GM no-roll

[Umbran]

OK, I'm following you, but I think this is still conflating other design elements with being player-facing.

I have already effectively noted that this is not necessary to be player-facing, and that not all player facing systems have this structure, so I am very clearly NOT conflating the two.

However, removing the GM-element loops is pretty common in player-facing systems, because it is one way to serve the needs/goals of player-facing play.

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.

Sure. But "resolve an entire scene in a single contested roll" is an edge case, a specific, extremely simple, cherry-picked example. It is not the general operation of most systems in our experiences, is it?

So, when we consider design elements and practical effects, that's not a great point of comparison.

 

[Duke_]

I have already effectively noted that this is not necessary to be player-facing, and that not all player facing systems have this structure, so I am very clearly NOT conflating the two.

However, removing the GM-element loops is pretty common in player-facing systems, because it is one way to serve the needs/goals of player-facing play.



Sure. But "resolve an entire scene in a single contested roll" is an edge case, a specific, extremely simple, cherry-picked example. It is not the general operation of most systems in our experiences, is it?

So, when we consider design elements and practical effects, that's not a great point of comparison.

A lot of games focused on conflict resolution vs task resolution have single-roll resolution. You can even get it in far more traditional games like Savage Worlds, which has Quick Encounter rules to allow for resolving in a single roll for things you don't want to spend a lot of time on. It's not the "cherry-picked" edge case you're portraying it as.

The comparison is there to illustrate a point. My entire point has been that "GM has to spend less time on mechanics and has more time to narrate" is not an inherent benefit of player-facing systems, which is a claim made early and often in these threads. Your first sentence in this reply acknowledges the fact that it's not an inherent benefit. So I'm not sure what you're still arguing about at this point.

 

[Umbran]

My entire point has been that "GM has to spend less time on mechanics and has more time to narrate" is not an inherent benefit of player-facing systems, which is a claim made early and often in these threads.

Ah. It is a claim that I felt was already ceded as not entirely accurate in this one, as we started from the position that you can technically play D&D as player-facing, which saves nobody much of anything.

But, we should note that "is not an inherent benefit" while technically accurate, is not really all that helpful. Many things are not technically accurate as an absolute statement, but are "usefully correct" in common, practical terms.

So, for example, if one wants to spend more of your GM attention on narration (and maybe narration adjacent things, like pacing), then player-facing games are still a good place to look for that. Even if it isn't inherent to the style, it is common in the style.

 

[aramis erak]

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.

Or, System Matters.

 

[aramis erak]

Yeah, adding it to 5e would be weird but I do think adding it to D&D (in a future edition) could work just fine.

A benefit of only having the players roll is that it opens up the design space for reactions a whole lot more. When facing an attack they might dodge (roll DEX), block (roll STR), blink away with a magic ability (Roll WIS/Magic), distract the attacker with a winning smile (roll CHA). Of course the GM might not allow some forms of reactions depending on the situation, enemy or attack form. A psychic blast might force the players to defend with WIS or INT for example. Writing rules around this might lead to some nifty defensive abilities that just aren't viable in a traditional system.

that also opens up a delay negotiating when the GM and player don't agree on what the suitable roll is.

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

D&D 4 had a lot of pushback that was based upon sales decisions: No OGL, no PDF, a subscription character editor, rather long power descriptions nearly necessitating said character editor (or a PDF to copy from), and the high core price...
It developed a firm fanbase of its own, and sold, per WotC, quite well at first, and moderately well throughout. You don't get DMG vol 2 and PHB vol 3 in a system without a fanbase.

it's first year was said to have outsold both 3.0 and 3.5 individual first year sales, by Mearls, in a discussion of 5e.

A player facing D&D isn't likely to go over well, I agree, even tho' it's a couple small optional rules to do so. Mostly just changing monster saves to a form of penetration roll, and rolling armor rather than the the GM rolling to hit.

It was a serious conceptual leap for my DL5A and Talisman Adventures players...

 

[Clint_L]

that also opens up a delay negotiating when the GM and player don't agree on what the suitable roll is.

D&D 4 had a lot of pushback that was based upon sales decisions: No OGL, no PDF, a subscription character editor, rather long power descriptions nearly necessitating said character editor (or a PDF to copy from), and the high core price...
It developed a firm fanbase of its own, and sold, per WotC, quite well at first, and moderately well throughout. You don't get DMG vol 2 and PHB vol 3 in a system without a fanbase.

it's first year was said to have outsold both 3.0 and 3.5 individual first year sales, by Mearls, in a discussion of 5e.

A player facing D&D isn't likely to go over well, I agree, even tho' it's a couple small optional rules to do so. Mostly just changing monster saves to a form of penetration roll, and rolling armor rather than the the GM rolling to hit.

It was a serious conceptual leap for my DL5A and Talisman Adventures players...

I don’t think I discussed 4e’s sales (though WotC dropped it faster than any other edition for a reason), I wrote that it got a lot of pushback for not feeling enough like D&D. Which it did.

My point being that if 4e got pushback, imagine what a version of D&D that replaced the entire conflict resolution mechanic would get. Which is why it will never happen.