Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="two" data-source="post: 1211606" data-attributes="member: 9002">Is there a hard-and-fast rule anywhere that the DM MUST do the rolls, as opposed to &quot;rolls are made,&quot; subjectless?I'm running a campaign where one of my minor goals is to make no rolls at all (I'm the DM).&nbsp; If an Orc attacks a PC, the PC rolls a d20, tells me the results, and I return with a &quot;hit&quot; or &quot;miss&quot; (after a short pause for calculation). Ditto weapon damage, Monster Saves, etc. etc.This is very liberating, I feel, because:1)&nbsp; There is obviously no DM-fudging of the dice.&nbsp; Makes the PC's realize I won't bail them out, thus they are a little more cautious.2)&nbsp; I feel absolutely no guilt about a critical hit, or other strange events.&nbsp; I just comment, blandly, &quot;well, you rolled 20-20 and then 12 12 for the enemy greatsword, don't blame me!&quot;&nbsp; Funny thing is, the PC's really don't!&nbsp; Psychologically they blame THEMSELVES for a &quot;terrible&quot; roll that does a lot of damage, which is just great.3)&nbsp; It makes for more heroic action.&nbsp; If the party is getting crushed, and somebody casts a low-DC &quot;charm person&quot; on the arch-enemy, and the enemy &quot;fails&quot; the save... it's assumed to be DM-fiat.&nbsp; Not that exciting.&nbsp; However, if the same thing happens, and the PC's are making all the rolls for the arch-tyrant (and roll at nat. &quot;1&quot;) -- it's something to gloat over.Don't ask me why, but that's the way it's been working.&nbsp; Human nature, I suppose.Anyway -- is this STRICTLY legal/by the rules?Is the DM really supposed to roll an Orc's &quot;to hit&quot; or &quot;damage&quot; roll, or is it never specified really (just rolls are made/rolls are requierd).I don't think it's black-and-white that the DM MUST roll.. but... I'm not 100%.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="two, post: 1211606, member: 9002"] Is there a hard-and-fast rule anywhere that the DM MUST do the rolls, as opposed to "rolls are made," subjectless? I'm running a campaign where one of my minor goals is to make no rolls at all (I'm the DM). If an Orc attacks a PC, the PC rolls a d20, tells me the results, and I return with a "hit" or "miss" (after a short pause for calculation). Ditto weapon damage, Monster Saves, etc. etc. This is very liberating, I feel, because: 1) There is obviously no DM-fudging of the dice. Makes the PC's realize I won't bail them out, thus they are a little more cautious. 2) I feel absolutely no guilt about a critical hit, or other strange events. I just comment, blandly, "well, you rolled 20-20 and then 12 12 for the enemy greatsword, don't blame me!" Funny thing is, the PC's really don't! Psychologically they blame THEMSELVES for a "terrible" roll that does a lot of damage, which is just great. 3) It makes for more heroic action. If the party is getting crushed, and somebody casts a low-DC "charm person" on the arch-enemy, and the enemy "fails" the save... it's assumed to be DM-fiat. Not that exciting. However, if the same thing happens, and the PC's are making all the rolls for the arch-tyrant (and roll at nat. "1") -- it's something to gloat over. Don't ask me why, but that's the way it's been working. Human nature, I suppose. Anyway -- is this STRICTLY legal/by the rules? Is the DM really supposed to roll an Orc's "to hit" or "damage" roll, or is it never specified really (just rolls are made/rolls are requierd). I don't think it's black-and-white that the DM MUST roll.. but... I'm not 100%. [/QUOTE]

Verification