GM no-roll

[Kromanjon]

Note how much "this is not D&D" pushback 4e got, and multiply by 10.

I mean sure, but it would still work just fine.

I don't agree, as someone who builds survey questionnaires as part of their job lol. I think that if you wanted nuance you'd ask about what situations it was value in, not just four variants of "it sucks for someone, right, right?!".

Don't really agree with that interpretation. Three of the answers begin with the concept being fun for someone, not that it sucks for someone. We basically got the first two answers saying it's 50/50, the third answer saying it's great, fourth saying it sucks and the fifth doing some kind of "um, actually..."

I used to be in the "fun for players but not for GMs" camp until I tried a player-facing system. Now I feel it's fun for everyone. A dice roll is usually exiting no matter who makes it and we shouldn't forget that it's still the GM who calls for rolls so he retains that control even in these kind of games (unless the game removes this due to other design choices).

 

[Theory of Games]

Couldn't you make D&D "player-facing" by just turning Armor Class into a saving throw?

"The Ork tries to chop you with his ax - roll an Armor save!"

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Don't really agree with that interpretation. Three of the answers begin with the concept being fun for someone, not that it sucks for someone. We basically got the first two answers saying it's 50/50, the third answer saying it's great, fourth saying it sucks and the fifth doing some kind of "um, actually..."

I guess I feel my point is adequately proven by the fact that with 62 votes, precisely ZERO people have voted for the first option the OP thought of - to me that tells me the OP was seeking negative answers, to the point of making up an option that absolutely no-one agrees with and that doesn't even make sense (and if someone votes for it now, I know they're just doing it to spite me lol).

 

[Kromanjon]

I guess I feel my point is adequately proven by the fact that with 62 votes, precisely ZERO people have voted for the first option the OP thought of - to me that tells me the OP was seeking negative answers, to the point of making up an option that absolutely no-one agrees with and that doesn't even make sense (and if someone votes for it now, I know they're just doing it to spite me lol).

Thankfully this discussion is about ttrpgs where the GM doesn't roll and not about the validity of the poll itself. Please take part in said discussion if you have something constructive to add. I highly doubt anyone would want to spite you. Lol indeed.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Thankfully this discussion is about ttrpgs where the GM doesn't roll and not about the validity of the poll itself. Please take part in said discussion if you have something constructive to add.

Sorry, you aren't logically allowed to make this complaint, because you brought the point back up. If you don't think something is constructive or worth discussing, don't re-excavate it for god's sake. Also, would it even be a poll on ENworld if people weren't discussing the validity of the poll?

I've already noted DM doesn't roll works pretty well in games designed for it.

 

[Umbran]

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.

So, what we need to consider is how the loop is applied. That one loop resolves one action for one character in the scene. To resolve an entire scene, we go through that loop many times.

In a traditional game, the "players(s)" INCLUDES the GM, and the GM repeats this loop for every monster or NPC in the scene. In a traditional game converted to be player-facing, you still need to do the loop for every element in the scene, but Step (4) changes hands, as you noted.

However, games specifically designed as player-facing tend to remove the GM and their elements from the loop. GM elements are wrapped into step (1), rather than in repeated loops of (2) though (6).

The GM still has to make decisions, but they are up in step 1. For the rest of the round of play, the GM load is reduced to narration.

 

[Duke_]

So, what we need to consider is how the loop is applied. That one loop resolves one action for one character in the scene. To resolve an entire scene, we go through that loop many times.

This isn't universally true. In a game that uses conflict resolution (rather than task resolution), the entire scene is often resolved in one roll. For that matter, a lot of scenes resolve with no rolls in every game, because the condition in step 3 isn't passed (failure not interesting, automatic success due to having a high competency that's relevant, etc.).

In a traditional game, the "players(s)" INCLUDES the GM, and the GM repeats this loop for every monster or NPC in the scene. In a traditional game converted to be player-facing, you still need to do the loop for every element in the scene, but Step (4) changes hands, as you noted.

However, games specifically designed as player-facing tend to remove the GM and their elements from the loop. GM elements are wrapped into step (1), rather than in repeated loops of (2) though (6).

The GM still has to make decisions, but they are up in step 1. For the rest of the round of play, the GM load is reduced to narration.

It seems to me that all you're saying is that you consider steps 1-3 a single step. That's fine and ultimately semantic, you're still making the same decisions and narrating results the same. If you think otherwise, I'm going to need an example, because I have never seen a game where the above loop varies significantly, including player-facing games. Even some of the more "out there" games like Dread follow the same loop.

 

[Emerikol]

I think both ways can be fun so my vote was optimistic. I've actually had some players just ask if I could make all the rolls and they could just role play. Others want to roll everything they can because they actually love rolling dice. I think a game can run well with only players or only GMs.

The only players approach has some efficiency because you can have them all rolling their defenses when the monsters attack with a static roll. So you can have them all rolling at the same time.

Edit:
In favor of GM rolling only, I think you could argue a lot of efficiency here as well. I usually resolve all the monster attacks about as fast as the players resolve their own.

 

[Umbran]

This isn't universally true. In a game that uses conflict resolution (rather than task resolution), the entire scene is often resolved in one roll.

Correct, it isn't universally true. It is a generalization. It is, however, highly typical in traditional RPG play.

It seems to me that all you're saying is that you consider steps 1-3 a single step.

No. I am not arguing for a change in the content of the loop.

I am trying to put emphasis on the practical impact the repetitive loop has on typical game play.

If you take all the GM rolls made in, say, D&D play, and just make them player rolls, you don't remove any of those loops. You still have to go through that loop for every PC and every goblin and ogre and so on.

If you instead restructure as many player-facing games do, you remove many of the loops - you only loop for the PCs themselves - and can make use of the GM time/attention you free up thereby.

 

[Duke_]

Correct, it isn't universally true. It is a generalization. It is, however, highly typical in traditional RPG play.



No. I am not arguing for a change in the content of the loop.

I am trying to put emphasis on the practical impact the repetitive loop has on typical game play.

If you take all the GM rolls made in, say, D&D play, and just make them player rolls, you don't remove any of those loops. You still have to go through that loop for every PC and every goblin and ogre and so on.

If you instead restructure as many player-facing games do, you remove many of the loops - you only loop for the PCs themselves - and can make use of the GM time/attention you free up thereby.

OK, I'm following you, but I think this is still conflating other design elements with being player-facing. If you resolve a combat scene with a single contested roll, as in (for example) QuestWorlds, that's fewer loops than if you take 5 or (gods save us) 10 rounds of combat to resolve a combat in a completely player-facing game like Dungeon World.