A recent thread included a post relating how in a particular group the GM did all the die rolling, stat tracking etc. allowing the players to concentrate on 'roleplaying' instead of 'gameplaying' and receive all descriptions of action and resolution in real world terms instead of game mechanics.

This is probably a very rare approach (although I have used it a couple times over the years) but has its own distinct advantages.

Have any of you tried something like this? How did it go? Would you participate in it as a player? Is taking the dice away from the player really affecting the outcome given its just a randomization method and isnt affected by which hand actually does the rolling?

First we had the gimmick of "only the players roll", which I never got...now you're proposing only the GM roll? I humbly submit the approach of having neither GM nor players roll, but a lackey specially employed for the purpose, with a unique livery.

The idea of "no GM rolls" really appeals to me because I have a thing for reducing the GM's workload, but I've never actually run things that way. Mostly because it would take some better-applied-elsewhere effort to retro-fit most systems to work that way smoothly.

The idea of "GM rolls everything" just seems straight up unappealing. The GM is busy enough under normal circumstances and most players engage in a surprising level of magical thinking when it comes to dice.

I have played this way. It absolutely requires a trustworthy GM.

It can add greatly to immersion, but I find players like rolling dice.

I do like the approach of playing with no character sheets, getting away from playing to the rules... but I've always played where Players (and GM's) rolled their own dice for the things they represent (the GM representing the world). It's just more fun and feels active.

I am at the opposite end of the scale, I prefer games where the players make all the dice rolls. I don't really find what is suggested in the OP appealing.

Quote from: The_Shadow;915993First we had the gimmick of "only the players roll", which I never got...now you're proposing only the GM roll? I humbly submit the approach of having neither GM nor players roll, but a lackey specially employed for the purpose, with a unique livery.

Im not proposing anything, its already being done. A Dice Lackey sounds good too though!

Quote from: DavetheLost;915997I have played this way. It absolutely requires a trustworthy GM.

It can add greatly to immersion, but I find players like rolling dice.

Yes, its a key ingredient in merging the Role and the Game to some, maybe most. I have found some players are almost embarrassed to 'play make believe' without the accoutrements of a game to disguise it.

D&D was first played like that. The reason being that there was only one set of the polyhedrals. Seems that changed soon after the players could get their own dice. But it gets mentioned as a GMing style fairly regularly. Some players all but demand it. Others despise it.

I've used it for some sessions. But as other have commented. Usually players like to roll for their own characters. And some GMs dont like it as its more work for them. Some enjoy it and personally Im ok either way. But I prefer to let the players roll as it saves time and frees me up to DM.

Even more than other things like the old debates about whether D&D armor class should be positive or negative, I feel this one falls under the category of "it doesn't matter." Unless you are worried that the players might fudge dice rolls, or you as the DM want to reserve the right to fudge your own, it genuinely doesn't matter who does the rolling.

Now if you wanted to truly separate the characters from the game mechanics and only worry about their characters' perspective and decisions, I can see the value of the DM having the character sheets. That would be an interesting twist.

My very first player, a buddy way back in 1976, was curious about this game thing me and a couple others were doing but wasnt into reading rules and all that nonsense. He wanted to try it out but asked me straight up if he could just 'tell me what his guy is doing' and I take care of the rest. We tried it with old OD&D and Greyhawk and had a great time. It had a completely different feel to when I GMd the conventional way with my regular group. Without his hands on management of the game mechanics our exchange at the table became much more story based. (He never said "I attack" for instance but rather "I come in low with my sword, keeping my shield up high" - that sort of thing) The experience had a profound affect on how my gaming developed from that point onward.

Yes, I sometimes do that if the players don't mind and want things to go quickly.

Especially in games over Internet.

It can help for rules and situations where the players shouldn't necessarily know what the odds of success are, which to me makes a lot of sense. In real life, we have a sense for how good we are and how likely things are to succeed, and we experience doing them, but not with numerical precision. In a game, not only does telling the players what exact number they need to roll give too much precision, but it also can reveal things they shouldn't be able to catch by knowing what the die roll is. I can substitute the missing information in words, e.g. ("You feel like that should have worked, but somehow it didn't quite work..."). Many players will immediately notice and bring a lot of attention to analyzing why they made their roll by 1 but failed, which doesn't leave much room for subtle effects that the character might not notice that quickly, so it can lead to an OOC meta investigation.

That's solved by GM rolling, if done consistently. If the GM suddenly needs to roll for you though, the PC's notice that. Unless you introduce enough noise, which is what I do a lot of with players who do want to roll their dice. I roll uncertainty dice and assess minor modifiers to contribute to the noise so when there is some cause the players don't know about, it doesn't stand out like a sore thumb.

Quote from: rgrove0172;916009My very first player, a buddy way back in 1976, was curious about this game thing me and a couple others were doing but wasnt into reading rules and all that nonsense. He wanted to try it out but asked me straight up if he could just 'tell me what his guy is doing' and I take care of the rest. We tried it with old OD&D and Greyhawk and had a great time. It had a completely different feel to when I GMd the conventional way with my regular group. Without his hands on management of the game mechanics our exchange at the table became much more story based. (He never said "I attack" for instance but rather "I come in low with my sword, keeping my shield up high" - that sort of thing) The experience had a profound affect on how my gaming developed from that point onward.

I've done a lot of this, especially since I like to run GURPS with all the rules, plus house rules, plus stuff the PCs don't know all about, often for players who don't know GURPS. It can work quite well if you do it well. You of course should give them the practical knowledge their character has but they don't, in English form.

Having just the GM roll is old as time. I used to do it, even up to my 2E days. Then I moved to having them roll for stuff like attack, but I would still roll for damage. Now I have players roll those things for their character.

I've thought about doing it, but never really liked the idea. Besides, my players have always really liked rolling dice. Some groups in the past have had an almost superstitious belief that if they don't roll the dice, they aren't in control of the character. Logically, it doesn't matter who initiates the random number generator, but to them it was vitally important.