world or the adventure since the results of PC actions are highly connected to this. It is not like the DM, when is preparing or running an adventure rolls any dice to see what happens independently from the PCs, just for the sake of personal world building: this would be a different solo game. In fact what happens in a rpg depends on the players' decisions, the results of the randomizers and the locations or the events the DM has in mind.

Here's the real question - honestly, what is taking up the time in combat? I'm betting it isn't the dice rolling. Rolling dice takes mere moments - maybe two seconds. The time is taken up in making decisions and processing events in serial - one after another, rather than two or three at a time.

Dice rolling takes up time because dice rolls are connected to the mechanics and the mechanics are connected to the rules you have to follow to play the game or simulate what happens. You could simulate the same with less rolls, which means less rules. Figuring out the actions one takes to make the rolls he needs by the rules plus tracking the result of the rolls takes more than 2 seconds. A combat round in 3e or 4e may take 5 minutes. A combat round where the same things happen but figured out with an optimized system may take 2 minutes. But for such a system to be possible you should not roll for each conflict for each of its sides.
 

Again, as someone that runs just such a game, not at all. The randomization is still there, the players roll it instead of me, that's all. There's still an element of tactics involved.
I understand how it works, but it doesn't sound like as much fun to me.

If it works for you, great, but I don't see the appeal, from either side of the screen.
1. This is the point. You do not have to roll for both PCs and monster, you can make just one roll against a target number. If it hits or higher side A wins, if it rolls lower than the tn side B wins. You adjust the tn based on the balance of forces or advantage of one side versus the other.
So instead of a dynamic value versus a dynamic value, you have a dynamic value versus a static value.

Not the same thing at all.
xechnao said:
2. Err, especially in regards to the mechanics they have been sharing a lot. Especially the fact that you have two sides and each player rolls for the forces he controls.
That's an extremely broad-brush generalization.

From twenty-thousand feet lots of things look the same. When you get down to ground level, however, things look quite a bit different.
xechnao said:
3.When I presented my OP I feared that some people may misunderstood the idea I was talking about, especially regarding the effect of immersion-so I tried to preemptively touch this matter -of course, nonetheless the effort people did misunderstand things of what I am trying to talk about, lol. Anyway, sorry if this has caused some confusion
Okay, so you're saying this really has nothing to do with immersion and everything to do with speeding up play.

Again, I'm not seeing how having the players roll speeds things up significantly, and I'm guessing that the problem of combat dragging isn't really a issue of who's rolling the dice.
 

The Unisystem Buffy TVS (etc) RPG does this. Personally I think it (a) harms immersion, because it draws a hard bright line PC/Not PC that is very visible in play (unlike simplified NPC stat blocks), and (b) is boring for the GM. I like to roll dice.
 

I understand how it works...
So instead of a dynamic value versus a dynamic value, you have a dynamic value versus a static value.

Not the same thing at all.

From twenty-thousand feet lots of things look the same. When you get down to ground level, however, things look quite a bit different.Okay, so you're saying this really has nothing to do with immersion and everything to do with speeding up play.

Ouch.
First of all, it has to do with immersion because the idea of not rolling for monsters could create to some people the sensation of a possibility of lack of immersion. People would right away have a problem with the premise but said problem might not hold. I thought that this was so important that I tried to address it first place. Sorry for the confusion.

Now, regarding the discussion of rolls I have not gone into any specific details. I am just trying to make clear the possibilities, yet you keep calling on a lack of details to make clear what? That these possibilities do not exist? It is beyond the scope of this thread to present any finished system and its particulars. Such system will depend on the game one tries to make which, as a factor does not have to enter at all in the problematic of this discussion. The dynamic versus dynamic value you are talking about is only different if the game significantly takes advantage of such difference, aka in some way connects players options with the difference you are talking about. This is not the case. Most usually, in rpgs the dynamic versus dynamic is just another way of giving information to players regarding their chances for one result or the other of some choice of his regarding some option he had. You can most usually pass the same information for the same range of chances regarding the results of the same player options with a dynamic versus static roll. So it is the same. The options might have a different name or a different procedure but their overall result in respect to the overall options among the players that play the game is the same.



Again, I'm not seeing how having the players roll speeds things up significantly, and I'm guessing that the problem of combat dragging isn't really a issue of who's rolling the dice.

It is an issue of how many rolls need to be made. Players usually grasp the game through the game mechanics and thus the way I chose to make my question to the players about the idea of cutting down rolls within the current mechanics. Perhaps not a very successful way, important thing though you understand now it is mostly about the number of rolls.


EDIT: for clarity
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top