Quote from: Shauncat;697636DW is all I have experience with, yes. I will look into all the systems being used as counterpoints to my post.

Ouroborous Engine is available for free DL.

StarWorm will be free to DL too, as soon as I can finish a generic version of the mechanics. It has been released with Volant, and will also be released with Lowell Was Right!. It can be dropped into and used with any other StarCluster 3 game, including the freely downloadable StarCluster3 Light.

High Valor is not available for free.

Quote from: Shauncat;697616My main criticism of this type of system is that you have relatively few "moving parts". It reduces the amount of bean counting, yes, but I find that you have fewer "emergent" interactions that might come of the dice being rolled by both sides. Something like Pendragon has a lot of cool or terrible things that might happen that aren't direct results of a player wanting something to happen, or the GM declaring that it happened.

As with the fact that in Pendragon only one of two opponents in a clash of arms can land a blow, this is entirely a matter of how you map from rolls to results. Dice don't care who rolls them!

QuoteAnother troubling thing is how systems might resist you making one part of the world more "difficult" than another.

Again, this apprehension seems to be a result of sloppy thinking. There is nothing in principle to do with this that depends on who tosses dice.

Mm, you guys are right. I was trying to name some some underlying ennui I've had with running DW and, while I've yet to figure out what that is, its not the "only players roll" mechanic.

Everything that's been mentioned as a positive of the system, I agree with.

(Conversation has moved on a bit from here, but I wrote most of this so I might as well post it.)

Quote from: flyingmice;697622If by "this type of system" you mean games  where only the player rolls the dice, this is most definitely not true.  In StarWorm and Ouroborous, for example, the GM sets the stakes to be  pertinent to the situation and to the participants, and these can vary  widely between conflicts, even if they are between the same types of  participants.

Actually, I see his point.

Having the GM set stakes allows a  great deal of freedom, while also inserting human judgment to ensure  that events proceed rationally. But arbitrating between creativity and  continuity is difficult, especially if fairness is a goal. That's really  one of the major criticisms I've seen of *World games: to what extent  is the GM supposed to make a direct extrapolation (let's call this the  Occam method) and to what extent is the GM expected, or allowed, to  "make things interesting"?

(Never mind the fact that there's a diversity  of opinion  whether, and to what extent, the GM can improvise things retroactively  into existence. Purely for the sake of illustration: suppose the  player tries to detect an ambush and succeeds. It has been argued that  the GM can then say that there is an ambush, even if he hadn't  planned one before. IMO that's rubbish. The existence of something might  be determined at whim or  randomly, sure. But it shouldn't be  influenced by a player's attempt to detect it. In any case, this is a digression.)

Now, from a  simulation standpoint, I also think that "Occam's method" is also wrong--the most likely result isn't the inevitable result, or even what happens a  majority of the time. For the world to seem real, and for players to be able to address it as such, they should be prepared for the unexpected even while they bank on the expected. Compared to a GM coming up with stakes off the top of his head, or selecting a result from a list as in DW, I think it would be better to have more granularity.

E.g., in Mythic RPG, there's a distinction between normal success/failure and extraordinary success/failure. Other systems use a wild die, or have conditions that invoke an oracular resolution. ("Oracular" = look at something that prompts an idea, such as an image or a random word.)

I don't see any reason why a higher degree of granularity couldn't be folded into an "only the players roll" system.

Quote from: Arminius;697668E.g., in Mythic RPG, there's a distinction between normal success/failure and extraordinary success/failure. Other systems use a wild die, or have conditions that invoke an oracular resolution. ("Oracular" = look at something that prompts an idea, such as an image or a random word.)

I don't see any reason why a higher degree of granularity couldn't be folded into an "only the players roll" system.

Legendary Lives has 10 result categories, from Catastrophic through Awesome. These double as minimally successful results (e.g., you might need at least a "Passable" Disguise roll to get past guards with that level of Awareness). That still leaves 9 other defined breakpoints to correspond to various outcomes.

Quote from: flyingmice;697622If by "this type of system" you mean games where only the player rolls the dice, this is most definitely not true. In StarWorm and Ouroborous, for example, the GM sets the stakes to be pertinent to the situation and to the participants, and these can vary widely between conflicts, even if they are between the same types of participants.

Same is true for High Valor. Players know whats at stake, characters might as well, so the players (through their character) decide if this is something you want to risk more or less on, and roll--the roll allows them to get a variety of results. The difference is that the unexpected comes up less often because of the dice screwing the players, rather than because it is planned by NPC's, or the players fail to judge the threat correctly. For me it flows better--that isn't to say the dice can't betray the characters, but it means that it is a smaller amount of randomness.

The less randomness means that players often know when its a good idea for their character to run, as opposed to "oops, they got lucky dice rolls, TPK."

Of course games with hero points do similar things, but I do it without HP/KARMA etc, and put that power directly into methods that the players control through their characters rather than directly metagaming elements.

Quote from: Silverlion;697685Same is true for High Valor. Players know whats at stake, characters might as well, so the players (through their character) decide if this is something you want to risk more or less on, and roll--the roll allows them to get a variety of results. The difference is that the unexpected comes up less often because of the dice screwing the players, rather than because it is planned by NPC's, or the players fail to judge the threat correctly. For me it flows better--that isn't to say the dice can't betray the characters, but it means that it is a smaller amount of randomness.

The less randomness means that players often know when its a good idea for their character to run, as opposed to "oops, they got lucky dice rolls, TPK."

Of course games with hero points do similar things, but I do it without HP/KARMA etc, and put that power directly into methods that the players control through their characters rather than directly metagaming elements.

Yep, yep, yep! I played with these mechanics in a Derelict Delvers playtest with Tim, and can confirm this.

Hrm.  So "speeding up the game" is the purported chief virtue of this system.

I just timed twenty die rolls.  From the point I pick up the dice to when I announce the result, I'm averaging about four seconds.  

If I make not twenty, but two hundred rolls in any given session, eliminating those has saved about thirteen minutes.  Not bloody much time at all.

Hang on, wait a sec -- if the system is set up so the GM does no rolling, isn't that burden imposed on the players instead?

Quote from: Ravenswing;697770Hrm.  So "speeding up the game" is the purported chief virtue of this system.

I just timed twenty die rolls.  From the point I pick up the dice to when I announce the result, I'm averaging about four seconds.  

If I make not twenty, but two hundred rolls in any given session, eliminating those has saved about thirteen minutes.  Not bloody much time at all.

Hang on, wait a sec -- if the system is set up so the GM does no rolling, isn't that burden imposed on the players instead?

You sound sceptical about the player only roll approach.

First of all it's not a make or break issue. I find it beneficial but it is not strictly necessary.  

As I said before I find that if the players are doing all the rolls it helps them stay more engaged, it's the difference between actively rolling the dodge for your character as opposed to watching the GM make his roll and hoping for the best. As a general principle in an roleplaying game the more the players get to actively participate and do things rather than watch things happen the better.  

I also find lightening the GM is a good thing for me. When I GM I'm there are always lots of things I need to keep track of at the same time, more than any individual player. So if I can get them to take on one task, as task they enjoy like rolling dice for their character who is that not a good thing?

Quote from: Arminius;697600I think it goes without saying that these sorts of systems don't strive for symmetry in how PCs and the rest of the world work mechanically. I think it might be similar to how some gamebooks* do things.

Anyway, it would be interesting to see some actual comparative rules-readings or play experiences.

"some gamebooks" probably. A couple of gamebook series I can think of are actively annoying in that they're essentially designed for opposed player/book rolling and you're stuck rolling the dice as well. Tunnels and Trolls is annoying because of the number of dice, while Fighting Fantasy you just have to make sure you decide who you're rolling for (you or the monster) before you roll that 12.

In general I don't like it (I like rolling dice as GM).
On occasion I make some rolls for NPCs to help determine what's going on and in the interests of fairness; with some systems like DW the monsters don't even have the statistics they need to roll off against each other.

I don't think it necessarily saves all that much time either - for instance I think as GM I could probably roll 20 NPC saves against 2E fireball faster (counting how many roll over the target number ) than a 4E player could roll 20 attacks of [dice +bonuses against Reflex defense. Even if the math is basically the same.

If GMs like players-only-roll that's fine, whatever, YMMV, different strokes for different folks, but I'm somewhat alarmed that its becoming a fad seen as being 'good design'.

About every gamebook I've ever seen had you rolling or equivalent of rolling for yourself and the game. Even the Amber gamebook did I believe.

As for the T&T solos. Those aren't really gamebooks. They are solo modules for a full RPG, so you get a-lot of dice flying whenever combat occurs. T&T combat though is fairly straightforward at least. Same for the Adventures on Tekumel extended chargen solos.

Quote from: Arminius;697668(Never mind the fact that there's a diversity  of opinion  whether, and to what extent, the GM can improvise things retroactively  into existence. Purely for the sake of illustration: suppose the  player tries to detect an ambush and succeeds. It has been argued that  the GM can then say that there is an ambush, even if he hadn't  planned one before. IMO that's rubbish. The existence of something might  be determined at whim or  randomly, sure. But it shouldn't be  influenced by a player's attempt to detect it. In any case, this is a digression.)

I'll play devil's advocate: In certain styles of play, the player's attempt to spot an ambush is their way of signaling that they think an ambush would be interesting. The GM's job in this style of play is to balance the player's interest versus the other considerations of the game (pacing, story logic, the interests of the other players, etc.).

In the original Threefold Model (not to be confused with the muddled mess of the GNS), this would be a flavor of dramatism: The GM is making a ruling about what happens next on the basis of whether or not it makes a good story.

With all that being said, I agree: It's rubbish.

Quote from: Ravenswing;697770Hrm.  So "speeding up the game" is the purported chief virtue of this system.

I just timed twenty die rolls.  From the point I pick up the dice to when I announce the result, I'm averaging about four seconds.

Lots of games require you to actually perform some sort of mathematical function on the roll. Your analysis is overly simplistic.

QuoteHang on, wait a sec -- if the system is set up so the GM does no rolling, isn't that burden imposed on the players instead?

The speed up (if any) happens through multitasking: Having six players simultaneously roll a Reflex save vs. fireball is faster than me rolling six attack rolls vs. their Reflex defenses. And while I'm having the player roll dice, I can frequently be doing something else simultaneously behind the screen.

The virtues of player-only rolling are:

(1) Speed (as a result of multitasking)
(2) Focus (by off-loading dice roll, the GM can focus attention elsewhere)
(3) Player engagement (by increasing the number of off-turn dice rolls)

OTOH, there are also disadvantages to player-only rolling:

(1) Speed (as a result of GM efficiency)
(2) Loss of surprise elements (although the GM could obviously still make secret checks if they chose to)
(3) Mechanical consistency (subjectively in the form of "who's influencing the outcome"; objectively when the system has to deal with the NPC vs. NPC problem)

Most of these are of a negligible nature when you really boil it down. The one exception, IMO (and YMMV), is player engagement: I think pre-4E D&D, for example, benefits tremendously from saving throws. Keeping players mechanically engaged when it's not their turn is a really easy way to keep them engaged generally, which seems to have a significant positive impact on the game in terms of both pace and enjoyment.

It seems to me like an unneccessary abstraction. Besides obvious points of failure such as wandering monster tables (including outdoor encounters on long treks) and NPCs fighting one another, things can happen randomly in any setting which have little to do with the PCs but which can impact on the PCs. Removing the ability to make those random removes a powerful tool in the GM's toolkit, for no good reason I can see.

Quote from: Ravenswing;697770[COLOR="Navy"
Hang on, wait a sec -- if the system is set up so the GM does no rolling, isn't that burden imposed on the players instead? [/COLOR]

That depends entirely on the system. In StarWorm and Ouroborous, for example, the GM sets both positive and negative stakes, based on the opposition quality and the situation. The player rolls his dice pool, then can buy off negative stakes and/or gain positive stakes with successes. Let's say the PCs are playing against dangerous opponents in a tricky situation, so the GM establishes that stakes are:

(Negative)
You MIGHT die
You MIGHT get badly wounded
You MIGHT get a light wound

(Positive - can be chosen multiple times if applicable)
You COULD give an enemy a wound.

The player rolls five dice and gets three successes. The character could choose to:

A: Buy off death, and give the enemy two rounds at the cost of getting badly wounded herself.

B: Buy off death and the bad wound, and give the enemy one wound at the cost of getting lightly wounded.

C: Take the consequences, including death, to give the enemy three wounds and take him down.

D: Buy off all negative stakes and retain the status quo.

So by setting the stakes properly, you can have the same roll decide both the PCs' and their enemies' actions.

-clash