Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1124801I don't know that the question of rolling dice has anything to do with the OSR, other than a lot of people who enjoy OSR games are also the types that will enjoy rolling their own dice.

Right, I am not suggesting it invalidates the game as as game. It seems to me though that presenting this game as an OSR game is a bit of a stretch, even if there has been an obscure article or two in The Dragon. As a comparison, games like DCCRPG introduce some base changes but sort of compensate for those changes by dramatically ratcheting up the gonzo content and the gonzo implementation of homebrew or optional rules we associate with those early years of D&D.

Quote from: Simon W;1124818In the very early days, the DM rolled all the dice - so no, probably not.

I did that once or twice. The idea was that the players wouldn't know some of the modifiers etc. It also tended to put them to sleep so I wouldn't really recommend it.

Quote from: S'mon;1124829It wouldn't feel Old School to me, so no. Old School gaming requires GM authority which for me includes the ability to roll dice. Only-GM-rolls can be old school & OSR, but not GM-never-rolls.

I'm not sure how I see that rolling the dice is an authority. Is this about keeping the rolls secret?

For clarification, what would you think about a game where all dice -- even if the GM rolls -- were rolled out in the open? Could it potentially feel old-school to you?

The more I read threads on what is the real OSR, the more I realize I don't know what is meant by "old school." Which when I think of it is kind of funny given that I've been GMing RPGs since 1974.

Let me rephrase:  It should theoretically be possible to develop an old-school game where the players roll all the dice. However, practically speaking anyone highly motivated to have the players roll all the dice is displaying priorities that are likely to be at odds with running an old-school game.

As an academic exercise, to see how far the designer could push it, without sacrificing something critical, I can see the interest.

Quote from: Simon W;1124818In the very early days, the DM rolled all the dice - so no, probably not.

Nice try but sorry. No.

The reason Gary rolled was because he was the only one with the 'dice' and once the other players got their own sets it went to players rolling their stuff and the DM rolling their stuff as needed.

By the above argument then NOT having a co-DM makes any RPG NOT OSR because guess what. They had co-DMs in the early games.

Quote from: jhkim;1124850For clarification, what would you think about a game where all dice -- even if the GM rolls -- were rolled out in the open? Could it potentially feel old-school to you?

Yes.  I always* have all dice in the open as GM, including when I run OSR and old-D&D rules.

*Wherever possible - for play by post/play by email I roll as GM for everyone.

Quote from: Lynn;1124773I was reading this review of Golgotha and was surprised after presenting it as OSR that it doesn't have the GM roll dice at all. I have run ICONs before which uses such a mechanic and while interesting it does change the experience of the game. Would you still consider this an OSR game?

OSR? No.

OSR Adjacent?  Yes.

Quote from: Bren;1124853The more I read threads on what is the real OSR, the more I realize I don't know what is meant by "old school." Which when I think of it is kind of funny given that I've been GMing RPGs since 1974.

IMO, "OSR" tends to be a very nebulous, nostalgia driven term that tends to mean whatever the person defining it at any given time subjectively "feels" represents "old school" for them. I'm just glad I'm not "OSR", so I don't really care about emulating some subjective notion of how people supposedly played D&D (specifically) in Dave Arneson's or Gary Gygax's table 50 years ago. I just go with what works and does the job that I want it to do well.

Quote from: jhkimFor clarification, what would you think about a game where all dice -- even if the GM rolls -- were rolled out in the open? Could it potentially feel old-school to you?

Quote from: S'mon;1124863Yes.  I always* have all dice in the open as GM, including when I run OSR and old-D&D rules.

*Wherever possible - for play by post/play by email I roll as GM for everyone.

Interesting. If the dice are rolled in the open, my view is that it is functionally identical who rolls the die. If I as GM have my hands full, I can ask a player to roll the die, and everything works the same. Emotionally, I can see that there is some importance -- but I would think that differs from person to person.

Personally, I first used player-only-rolls with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG (Cinematic Unisystem), which I found refreshing. That is mathematically identical to having only the attacker roll (for PC vs NPC), but I felt like it simplified my handling things at the table.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm not claiming whether it's old-school or not. I'm just saying that who rolls the dice doesn't have anything to do with functional power or authority.

Quote from: jhkim;1124882Emotionally, I can see that there is some importance -- but I would think that differs from person to person.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm not claiming whether it's old-school or not. I'm just saying that who rolls the dice doesn't have anything to do with functional power or authority.

I think it's mostly an emotional thing. GM rolling is associated with GM authority; GM never rolling implies lack of GM authority, to me.

Anyway, why would the players be rolling wandering monster checks or today's weather? Old School D&D type play has a ton of procedural content generation by dice roll.

Quote from: jhkim;1124882Interesting. If the dice are rolled in the open, my view is that it is functionally identical who rolls the die. If I as GM have my hands full, I can ask a player to roll the die, and everything works the same. Emotionally, I can see that there is some importance -- but I would think that differs from person to person.

Personally, I first used player-only-rolls with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG (Cinematic Unisystem), which I found refreshing. That is mathematically identical to having only the attacker roll (for PC vs NPC), but I felt like it simplified my handling things at the table.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm not claiming whether it's old-school or not. I'm just saying that who rolls the dice doesn't have anything to do with functional power or authority.

The GM hands off responsibility to another player to roll the dice is a time saver in some cases.  It can be true that in system designed that way, too.

The designer makes a mechanical fetish out of the players rolling all the dice is an emotional thing.  Of course it will provoke an emotional reaction.  The designer's intent is often wrapped up in questions of authority (however much they do or don't achieve that intent with the mechanic in play).

I'm not saying that either approach is likely to be pure, either, in any particular system.  I'm fairly certain that it rarely is pure, since games require so many compromises; there is no reason why this case would be different.

There's also the case that in a social setting, functional power or authority is partly an emotional thing--more for some groups than others.  I mean, in theory, a baseball umpire calling strikes and balls is just cold judgment, but in the heat of a game with the crowd yelling, it's not purely so.  Any honest referee in any sport will tell you so--that they need to make an effort to keep the emotions at bay to make clear calls.

Quote from: Omega;1124855Nice try but sorry. No.

Well, character gen then...

"Men & Magic: Determination of Abilities: Prior to the character selection by players it is necessary for the referee to roll three six-sided dice in order to rate each as to various abilities and thus aid them in selecting a role"

and the rest of Men & Magic isn't too clear on who rolls. Many groups took it to mean the DM rolled for all (which would be a reasonable assumption).

Quote from: Trond;1124841I did that once or twice. The idea was that the players wouldn't know some of the modifiers etc. It also tended to put them to sleep so I wouldn't really recommend it.

Agreed.

Quote from: jhkim;1124882Interesting. If the dice are rolled in the open, my view is that it is functionally identical who rolls the die. If I as GM have my hands full, I can ask a player to roll the die, and everything works the same. Emotionally, I can see that there is some importance -- but I would think that differs from person to person.

Personally, I first used player-only-rolls with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG (Cinematic Unisystem), which I found refreshing. That is mathematically identical to having only the attacker roll (for PC vs NPC), but I felt like it simplified my handling things at the table.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm not claiming whether it's old-school or not. I'm just saying that who rolls the dice doesn't have anything to do with functional power or authority.

I haven't played the Buffy RPG, but this is more or less my take as well. I've been working on a system where rolls can be made by either side using the other side's ability as a difficulty modifier, which is mechanically almost identical to rolling against an enemy's AC in D&D, except game values are expressed as a modifier so that either side can make the roll, allowing the GM to delegate all opposed rolls to players. And the system's design philosophy has absolutely 0% to do with abridging GM authority. It's just a neat mechanical quirk that helps speed up and simplify opposed rolls so that you always roll against passive defense/opposed ability. This is strictly an action resolution mechanic and random tables are a different thing, though.