Do monsters/NPCs really need to roll any dice?

[JRRNeiklot]

In old school design the DM used random events behind his screen to decide the course of the adventure. Random tables, random treasure, random number of monsters and all that stuff. I believe it was in the same philosophy that NPCs rolled their reactions and monsters rolled their attacks and damage and saving throws.

New school design does not consider this method necessary to play the game. In 4e for example PCs roll to attack monster defenses: the saving throw that used to be is no more.

Now, I am asking do monsters really need to make any rolls at all?

Yeah, we've dispensed with that nonsense alltogether. We flip a coin to see if we win or lose the combat, and then proceed to the next encounter.

Next session, I'm thinking of just typing out what happens and emailing it to the players.

 

[maddman75]

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.

Depends what you are trying to be immersed in. The Buffy RPG does not make any allusion to simulating being a real teenager in a world full of monsters. It emulates the PC being a Cast Member on a teen drama full of vampires and demons. The Hard Bright Line helps this - these guys roll dice instead of static values, because their names popped up during the opening credits.

You *can* roll dice for everyone, or just for Big Bads, if you like.

As for speeding up play, reducing the times dice are rolled will do that. Not that rolling a die takes very long, but the result of that roll has to have modifiers added to it, compared to a target result, then determine the results. Having the roll already done eliminates one of those three and simplifies the second. For illustration, we can look at multiple systems to see how this works.

D&D (any edition, reall) - Roll attack versus static value, if hit, roll damage. 2 rolls, kinda fast
Cinematic Unisystem - Roll attack versus static value or defense against static value. Result determines damage. 1 roll, fast.
New Wod - Roll attack versus static value, if hit determine damage, subtract Soak, apply damage - 1 roll but lots of calculations, kinda fast.
Old WoD - Roll attack versus rolled dodge. Roll damage versus rolled soak - 4 rolls, slow.

And so on. I've certainly found it to be faster. Note that D&D already has static values, and it really wouldn't be a big change to have the PCs roll everything.

 

[xechnao]

Yeah, we've dispensed with that nonsense alltogether. We flip a coin to see if we win or lose the combat, and then proceed to the next encounter.

Beg your pardon? You seem in a counter-offending mode. Did something in the OP insult you or what?

 

[xechnao]

Note that D&D already has static values, and it really wouldn't be a big change to have the PCs roll everything.

Of course, I believe that if one accepts the step to eliminate monster rolls he could make a step further and ask for just one roll to determine how say a melee engagement goes or if you want it spelled from a PC's POV how you are fighting versus your adversary, how the fight versus your adversary is going. Which process may further simplify the number of rolls to check this out.

 

[Umbran]

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.

That is true in a theoretical sense, but in play it doesn't give the DM anything to do. The DM gets to sit and wait for the players to actually resolve everything. Engagement is encouraged by making a person interact with the system. You are removing one of the points of interaction from the DM, which may make it rather less fun.

Again, consider - would you ever choose to remove the random elements from the player's hands, so that the players never need to roll a die? If this all makes play faster, why not just go to a completely diceless system?

I think you will find that actual direct interaction with the randomness is part of the appeal. Inserting a degree of separation wont have the same result in terms of gameplay experience.

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

I don't, but I know some who do. Neither here nor there, though, because I am specifically talking about activity during the game session, which is qualitatively different than prepping.

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.

Then don't bother with the half-measure, and go diceless for both sides. By your logic, that would be even further improvement.

 

[Dyson Logos]

There are several RPGs on the market that don't have the DM making any die rolls. Basically it comes down to one of two systems:

1. In D&D terms
- attacks by PCs are rolled and NPC defense is a flat number.
- attacks by NPCs are a flat number and PCs roll defense.

2. Everything in the game is rolled for by the PCs, with a set difficulty. An extreme example is Lacuna Part 1, where everything / anything is difficulty 11. Want to climb a tree? DC 11. Want to shoot a bullet out of the air with your own bullet? DC 11.

Personally, I like it. It makes it so players get active defense rolls without adding a whole new set of die rolls to slow down the combat resolution mechanic. It also means that spellcasters get to roll when casting the spell instead of just saying whatspell they cast and hoping the DM rolls badly for the victim.

 

[Eridanis]

Let's keep the snark to a minimum (i.e., zero) and keep discussion on-topic, please.

 

[xechnao]

snip

Regarding diceless:

I like randomization. I think, as a matter of personal perception, that it makes part of the way we live our lives. I am further convinced by its appeal in rpgs. Randomization has its significance in a game like D&D and I want to keep that significance. Now, if I want to speed up the play of the game, which I do, I do not believe I have to do such a sacrifice. On the contrary, I believe that without any significant sacrifice, apart from some habits, with some optimization (do not mean it with the scientific meaning here) of the system rules, speeding up the game could be achievable. And trying to simplify the procedure of using randomization seems an obvious step. The key word is simplify, not eliminate. Simplify such as in arithmetics where you do simplify 3/6 to 1/2. This is what I am trying to see with the system here.

 

[The Shaman]

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.

Okay.

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?

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that's true at all. You've made a couple of very specific claims about benefits, such as reducing the number of die rolls, speeding up the game, and increasing immersion. So I'm asking, where's the beef?

Saying that a minis wargame and a roleplaying game are alike because they both have a turn structure? That's true from orbit, but those games may have little in common by the time you get down to the level of actually dealing with rolling dice to resolve action.

And it's under the microscope we actually experience the game.

If you want an idea at "how this might work," you may want to take a moment to look at games that already do this, or something like it - I believe Primetime Adventures was cited as an example.

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.

Okay.

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.

If I understand you correctly, and please correct me if I'm not, you're arguing that because the result is that one side gets to go first and the other second, substituting a roll against a static number produces the same result.

I can kinda see where you're coming from here, but I think the luck element becomes completely one-sided (either you beat the target number, or you don't) rather than a function of the interaction between two randomly-generated values out of a range of possibles. Rolling a twenty against the same twelve over and over, and rolling a twenty when the referee's rolled a nineteen, are very different experiences.

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.

I roll to hit, and I roll my defense, versus I roll to hit and the referee rolls to hit.

Net difference: zero.

I roll to detect a trap, versus the referee rolls to see if I detect a trap.

Net difference: zero.

The referee rolls to see if an effect succeeds and I roll a save against it, versus I roll against my defense and I roll a save.

Net difference: zero.

I roll for initiative and the referee rolls for initiative, versus I roll for initiative against a target number.

Net difference: one.

Well, you got me there, I guess. That's one less roll I need to make per encounter. Whoa, everything just turned blue from the acceleration! (That's meant to be funny, not snarky, so please take it in the spirit in which its intended. )

It seems like you could reduce the number of rolls by making pretty much everything an opponent does equal a single target value; instead of a roll for success with an effect (where the effect is a spell, or a power, or an area attack) and a save to avoid some or all of the effect, then the roll for successful use and the saving throw would be conflated into a single value.

It could work, and I'm sure there are games out there that do this, but again, I think that the loss of granularity might lessen the experience in actual play.

Consider a game with fencing rules like Flashing Blades. Each turn a player has a number of options to choose from on offense and defense: I can choose some sort of footwork - sidestep, dodge, step back, or duck - which affects the opponent's target number to hit, or I can attempt to parry a hit instead, in which case I'm rolling against my own parry score. The first is simple - modify a target number and roll - but the second is far more dynamic, with both opponents in the duel taking a direct role, and roll, in the resolution.

There is also another move - counter, which covers the riposte in fencing - which is dependent on my opponent missing, giving me a chance to make a second attack.

Making multiple defense rolls doesn't capture the back-and-forth feel of rolling against another person at the table. Part of the experience of playing the game that the rules are intended to capture would be lost.

And one cannot reduce the number of die rolls without reducing the granularity once again, which to me also works against the feel of dueling the rules are meant to emulate.

 

[S'mon]

Depends what you are trying to be immersed in. The Buffy RPG does not make any allusion to simulating being a real teenager in a world full of monsters. It emulates the PC being a Cast Member on a teen drama full of vampires and demons. The Hard Bright Line helps this - these guys roll dice instead of static values, because their names popped up during the opening credits.

You *can* roll dice for everyone, or just for Big Bads, if you like.

As for speeding up play, reducing the times dice are rolled will do that. Not that rolling a die takes very long, but the result of that roll has to have modifiers added to it, compared to a target result, then determine the results. Having the roll already done eliminates one of those three and simplifies the second. For illustration, we can look at multiple systems to see how this works.

D&D (any edition, reall) - Roll attack versus static value, if hit, roll damage. 2 rolls, kinda fast
Cinematic Unisystem - Roll attack versus static value or defense against static value. Result determines damage. 1 roll, fast.
New Wod - Roll attack versus static value, if hit determine damage, subtract Soak, apply damage - 1 roll but lots of calculations, kinda fast.
Old WoD - Roll attack versus rolled dodge. Roll damage versus rolled soak - 4 rolls, slow.

And so on. I've certainly found it to be faster. Note that D&D already has static values, and it really wouldn't be a big change to have the PCs roll everything.

Your description of the purpose of the Buffy RPG is helpful, thanks. I think I grok that game better now. It's not an idea that works for me, I prefer the illusion of world-sim rather than show-sim.

Re Buffy/Unisystem combat being fast, you only have 1 roll but you have to compare it to the success chart to determine damage, which for me is much more cumbersome than rolling a damage die.