Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 1212296" data-attributes="member: 14140">My DND 3.0 game reached conclusion just last week after three years of play and about 14 levels of characters. It was one of the best games i have run and i think the best they have played.From day 1, I initiated what i called player active rolling.When a beast took three claw attacks at one of the players, they rolled d20 three times and added their current AC to each. These were applied to a DC already figured for my monsters (22+the attack bonus) and if they made the "evade check" they were missed. If not, they were hit.Same thing applied for when the PCs threw spells at my bad guys. They rolled a "spell check" of a d20 plus their spell save DC and I compared it to my bad guy's save bonus+22 DC.The few rolls i would make were damage for when the PCs were hit and the occasional opposed checks.i can agree with the original poster... the player's perspective shifted to "its me rolling to evade" and so they took those rolls seriously as something they did, not as some mystery thing the GM did. It kept them as involved when its not their action as when it was. Everyone loved it.On thing i will note is what i feel part of the reason for its success was. In the normal situation I would be rolling to succeed. Well, i am not "playing" and hitting the characters is not a success for me. So this is a no win situation... if i hit, they lose and if i miss they don't feel they did anything, being the passive element. On the other hand, with them rolling to "evade" they are no longer the passive element. They succeed or they fail. That makes a difference.Did this mean that sometimes one of them made a critical roll like those pesky saves and so my big bad went down round 1, something many Gms would prevent with a fudged die roll? Sure. Were those scenario killers? nope. When they did happen it was refreshing to the players and my scenarios were typically involved enough that the sudden change in momentum did not ruin it but rather emphasized many things.Its a practice i recommend and that I will continue when my stargate game starts up.As for time delays, i found the opposite to be true. While there might be the occasional delay of communication, these were much less noticeable as the times i could tell Bob that he needed to make three rolls and Jim that he needed to make two and have them both resolving simultaneously.YMMV</blockquote>

Verification