Who rolls when?

[CPezet]

Hi Guys, I am new to the forums and wanted to start a little discussion regarding dice rolling in RPG's and who should do it.

Some have said that the players should roll all their own dice with the GM directing them what to roll for while others have said when they GM they prefer to roll all the dice based on what the players want to do and make them all in secret.

I know players tend to like to roll their own dice, but if you are asking them to make a roll out of the blue they tend to be aware out of character that something is up and it changes the way they react.

The method that most appealed to me was a bit of a compromise with any active actions being rolled for by the players as directed by the GM (ie: hacking a terminal, busting door down etc) while any passive things (is: spotting a hidden enemy) being rolled for by the GM who then informs the player of the result if required.

I was wondering what method people felt worked best for them and why?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I generally look at these things from a very "meta" perspective. If the players know what's being rolled for, I'll have them roll it. If they don't, I'll roll it. Every now and then I'll just roll purposeless dice to keep them guessing.

Besides NPCs' checks; I'll typically roll Knowledge checks when the players aren't aware of the significance of the information being considered, or Spot/Listen when they aren't actively scouting and don't know there's something to look for. Sometimes I'll roll for their hunches and such.

For thew most part, attacks, saves, and other combat mechanics are things the players know about, so they always end up rolling them. Typically, most skill checks begin in the form of a player rolling something and plaintively asking whether it's good for anything.

 

[Janx]

how can I focus my luck into my roll if I'm not holding the dice?

Except for rolls where I don't know the outcome, I roll for my PC.

On that note, I'd consider changing the game design so that's inherently true (checks I don't know the outcome for are NOT skill checks, they're something else).

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I have run and played in games that have used a variety of dice rolling protocols.

Players tend to feel as though they have less control when someone else is doing all of the dice rolling. If you want to run a game that causes the players to feel quite a bit of stress and that things are out of their control, roll all of the dice for them (also, keep track of their hit point totals and only describe the wounds they've received). This works great for stuff like survival horror or malicious environment games. This requires a lot more work from the referee of the game, as they have to do all of the accounting work, as well as take great care that they are describing what goes on and the results of the character actions enough to get good player engagement. In general, I would not recommend running a game like this for an extended period (I played in a game run like this for about two years, but was only able to run such a game for about a dozen weekly sessions before I decided that the work was too much for the results)

Conversely, if you allow the players to roll all of the dice, and also to know what sort of target numbers they are after, players typically feel like they have even more agency and control than they may actually have. This works great for encouraging an exceptional level of derring-do and for stuff like cinematic fantasy and four color supers. This can lead to discussing things more in terms of the numbers than immersing into the shared reality of the game world. Extra effort needs to be taken to make sure to engage the players in the world, rather than in just the events. I ran a pretty gonzo Spelljammer game for about eight years using this method, and have played in several such games of varying lengths.

Mostly, you'll see an approach somewhat in between these two extremes. Mostly what I do is as you describe. Players make rolls where their characters are acting and the results will be immediately known, the DM makes secret rolls for passive stuff or for stuff where the results may not be immediately obvious. Another way to allow the players to feel as though their 'luck' is coming into play is to have them make a number of rolls at the beginning of the session, and then to apply those results to the later, passive stuff.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't think there's a good universal answer, since it depends on what you're rolling for and the kind of people you're playing with.

I would say there's some rolls that should be kept secret, for all the obvious reasons.

But on the whole, if it's something my players need to do or want to do, I have them roll for it.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

The method that most appealed to me was a bit of a compromise with any active actions being rolled for by the players as directed by the GM (ie: hacking a terminal, busting door down etc) while any passive things (is: spotting a hidden enemy) being rolled for by the GM who then informs the player of the result if required.

That's my favoured version as well. Have the players roll when they're actively stating that they are doing something. Roll yourself (as GM) when the thing is triggered.

You might even add pre-rolls to your game. Make a series of rolls before the game starts and jot them down. Whenever a triggered roll occurs, take the next result from the list and scratch it. This way the players don't even know that a die is rolled and can, thus, not change their actions because of it.

Oh, and a warm welcome to ENWorld, CPezet!

 

[Jhaelen]

You might even add pre-rolls to your game. Make a series of rolls before the game starts and jot them down. Whenever a triggered roll occurs, take the next result from the list and scratch it. This way the players don't even know that a die is rolled and can, thus, not change their actions because of it.

That's my prefered method to deal with rolls that should stay 'secret' for the players.

 

[Bluenose]

I prefer opposed rolls for everything. It gives the players the feel of control, in that they're rolling dice for what they do; but it also gives them a degree of uncertainty, since they can't be sure what the opposition will get.

 

[GMMichael]

I was gonna throw out a blanket, "players should roll every time their characters would be able to see their success," but then I read [MENTION=38016]Michael Silverbane[/MENTION]'s post.

Make the call based on the campaign theme.

Me, I keep passive character stats on hand. In D&D3, this is AC, flat footed, touch AC, saves, senses, and sense motive. I roll these when characters wouldn't know the outcome or know that they're making a check, and then I throw random dice anyway just to keep them on their toes.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I generally look at these things from a very "meta" perspective. If the players know what's being rolled for, I'll have them roll it. If they don't, I'll roll it. Every now and then I'll just roll purposeless dice to keep them guessing.

That's pretty much what I do.

Back when I first started playing, though, I DMed and was the one to introduce all of my friends ot the game. I misread the rule about who rolls for damage, and as a result I made all damage rolls for PCs and NPCs. Five years later I realized we weren't playing the standard way and asked my group if they'd like to roll their own damage. I was surprised when they said no. The consensus was that they thought the game would feel less immersive, so we kept happily on as we had been.