PDA

View Full Version : Players Make All the Rolls



Thinker
2016-07-25, 09:46 AM
I've been playing Powered by the Apocalypse games for a few months now and I think they're awesome. One of the features that I greatly enjoy is the players making all of the rolls - they don't suffer consequences of combat unless they fail (or partially fail) their own combat roll, which happens often enough to make combat remain risky. I've been thinking about how other games might look with a players-make-all-the-rolls system.

DnD 3.5e would probably convert AC into a check made to avoid taking a hit equal to the monster's attack bonus + 10. It would be easy to have the player roll their own damage dealt. Instead of having monsters roll for saves, again make the player roll with a bonus based on spell level (and feats) and use the monster's save +10 as the DC. I think it would work pretty well.

What do you think? How would the game you run change if the GM never picked up any dice? Would you enjoy such a game?

Earthwalker
2016-07-25, 09:52 AM
I tried a variant on the old 3.5 SRD for this. (As well as handing out meta currency to change rolls)

It handled all the maths told them out to write AC and such I just told them the attack value going for them and they resisted.

After about 3 weeks my players revolted and forced me to roll for the bad guys. They didn't like having to roll the extra set of dice and didn't like it when they beat themselves up.

It did make things more complicated for the players, I thought not enough to worry about. My players thought different.

Jay R
2016-07-25, 12:48 PM
Some rolls cannot be made for the PCs - any roll that they don't know is happening, or that they don't know the results.

The hidden goblins are planning an ambush. Right before they attack the PCs, I make a Move Silently roll to see if some goblin sneezes. The PCs can't make the roll, or I've told them that there's an ambush.

The PCs bump into the monsters in a room with an illusory wall. One of the monsters bumps into it, and gets a saving throw against illusion. But I don't want to tell the players that there is an illusion to save against.

The NPC Rogue attempts to pick the PC wizard's pocket. If she succeeds, the wizard player won't know it happened until the wizard tries to use his (now missing) wand.

Final Hyena
2016-07-25, 12:53 PM
I thought about doing such a thing, that it would be a good way to make the players feel more responsible for their abilities and increase engagement throughout combat. My players refused the idea without giving it ago.

Looking back on it I think it would slow the game down and the increased activity of having to roll a defence would get in the way of players planning their next turn a bit more than normal. The initial reason for the idea was not well thought out, making players feel responsible for their defence happens every time they ignore an attack and my players were already engaged in combat.

I think in the end the result is the same, but the players have to roll more dice so it's not surprisingly unpopular.

SoulSalvage
2016-07-25, 01:01 PM
I once did a combat scene in DnD 3.5 where the player had to roll for his AC against a colossal monster. I told him that the monster was so massive that it was going to hit, and it was all up to the player to dodge/deflect every attack. He was shocked and afterwards he talked about how fun it was for that encounter, but I definitely wouldn't make it a regular thing.

Worth noting, I only made the player roll for defense, and not the damage that the beast did. Giving all the rolls to the PC would be very cumbersome in my opinion.

SethoMarkus
2016-07-25, 01:30 PM
It just comes down to grpup dynamics. In a group that values storytelling and trusts the DM to create dramatic tension, players making all the rolls could ruin the immersion and fun, as Jay R pointed out. If the group cares more for simulation and combat-as-numbers, rolling everything themselves might be more appealing.

Personally, I'm in the same camp as Jay R. I like secret rolls, whether I am DM or Player.

Pugwampy
2016-07-25, 06:45 PM
Rolling dice is half the fun of this game . Why kill the fun ?

Cluedrew
2016-07-25, 09:02 PM
In a group that values storytelling and trusts the DM to create dramatic tension, players making all the rolls could ruin the immersion and fun, as Jay R pointed out. If the group cares more for simulation and combat-as-numbers, rolling everything themselves might be more appealing.Really? I'm not sure about that because anecdotally I have found that simulation systems use the same rules for PC->NPC as NPC->PC, and hence who rolls switches, while more narrative systems use player-facing dice.

As a brief example, I would call Dungeons & Dragons more simulation-based than Apocalypse World.

Actually if you trust the DM to create dramatic tension, why bother haven them roll. Using Jay R's example, why not choose to have the goblin sneeze or not depending on what ever creates a better outcome, instead of leaving it to chance. No this is not recommending going for entirely dice-less (or equivalent). There has to be some unknowns, and some limit on PC ability and reliability for tension. Of course if you don't care about that, do your thing. But the GM is not trying to overcome anything, so that is not an issue.

I just thought of that, still working through it.

KatarinaKate
2016-07-26, 03:02 AM
I thought about doing such a thing, that it would be a good way to make the players feel more responsible for their abilities and increase engagement throughout combat. My players refused the idea without giving it ago.

Looking back on it I think it would slow the game down and the increased activity of having to roll a defence would get in the way of players planning their next turn a bit more than normal. The initial reason for the idea was not well thought out, making players feel responsible for their defence happens every time they ignore an attack and my players were already engaged in combat.

I think in the end the result is the same, but the players have to roll more dice so it's not surprisingly unpopular.

Agree with your point! Result is the same

Kol Korran
2016-07-26, 03:55 AM
Hi! My group has done this for many long years- players rolling all of the dice. I am an avid supporter of this rule, and from all the various mechanical changes, house rules and such that we've made, it had the single most beneficial effect on our game! I'll try to explain.

First of all, it isn't for everyone. There are 2 big conditions for this to work:
1. The players are very much into the "Challenge" gaming aesthetic. What is that? Check out The 8 aesthetics of play by the Angry DM (http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/), it explains it quite well. But in short- people who like the Challenge aesthetics, seek to overcome the game by their own decisions, ideas, and treat it all as a challenge. For that, they HAVE to have rules that can be dependent upon, relied on, and that are in effect, more than "DM fiat".

If however your players are more into either the Narrative or Expression aesthetics, rolling all of the dice might pose a problem, as this rule creates far more randomness, and a lot of preplanned "dramatic" moments can get totally screwed by the dice. I say it might, cause if you get in the right mind set, the rules might even enhance the experience. In my group many of the players hold the Challenge aesthetic very high, but many hold the Narrative and Expression quite high as well, and it works.

2. A certain level of trust, to separate some OOC knowledge from IC: This goes for only a small number of roles ("The secret roles"), but it can be important. Yet, in my experience, this rule helps foster a lot of DM-Player trust, and so most players trust the DM far more, and this works out well.

I'll start by explaining the system a bit better, then I'll touch on the benefits, and then how to approach this, as getting into it may be a bit difficult and jarring.


First, the system in D&D
Basically, most of the opponents rolls become static DCs (Though for some occasions, especially with major opponents, I might use some opposed tests. I'll get to that). There are basically 3 "types" of rolls:
1. Obvious rolls: Rolls who's effect is immediate and known. (Most combat rolls for example). These compose the most common and frequent rolls by far.
2. The secret rolls: Rolls which may infer some hidden knowledge (Like a character lying, someone hiding, or revealing a disguised person's true stats). These are a bit more tricky, and require special consideration. I'll touch on these a bit later.
3. The "weird" rolls: Rolls that usually come from strange odd rules, specific mechanics (Like some spells, some traps and such) and so on. These are the rarest of rolls, and I'll touch on those a bit later.

The main mechanic- "The DC is 22+...":
First of all- once the players test a stat (Such as AC, a "to hit" bonus, a saving throw or such), you TELL THEM THE DC! Yeah, I know a lot of people would dislike this for reasons of "it breaks verisimilitude" or "This is info they should not know! They should deduce it themselves!", but I'll touch upon that later, in the "benefits" section. For now, lets focus on the mechanic. Just remember- If a PC was attacked by the ogre, they now know the ogre's "to hit" bonus. If the ogre hit, they now know his damage output. If they tried casting a spell on it that required a will save, they now know his save bonus, and so on. Once it's tested, it's known.

I'll start with a combat example.
1. Instead of a monster rolling to hit, the player rolls a "defense roll":
- The player rolls 1d20+AC.
- The DC is 22+ the "to hit" bonus of the monster.
- If the player manages to reach the DC, they evaded the attack. If not, they were hit.
2. Damage is rolled openly by the player as well.
3. Instead of a monster rolling a saving throw, the player rolls a "spell roll":
- The player rolls 1d20+spell DC.
- The roll's DC is 22+ the monster's save bonus.
- If the player manages to reach the DC, they affected the monster with the spell.
4. Critical hits are when on the defense roll you roll a "1". (Or 1-2, or 1-3, depending on the critical range)

Examples:
1. Defense roll:
- The orc is trying to hit the fighter. The orc has +5 to hit, and the fighter has an AC of 18. Under the normal rules, the orc will have to roll 13-20 (40%) to hit the fighter. or... he has 60% to evade the orc.
- If the player rolls a defense roll, he'll roll 1d20+18 (His AC) vs. 27 (22+the orc's to hit). So... the player needs a 9 or more to evade the orc (60%). On a 1-8, (40%) he is hit. So... the same probability.
2. Spell roll:
The mage then lightning bolt on the orc. The spell's DC is 17, and the orc's reflex save is but a +1. Under the normal rules, the orc will have to roll 16-20 to evade the spell. (25%). Or... he has 75% to be fully affected by the spell.
- If the player rolls a spell roll, he'll roll 1d20+17 (The spell's DC) vs. 23 (22+ the orc's save bonus). So... the player needs 6 or more to fully affect the orc (75%). On a 1-5, (25%) the orc evades. Again, the same probability.

Why is the "magic number" 22? Isn't is supposed to be 20? Well... no. I'm no math wiz, bt other math people tried to explain it to me, and this involves some inversion of rolls, and numbers, and such... Whatever the mathematical reason- it WORKS. I've tried it out numerous times, cause it confused me as well a bit, but the probability is always the same as in the original.

Basically, for any roll the opponents roll vs the PC, change it like this:
- Player rolls 1d20+ whatever static stat he used to defend/ affect. (Such as the AC or spell DC in the examples above)
- The DC equals to 22+ the opponent's bonus for the roll. (Such as the "to hit" or savign throw bonus from above).

How to do "open rolls" when "secret rolls" are needed?
Say the party comes near an ambush. If you tell them to roll for the opponents stealth, doesn't this reveal them? Or if they try a sense motive check, won't rolling for the liar's bluff reveal if it succeeded? And say the party faces a goblin sorcerer, who is in fact a powerful dragon in disguise, won't rolling for the dragon reveal that they are facing something far more powerful than a mere goblin? (Since telling the DC reveals the bonus)

First the mechanic, then the adjustments to play:
Mechanic: Taking from D&D 4E and 5E, they added a mechanic called "passive perception/ insight" and so on. Basically, they remove one opposing roll in secret rolls. In this system, you do something similar, but instead of making the player's roll "passive", you make the opponents "rolls" passive: Basically, they all "roll 10" on their skill rolls.

This works with the rule of "Higher is always better": While not strictly part of this rule set, I found this invaluable to the game and this rules. Basically, as a gaming agreement with the players, let them know that whatever DCs and rolls you prepare or challenge them with, rolling higher is always better. This gives a certain level of predictability, which means that if I rolled high, most chances I succeeded, unless the opponents took measures to make their own bonuses quite high. (Major opponents, or using terrain/ tactics/ items/ and more to add up bonuses).

Examples:
1. The party goes through an ambush place. The ambushers have a +6 to stealth, so the DC is 16. The party rolls perception as usual, they just don't know yet the stealth modifier.
2. A player rolls sense motive against a liar. The liar is really good, having a +13, so the DC is 23.
(Yeah, I know I didn't yet touched on the "disguised/ more than it seems" opponent, I'm getting to that).

This requires few adjustments:
1. Separate OOC knowledge from IC knowledge (One of the major conditions for this to work, remember?). Say a player rolled really low on a perception check. The player might well suspect there is something hidden here, yet part of the agreement is to accept that, and roleplay as if the PC doesn't know it. Yeah, this requires a level of trust, a level of fair play and maturity. But if you don't have that in the group, you've got MUCH bigger problems than can be fixed by hidden rolls. And again- I think the system foster a greater degree of DM- Player trust, that this becomes a non-issue. The same with a player who rolls high on his sense motive- most likely he would know if the opponent is lying or not (Unless, as stated, the opponent took measures to ensure a greater success), yet the player can always act as still suspicious, or not fully certain.
2. About keeping "disguised/ not what they seem" opponents still hidden. This mostly takes a change in gaming tactics and flavor, and some expectations:
- First of all, as a GM, I try to give the opponent some plausible explanation for the "unexpected" competence it displayed. This seems very much in the role of such "masters of disguise" kind of characters, for when someone might perceive that "something is off".
- Secondly, as a GM, I try to make the opponent far more subtle in their approach. They KNOW that others might perceive oddities about their capabilities and such, and so try to act accordingly- either handicapping themselves (The dragon might attack more clumsily in order to keep up the act as a goblin, or accept some of the damage from a spell), or find ways to avoid such occasions altogether (Put more people to the front, spin lies about "magical protective amulet" and more...).
- Lastly- I find it cool, and good, if the party manages to surprise such a disguised opponent, and suddenly realize through this that something is odd. ("Wait, how in the blazes this backward savage goblin knows so much about secret magic? Hey...")

The weird rolls:
Every so often, you may come upon strange rolls, from spells, or from other sources (Obscure rules and more) which the 22+ rule may seem unfitting (For most rolls who do not require a 1d20 for example). In such cases, I follow the following guidelines:
- Higher is better. As explained before.
- Once it's tested, you tell the player's the DC (If it's a DC, and not say... a random encounter table).
- All rolls are still made in the open. If the roll was supposed to be a secret DM roll, you still let the players roll. You either tell them the effect (If it's an obvious roll). Or just record it. (And the players play accordingly, separating OOC from IC knowledge).


Benefits of "Players rolling all of the dice"
Again, I can't emphasize enough how much this improved our game! I'll try to explain, as well as counter some common counter arguments:
1. It helps players understand the world better, make more informed decisions, and in such- immerse themselves much more in the game:
Yeah, I know many think that revealing to the players info such as the opponent's "to hit" bonus, their "Save bonus" and such reveals too much info, or break immersion. I disagree. The GM's responsibility is to portray the world as best he can to the players, give them enough info to understand what's happening. I know many think that can be done with a good enough description, but... descriptions are very subjective, and they are great for extreme cases, and do not do well for more moderate cases... (Even the terms "extreme" and "moderate" may mean different things to different people. By giving the players the DCs, or the "hard numbers", each player can form their own impression on the situation from the numbers themselves, and make decisions upon that, instead of relying on the DM's interpretation (Which may not coincide with that of the players).

Some might say "But you just reduce the game to "The ogre attacks you. Roll defense against DC of 30". Where is the fantasy, the richness of description?" To that I say- the two do not run counter to each other! You can perfectly say "The ogre roars, his eyes gleam red with rage, he swings his club high, scraping some of the ceiling with it's mighty strength, before smashing down on you with incredible force! Roll defense vs 30."

Also, for "obvious rolls" (see the definiton above), I'd reckon it's quite ok for the characters, who are adventurers who face such dangers regularily, to be able to gauge the difficulty of hitting, evading, affecting with spells and so on, after the stat has been tested. You might say "This reveals too much!" but really, it doesn't. You can pull so many more interesting and thrillign surprises than the enemy's AC or save bonus.

Letting the players know the DCs of tested stats gives them fr better understanding of the environment, the setting, the challenge they are facing, enables them to make more informed decisions, and helps immerse them in the game by the virtue of "understanding it better!" It really detracts NOTHING from the fantastical element of it, as long as you add that too!

I'll give an example:
- Say the party was fighting through the temple of the lizardfolk, and they come upon the necromancer, his host of ghouls, and his 2 powerful guardians.
In the "DM rolls for the opponents":
- The ghouls lunge forward, lashing with their claws at the fighter and the rogue. (Rolls for them) Fighter blocks all the attacks. The rogue was however hit 3 times... for... 4,6 and 7 damage. One guardian rushes at the fighter, swinging his two handed sword (rolls) and hits! For (rolls) 10 damage. You managed to block most of the damage... The other rushes towards you, but misses. The necromancer is still focused on his ritual.
- Fighter, relying on the fact it was barely hit, and not for much damage: Huh! They aren't much of a threat! (Uses Tacitcs accordingly)
- Rogue, relying on having been hit 3 times: "Crap! I'm a sitting duck! I go back behind fighter and try to snipe the necromancer. (Rolls to hit, the DM tells him "You miss, due to some sort of a magical shield" Yet the rogue has no idea what to do next).
- Mage in the back: I must stop him from completing the ritual! I cast suggestion on him "This can wait! They are dangerous! I must stop them!" (DM rolls a saving throw, and responds "Fools! You think you can trick me with some parlor tricks?" You notice he resisted strongly).

In players roll all the rolls:
- Same scenario, but when the ghouls and guardians attack, the GM says also: "Fighter, roll defense for 3 ghoul attacks, against DC of 25. Rogue, the same."
- Fighter with an AC of 20 realizes that he can be hit about 1/4 times, and revalues "Crap, if they manage to land a hit, I can be paralyzed. We can't take that risk! Better not use power attack".
- The rogue with and AC of 17, who is more of a risk-taker kind of player, might think "Huh, I got crappy luck, got hit 3 times! But with a bit of defense I think I'll take the risk! I'll tumble towards the necromancer!" He goes and attacks, and the DM reveals that with the magical shield the necromancer's AC is 18. The player now can understand the difficulty of penetrating the necromancer's defenses better, and make his decisions upon that.
- For the guardians damage, instead of rolling damage and tellign the fighter "you took 10 damage, and blocked most of it" just tell him "He hit you? Ok, roll for 2d6+7 damage". Let HIM decide if that's a lot or not.
- When the mage cast his suggestion spell, tell him "roll spell roll vs. 34!" The mage, with his spell DC of 17, will decide on the next round if trying to penetrate such a save is worth his risk (A chance of 1/5) or not.

2. it puts more responsibility in the hands of the players, thus increasing their involvement:
This was quite an unexpected result in my game, but it was very much welcomed, and fascinating! Now the players knew the rolls, and understood better, they could plan and respond better, and so the onus of succeeding in the battles felt more on their shoulders, then on the mercy of the DM's dice. This enabled more tactics, and by that more involvement. Now the player had much more to work with, and the rules, the challenges, the difficulties were tangible, and thus both more real and managable.

And this was not just for battles, but basically for all challenges.

3. It speeded up battles immensely!
This was due to several factors:
- More hands rolling. Consider the party facing 6 ghouls, 2 guardians, and the nceromancer, some with more than 1 action/ roll per round. In the monster's turn, the GM (1 person) has to roll ALL of the rolls, calculate them (Against different PC stats, which he knows less well than the players do). This takes up a lot of time. Instead, each player (3-6 in a normal group) Rolls the attacks against their own stats (Which they know very well). More hands rolling, more people doing the math, against stats they understand better.
- It keeps the GM's head in the game: Instead of breaking the flow each time the GM needs to roll dice, take his mind of running the battle, the opponents tactics, and any kind of hidden stuff, the GM can relinquish dealing with the rolls and math to the players, while he deals with the actual important stuff. Consider the following:
"Ok, so 3 ghouls attack the fighter, each with a bite and two claws, 2 more attack the rogue, 2 guardians come, each with 1 attack, and one breath weapon... that makes... 11 attack rolls, against 3 different ACs, and two dice rolls for the breath weapons..." (And later: "Oh carp, I forgot about the necromancer's familiar!") Vs. "Ok, Fighter and rogue, each of you roll vs 3 bites DC 27, and 2 claws DC 22. Guardians attack fighter and mage, vs DC 31. Bites do 1d6+2, claws 1d4+1, guardians swords do 2d6+7. Tell me how you've done... Ok... As you do that, mage, you suddenly notice an imp appearing, waving a wand "For my master!" and shoots a scorching ray at you!" (And the GM ticks off: 4 more rounds to complete the ritual...)
- Players tend to listen far more to the other players turns, since the info can relate to them as well. When the mage hears "Fighter, roll defense against DC 31, if hit then it's 2d6+7 damage" He may realize that these guardians are a big threat, and to take appropriate measures.

There were a few more... unexpected benefits, which improved our game in unexpected, but very blessed ways:
4. As a GM, you can't fudge rolls. This fosters a great deal of trust:
Yeah, I know most GMs are sure they don't fudge. Heck, I was sure I never fudged rolls except for those "rare instances". Yet know, all rolls were on the table, and I suddenly realized how much I DID fudge rolls in the past, whether this was to save a character/ player from really bad luck, make a fight more interesting/ dramatic, or many other, very well intentioned reasons. Yet, for players who are into the "Challenge" aesthetics, knowing that the game itself is fair, and that the GM doesn't "protect" them, (Not even to save their character from an untimely death), GREATLU makes the game more enjoyable, more fun, more... a challenge. Again, with players who are more into the Narrative or Expression esthetic, having a simple battle become far tougher, or a tough battle become a cake walk, may hurt their desire for "a good dramatic story".

Yet, as I said, I have enough players who have those aesthetics as well .Yet we learned as a group to JUMP on those instances when the dice decide "to tell a different story", and use those to make our story work. It's very different from coming with a preplanned conception to the game, and rather adjusting/ reacting/ improvising by what actually happens, not what you wish to happen...

Oddly enough (At least to me this was), putting"everything on the table", suddenly increased DM-player trust immensely. Player actions, if they managed to beat the challenges (Expressed by known DCs and known dice rolls), came into effect. They mattered! This surprisingly increased the trust in terms of the "secret rolls- separating OOC knowledge from IC", and even players who heavily metagamed suddenly ceased... I'm not sure, but I think a lot of the metagaming came from "trying to understand/ decipher the system", yet when nearly everything was known, that desire was greatly lessened?

5. As a result, it also frees the GM from railroading:
D&D gives a LOT of power, a lot of control and as such- a lot of responsibility on the GM's shoulders. Though many GMs really try to avoid railroading, and allow freedom, at some points that freedom is "more restricted" than they might want it to be. Still, from well intentioned reasons, to keep the game flowing, to prevent it from falling apart, to make a scene more interesting/ challenging, to prevent from something simple to bog down the game, and more. I am to blame here as well...

Yet, once you give it all up to the dice, and give those dice to the players, you relinquish control over what might happen to the dice, and to the players. And that experience can be quite... daunting for many GMs, yet it also frees them. A major NPC died way ahead of time? Well, time for the BBEG to reasses his plans, and find another way! The PCs totally fumbled their tracking/ infiltrating, and so the enemy you wished them to capture escaped? Well, react to that as well! You expected them to breaze through the first 3 encounters, before meeting the boss, yet 1 PC died in the first due to lucky rolls, and they burned nearly all of their resources on the 2nd? Well, it's up to them to come up with something clever, or even face the possibility of failure here!

I know this sounds like chaos, and in a way it is, but... it's a very blessed chaos! Once you "let go", and let the game surprise you, GMin becomes more fun, and more engaging, as you really need to react, replan, improvise! And for the players? Those are the best moments! When they either achieve what might have seemed impossible, or dealing with unexpected complications. Nearly all of our best moments in the game had something to do with the way the dice rolled.

Some might say "But I spent 7 hours planning that adventure!" to which I'll say- nothing is really ever lost... You can use/ recycle/ adjust most ideas to other adventures or campaigns, and heck.

"Letting go" of the reigns is tough foremost GMs, and many do keep the reigns, to some degree or the other. Letting the players roll all the dice, helps to break free of that habit, to a great degree, and vastly improves the game.

Ok, I've gone waaaaayyyy too long. I think most is covered, but if there are any questions, let me know.

Thinker
2016-07-26, 01:59 PM
There are certainly big changes to be made if you're trying to use a system like DnD 3.5e. They mostly revolve around rewriting stats and changing some rules around. For instance, to handle ambushes, stealth, and the like you would probably have to alter some player skills to be used passively - typically as 10+their skill ranks and do a straight up comparison to the opponent's stealth score. Then, you in the interest of player agency, you should probably add an "avoid danger" reflex roll to negate the badness in some way - in an ambush the character wouldn't be considered flat footed or could act in the surprise round.

Overall, the number of rolls should be the same or fewer. The only difference is that the player is utterly responsible for what happened (either through poor choice or poor rolls). I feel that this increases the focus on the players in a positive way.

I realize that this isn't for everyone, but I've been having a lot of fun with it.