For me: Simplifies things a great deal. As a gm, it means I set the difficulty and it sticks, players aren't going to be (entirely) screwed by a couple of bad dice rolls.

It reduces randomness--see above in part, but the more dice rolled that oppose each other the more random the game becomes, and I prefer the outcomes be more in the player characters hands, than the players or mine.

Of course I usually make tolls to make that increase over just negating Gm rolls.

Quote from: JeremyR;773048I think there is a certain segment of gamers who feel that the DM will conspire against them if the DM rolls.

Roll everything in the open. That takes care of that. One game, as DM, I rolled 6 20s in a row (we were playing critical hits). Had I rolled behind a screen, they would've come at me with pitchforks and torches. As it was, they cursed the Fates and did their best to survive.

In a lot of games, I think the DM should be a little scary. I'm not the PCs friend, I don't help them get out of situations. I am the predatory universe which has set the adventure wheels in motion. I am the impartial judge of PC actions, the fickle hand of fate. I assure that PC actions have consequences...

Players rolling all dice kind of takes that away.

In the same sense, a game like GW2e says the GM should roll for the players. Yeah, it's all just random number generation, but there is an illusion of being in control of your own destiny if you roll dice for your PC.

I assume there are three reasons

1. See Will's comment below:

Quote from: Will;773039Less stuff for the GM to manage, more feeling of control for players (even if it's somewhat illusory)

2. The designer thought it would be creative to have a different resolution system from the standard player and GM both roll. As a side note, the flip one-sided resolution of the GM rolls everything was suggested in the mid 1970s.

3. Player always rolls is more comfortable for people who fear the GM will cheat or who are uncomfortable with even the appearance of an adversarial relationship between player and GM. The latter may not be a negligible factor as one of the reasons I and others play more RPGs than board games and war games is that we see RPGs as nonadversarial in comparison to the other games.

There was an interesting thread about people who like games played 'straight,' and really hate the idea of GMs ever fudging rolls, and feel it's 'cheating.' No matter which way the fudge goes.

Those sorts of people would probably feel better making the rolls.

Quote from: Necrozius;773112Yeah I like it because it seems to reduce the unspoken GM vs Player mentality that plagues just about every group that I've been a part of. Hell, even in my "uber-indie-nice-storygame-collaborative-hippy" phase, players STILL felt some antagonism toward me. *shrug*

I also like to get the players to roll their own damage dice ("you stepped on the trap, now roll dX to see how bad you're hurt").

This is probably heresy, but I'm actually contemplating an AC saving throw system instead of me making attack rolls. I'm not entirely sure how that would work in the monster's attack bonus, though. Probably a bad idea...

I usually get deliberate antagonistic in combat. The goblins cheer if they roll a 20 they cry if they miss.
I find I can take a situation that is in fact fairly elementary for the players to beat and make it feel like much more of a threat if the bad guys cheer every hit and keep loudly wishing for a critical.
Their victory feels harder won as a result.

All dice rolls open nothing ever gets fudged.

I first encountered the concept in the Dragonlance: Fifth Age game using the SAGA Rules System. The reasons, explicit and implicit, for using it there were:

  1. It freed up the 'Narrator' to just set difficulty numbers and let the players handle the math, leaving him free to handle other things (DRAGON #231)
  2. It kept the mechanics focused on the player heroes, rather than on non-player characters. (Several DL:5A products)
  3. It was a card-based system, so it kept the deck from turning over too fast and freed the DM from having to handle hands of cards for every NPC. (Implicit in the system design.)

  Of course, this was a 'Dramatic Adventure Game', not a 'Roleplaying Game', so it obviously belongs to the Storygames family, and my fondness for it brands me with the Mark of the Swine.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;773169I first encountered the concept in the Dragonlance: Fifth Age game using the SAGA Rules System...

I still have my copy of this as well as the Marvel one they came out with later. Never got to play either one.

Do note that it doesn't actually remove fudging.  A GM can easily say... "ehhh, re-roll that" and many players will happily do so.

Quote from: Raven;773175I still have my copy of this as well as the Marvel one they came out with later. Never got to play either one.

  I got a good chunk of play out of DL:5A, but never in Krynn, curiously enough: I ran playtests for Ravenloft SAGA, and short-lived campaigns in the Dragon Warrior (aka Dragon Quest) and Final Fantasy I video game worlds.

Quote from: danbuter;773115Since I'm usually the GM, any game that says I can't roll dice is immediately dropped from consideration for the table. I like rolling dice.

My opinion exactly!!!

I love the players only roll. It's in Bounty Hunters of the Atomic Wastelands and ICONS, though the in the new version it's been demoted as an optional rule.

The reasons have been covered. I like GM hands free as it allows me to focus on what really matters and players tend to feel more engaged, it's the difference between rolling your dodge vs watching the GM roll his attack. I find these are substantial advantages.

The disadvantage is that there are times when it a falls apart a little, like when NPC actions only indirectly affect the players. But I'm not a purist, in those instances I roll dice as the GM anyway. I figure if a system works really well 90% of the time, I can deal with the 10% of the times it doesn't.  

I respect the fact a lot of GM do enjoy rolling dice, it's makes them feel closer to the game or that sometimes the act of rolling the dice is part of the process, it buys time for the GM to figure stuff out. Those are perfectly valid preference, but for me hands free GMing is where it's at.

Quote from: Soylent Green;773211The reasons have been covered. I like GM hands free as it allows me to focus on what really matters and players tend to feel more engaged, it's the difference between rolling your dodge vs watching the GM roll his attack. I find these are substantial advantages.

I ran a few sessions of ICONs and that was my experience as well. And given there was less space to play, I didn't have to have as much GM crap out on the table.

It makes the players feel more in control of their destiny, even though everything is ultimately up to the GM. Plus it tends to simplify the math and number crunching involved since games like that tend to use a universal mechanic which the players will eventually absorb and be able to use on their own without you holding their hands.

I don't really give a shit who rolls the dice.

If the players are rolling more dice, well, fine, they can feel a touch more in control of their destiny. It's all good. I still control interpreting the results. I still control the world.

Quote from: The_Shadow;773033PC wants to open a locked door, roll dice. They ask their NPC buddy to open it, for some reason it is resolved without the GM rolling dice. I just can't fathom it.

In the example you make it might help to think about it, in D20 terms, as "NPCs always take 10". The idea is that chances are when an NPC is making unopposed action it's probably not a very interesting part of the game anyway, it's just the GM playing with himself while the players watch on.

But there I don't think player only rolls has to be an absolute, all or nothing thing. If there are occasions in which the NPCs actions are really interesting and dramatic I have no issues with that, I can still cut out all the other GM rolls.