I was reading this review (https://rlyehreviews.blogspot.com/2020/03/far-future-dungeon-delving.html) 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?
I think the Pundit doesn't like it because he thinks that it makes the PC's the center of the world.
I've run the Cypher system and I love it. The game was still very gritty and osr-like and the PC's were not the center of the world.
I love rolling dice, but I in practice it's even easier to run a game where I don't have to roll.
I'm interested in Symbaorum, which is a no-gm-roll system, but I've read that it's very easy to create a broken PC in that.
I don't think it's an OSR game though. We should probably reserve that term for things that are like the older games otherwise it looses it's meaning.
Its been suggested for D&D fairly far back now and then in Dragon for example. But there it was not for ALL rolls. Just ones that the DM did not need to micromanage usually.
Sounds good on paper. But in practice you need players who are not prone to cheating otherwise the system fails worse than miserably.
Recently we had a thread on Symbaroum brought this up. Though many seem to totally misunderstand the system. That is an RPG designed so combats are handled in just a few rolls that only the players make. The monsters are just effectively target numbers. No rolls are made for them.
Rather than a game that just takes away the ability to roll from the GM because whatever reasons. Some benign, some very not. And its the very not faction that has so manydistrustful of "players only roll" rules.
Sounds very Meh? to me :)
No rolling dice for the GM? WTF kind of fun is that!
I didn't horde dice for 35+ years for nothing! (silly me it should have been toilet paper all this time, who knew?)
If one of my players was so distrusting of me as the GM. They will need to find another GM :)
I didn't waste all those hours on crafting my world just for it to be GM vs Player. If that's the case what would be the point since the GM can just hand wave stuff an it just happens.
Its fun watching all my plans explode due to something a player comes up with out of left field then I get to roll with their zany actions for that session and then work out another plan for them to blow up on me :)
That's where I get my fun from. Watching the players come up cleaver use of spells, like back in the day using shocking grasp + decanter of endless water as a weapon of mass destruction vs low level creatures :p
Golgotha is based on the Black Hack. The players roll to hit, and to dodge, but the GM still rolls for everything else: damage, reaction, random encounters, etc. The game itself is frickin gorgeous, tightly focused on epic science fiction dungeon delving: there are some really neat scifi dungeons presented in the book. (no maps though).
The only place where I find it falls down is in some of the GM resources: they need better charts and tables for generating really interesting traps and puzzles, as well as truly alien ancient aliens that have left all sorts of strange artifacts. Som you'll be looking for supplemental books from Sine Nomine or whatever to build new Golgothas for the players.
GM doesn't get to roll dice...hard pass.
I 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.
I've got nothing against a system that makes it easy for the GM to farm some or even most rolls out to the players, as desired. I have little interest in running a game where the system makes it a rule that the GM doesn't roll dice. That's even more inflexible than original D&D.
That is part of the thing really.
You have standard RPGs where the DM can allocate rolls to the players to handle. Or even take over rolling everything. But that is the DM's choice. Bog standard and goes back to early RPGs and even D&D.
Then you have standard RPGs where the designer for whatever reason, usually forge/swine related, wants to curb the tyranny if the DM and put the power in the players hands. Some dont go so over the top. But there was a couple of these a few years ago. Some try to paint themselves as OSR games. But more than a few excise too much of the DM to be OSR.
And of course you have games that are barely RPGs and the GM is oft either heavily shackled or totally eliminated.
You can go a perfectly fine RPG where the DM doesnt need to roll much yet is not shackled. Symbaroum is a good example.
I've done the No-GM roll in a couple games, so its all PCs reacting to the world and its okay. I didn't find it an advancement, but it wasn't bad either. Just different. I wouldn't want to do it for all RPGs, but I might be good with a particular RPG for that experience.
As for "is it OSR?", that's tricky. Without reading Golgotha, I can't say yes or no. But I don't see why the "No GM Roll" mechanic could not be used in a OSR game without compromising what makes an OSR game special. The player is not rolling the dice and telling the GM what happens next.
For instance, the GM normally rolls the stealth of the monster. Here, the player would roll to hear the monster. Either way, the monster is under the GM control.
In the very early days, the DM rolled all the dice - so no, probably not.
Nope, I don't think it can be, Randomness is baked into the OSR - take wandering monsters. If the GM never rolls, when do wandering monsters turn up? If a player rolls for this, then that is just effectively the GM rolling for it. Surprise? Initiative? These are all things that are core to OSR.
I love rolling dice. As my groups GM I don't think I could even consider an rpg that doesn't want me to roll dice.
I've personally given up any thought of defining the OSR. Most people consider it to be restricted to D&D clones, so in that sense, I would say no. The innovations of The Black Hack and its derivatives are great, though, and not having to roll most dice is very liberating as a referee.
It 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.
Whether there's any dice doesn't have anything to do with it. The dice are just there to randomly resolve certain facets of the game -- but if the game system already provides another way to do that, say by fiat, then you don't need the dice. The thing that makes OSR the OSR is the lethality and lightweightness of it, so if you can get that but without the dice, it's fine.
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 (https://rlyehreviews.blogspot.com/2020/03/far-future-dungeon-delving.html) 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.
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.
Old School means whatever someone wants to market, or doesnt want marketed, today. It means whatever fits someones agenda as a selling point or a derogatory and it started as derogatory and hasnt really moved out of that since. Its still derogatory.
OSR means who the fuck knows! Nearly right out the gate people were using it to steal designs from anything and everything they wanted. Its why the OSR has such a bad rep in various circles. It originally meant just playing in the styles of the 70s and 80s and 90s even. But its a fake term really as people have never stopped playing those ways so there was nothing to "revive" or "renaissance" as its just a marketing gag in the end.
Roll on a random table of what the fuck and you will likely get someones interpretation of what any of this means.
1: steal other peoples games.
2: play in the old style (despite the fact the old style is still being played predominantly)
3: make games that are clones/knock-offs/rip-offs of older D&D.
4: storygames!
5: Miniatures!
6: cute kittens!
7: roll twice and call a doctor.
I agree with jhkim. GM authority doesn't diminish if the GM isn't doing the rolling.
But it still felt weird to not roll my own dice.
Quote from: S'mon;1124885Anyway, 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.
I ran into those issues when I ran OD&D via the GM never rolls, but I like using the Wandering Monster roll as a fear/tension device. I randomly had a player roll my big D6 at the table and then just nod at the result. It was always fun when a 1 was rolled because they always assumed that meant something bad.
The biggest problem I had was this situation:
Monster Attacks...so the PC dodges / rolls Defense roll (D20 + AC).
This leads to these results - PC fumbles, PC fails, PC succeeds, PC crits.
I can adjudicate the fumbled or critical parry, but how does the monster fumble?
The best I came up with was when the PC parried awesomely (aka a critical), they could smash the monster with their shield or hilt to knock them down, disarm them, or some other effect basically equal to the monster fumbling.
I ran a game this way for a while. Here is my original note to the players. Some one more litrate and probly do a much better job. (NOTE the +12 is because of the change of sence of the defence roll to keep the probs the same).
D&D Varant: Player Only Rolls
Preface
In this varant the referee attempt to do no die rolling at all. This is achieved by reversing all the normal rolls that the referee makes to defence rolls.
As a simple rule - PC take off 10 DC (ie AC 21) to make a Mods Rolls (ie +11) and NPC add 12 to Mods (ie attack +5) make a DC (ie 17).
Attack and Defence Rolls
Attacks stay the same as normal D&D for players but for NPC they are changed. Insteed of the referee rolling to hit attack rolls the players roll 'defence rolls' for their chacter instead. The players subtract 10 from there AC and add this to a d20 as a kind of save vs the NPS static Attack DC. The Attack DC of an NPC is their Attack Mod added to 12.
IE PC AC 18 vs NPC Attack +7 become a PC Defence Save +8 vs NPC Attack DC 19.
Criticals, Fumbles, Auto Success and Fails
As in the standard rules a 20 is an auto success, and 1 is an auto fail for Attacks and Saves. The Threat Ranges also apply as normal on attack but on defence rolls they are reversed. If an NPC has Attack Threat Range 17-20 this translates to a Defence Threat Range of 1-4. If the player rolls a second Defence fail then the NPC Crits.
Quote from: Omega;1124909Old School means whatever someone wants to market, or doesnt want marketed, today. It means whatever fits someones agenda as a selling point or a derogatory and it started as derogatory and hasnt really moved out of that since. Its still derogatory.
OSR means who the fuck knows! Nearly right out the gate people were using it to steal designs from anything and everything they wanted. Its why the OSR has such a bad rep in various circles. It originally meant just playing in the styles of the 70s and 80s and 90s even. But its a fake term really as people have never stopped playing those ways so there was nothing to "revive" or "renaissance" as its just a marketing gag in the end.
There is a recognizable core to the OSR--OD&D, Holmes Basic, B/X, and AD&D 1E, and games designed to reproduce or emulate them. Beyond that, even to the point of BECMI and 2E, things get fuzzy, and one person's 'minor tweak' is another person's 'betrayal of the entire spirit of the OSR and the True Game.' :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1124936There is a recognizable core to the OSR--OD&D, Holmes Basic, B/X, and AD&D 1E, and games designed to reproduce or emulate them. Beyond that, even to the point of BECMI and 2E, things get fuzzy, and one person's 'minor tweak' is another person's 'betrayal of the entire spirit of the OSR and the True Game.' :)
The "One True Game", surely! :-)
Quote from: Spinachcat;1124920The biggest problem I had was this situation:
Monster Attacks...so the PC dodges / rolls Defense roll (D20 + AC).
This leads to these results - PC fumbles, PC fails, PC succeeds, PC crits.
I can adjudicate the fumbled or critical parry, but how does the monster fumble?
The best I came up with was when the PC parried awesomely (aka a critical), they could smash the monster with their shield or hilt to knock them down, disarm them, or some other effect basically equal to the monster fumbling.
My preference is to not always interpret the die roll as something that the PC does -- which is something I prefer in any system. The die roll is supposed represent any of a wide range of random effects, not just what one side does.
So in house-ruled D&D with critical failures, then if someone rolls a critical failure, that doesn't necessarily mean that the character made a stupid-looking blunder. It could be all sorts of bad luck -- like a particularly well-timed parry by the opponent, for example. It could also be something unrelated to either the attacker or opponent, like an unexpected break in the floor, or a sudden distraction.
I'm on the fence. One thing I do like about players rolling all the dice is the GM can't fudge them - if the player rolls bad and dies, there's no saving them. On the other hand, I roll all my combat dice in the open anyway, and I do like to roll...
DM since late 1977- I suspect it's probably not going to fly as OSR for the majority.
That said, I love it as DM/GM. Keeps me in the fictional groove of the game. When the players have their fate in their own hands, and all I do is interpret their dice rolls- I feel more like I'm a player as well- which is refreshing. It also gives me more of that "Judge/Referee" mentality- I feel more neutral because I'm no going to be fudging anything.
1st post. Sorry for the rambling "touchy feely-ness"
JeffB, welcome aboard!!
What RPGs have you used the "GM never rolls" for?
How do you handle the "procedural content generation" issues like daily weather or wandering monsters as S'mon brought up?
Do you use it as your default GM method? Or only with specific RPGs?
Quote from: JeffB;1125016DM since late 1977- I suspect it's probably not going to fly as OSR for the majority.
That said, I love it as DM/GM. Keeps me in the fictional groove of the game. When the players have their fate in their own hands, and all I do is interpret their dice rolls- I feel more like I'm a player as well- which is refreshing. It also gives me more of that "Judge/Referee" mentality- I feel more neutral because I'm no going to be fudging anything.
1st post. Sorry for the rambling "touchy feely-ness"
There's no reason you have to fudge when you're rolling the dice. I throw in the open and play whatever rolls.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1125029JeffB, welcome aboard!!
What RPGs have you used the "GM never rolls" for?
How do you handle the "procedural content generation" issues like daily weather or wandering monsters as S'mon brought up?
Do you use it as your default GM method? Or only with specific RPGs?
Thank you for the warm welcome!
My first experience was using it in Dungeon World and that is where I have used it mostly as that is the SOP for Dungeon World. I have since used it in a variety of D&D "offshoots"- 3.0, 13th Age, WhiteStar, my OD&D/BX/S&W mashup, and I'm sure I don't remember a few. For D&D-esque systems I used the "players roll all the dice variant" in the 3.5 SRD, modifying it slightly for OD&D math when I used it there.
Things like random weather don't really feature in my games (not that weather doesn't sometimes factor in) but most other random things that occur at the table? absolutely.
"Hey roll percentile dice, what'd ya get?" or "roll a six sider-what did you get?". I do that often enough just for the hell of it to keep them nervous.
I've had them roll up their own adventure using random tables for Dungeon World or OD&D , given myself 5 minutes of prep and run a improv game (pretty much Dungeon World is that anyway).
I'd have no problem using it as a default method for all games assuming it wouldn't make some the mechanics more cumbersome. Sometimes though, my groups prefer me to make all the normal DM rolls, especially if they are having a bad day rolling their Defense Rolls and such ;)
Quote from: HappyDaze;1125036There's no reason you have to fudge when you're rolling the dice. I throw in the open and play whatever rolls.
On occasion I will fudge dice rolls. I never feel that I have to, but for the sake of fun at the game table, I will fudge rolls very infrequently. (Only ever to the player's benefit- not mine)
Having the dice totally out of my control, and having the players totally in control , psychologically puts me in a different headspace that I like. I'm just a happy observer and now if the dice rolls are crap, they can't blame me ;)
Quote from: JeffB;1125016That said, I love it as DM/GM. Keeps me in the fictional groove of the game. When the players have their fate in their own hands, and all I do is interpret their dice rolls- I feel more like I'm a player as well- which is refreshing.
Interesting. It's just the opposite for me - as a GM, I was once "encouraged" by my players to handle all the dice and mechanics myself, rolling in secret and never mentioning any numbers or mechanical terminology, so that the players could more easily stay in their character mindsets without having to think about the game aspects. They really liked that, and so did I, aside from the occasional case of "really bad thing happens to a PC" when I wanted to show them the dice in order to absolve myself of responsibility for the disaster.
Quote from: JeffB;1125016It also gives me more of that "Judge/Referee" mentality- I feel more neutral because I'm no going to be fudging anything.
I'm neutral, regardless. I choose not to fudge because, if I did, then I would be taking responsibility for all the bad things that happen and I much prefer to be able to say "it's the dice's fault, not mine!"
Quote from: nDervish;1125247Interesting. It's just the opposite for me - as a GM, I was once "encouraged" by my players to handle all the dice and mechanics myself, rolling in secret and never mentioning any numbers or mechanical terminology, so that the players could more easily stay in their character mindsets without having to think about the game aspects. They really liked that, and so did I, aside from the occasional case of "really bad thing happens to a PC" when I wanted to show them the dice in order to absolve myself of responsibility for the disaster.
Ah the exact opposite. I think I would like to try this as well.
At the end of the day, I'll do what the players like/react to best (just as I choose what games/editions they react to best). I do have my own preferences though.
My 2 cents:
Ever since I've tried "GM never rolls" in Apocaypse/Dungeon World, I don't want to get back to rolling dice as a GM, and I try to infuse the method in every game I play.
If that makes or breakes an OSR? I don't care, really.
Having players roll everything ruins immersion for me (If I'm the player). This is because some outcomes I shouldn't be aware of.
I've been playing with the idea of Players rolling actions; GMs rolling outcomes.
Anything the players are actively doing, they roll for. They want to smash a foe with a club, they make an attack roll. They want to jump out of the way of trap, they make a dodge roll.
The GM determines the outcome by making a roll to determine the severity of the successful\failed action. So in the previous examples, the gm would roll to determine the damage caused by the club, or whether the trap kills or simply harms the character.
The whole idea behind it is to encourage players to think less about the mechanical impact of their actions so they can fully immerse themselves in the game. It's the GM who has to worry about the mechanics and implications of what has occurred.
Quote from: Lynn;1124773I was reading this review (https://rlyehreviews.blogspot.com/2020/03/far-future-dungeon-delving.html) 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?
No. No I wouldn't.
Until I came online I presumed that having both GMs (for the world) and players (for their actions) rolling in the open was standard practice.
Why would a GM hide their rolls unless they occasionally lie about the results? What other purpose does it have. If you're going to use dice, do it in front of people and accept the results.
Quote from: TimothyWestwind;1126596Until I came online I presumed that having both GMs (for the world) and players (for their actions) rolling in the open was standard practice.
Why would a GM hide their rolls unless they occasionally lie about the results? What other purpose does it have. If you're going to use dice, do it in front of people and accept the results.
Rolls for results for which the characters have no way of noticing: Wandering monster checks that don't produce anything (right now). Checks to find hidden things that may not be there or may not be found. And so forth. Also occasionally rolls that have no meaning, but are done to make the players wonder if you doing one of those former things.
Now, I keep that kind of thing to a minimum by, where possible, not making the roll until the characters can know. But there are times when to play it fair and consistently, I do need to know the result some time before the players do. For example, a wandering monster encounter turns up a stealthy creature that may very well react by avoiding the characters. The characters interaction with that can be non-existent, or a very slight sensation felt way out of range (vague brush movement in the distance) which turns up nothing even if investigated.
Quote from: TimothyWestwind;1126596Until I came online I presumed that having both GMs (for the world) and players (for their actions) rolling in the open was standard practice.
Why would a GM hide their rolls unless they occasionally lie about the results? What other purpose does it have. If you're going to use dice, do it in front of people and accept the results.
It's used to create tension and uncertainty, and avoid metagaming knowledge in situations where players wouldn't know the outcome for certain--usually perception (including Insight, Investigation or similar detection variants) or knowledge rolls. If you roll a perception check out in the open, for example, and it comes out high but you tell players they found nothing then they know for certain there's nothing when their characters really wouldn't know for sure. Making that type of rolls in secret keeps them guessing.
Quote from: TimothyWestwind;1126596Until I came online I presumed that having both GMs (for the world) and players (for their actions) rolling in the open was standard practice.
Why would a GM hide their rolls unless they occasionally lie about the results? What other purpose does it have. If you're going to use dice, do it in front of people and accept the results.
As I mentioned in post #43 on this thread, I had one group of players who pushed me to make all rolls and handle all mechanics in secret, without revealing any of the numerical results (even for rolls made on the players' behalf), so that they could focus more on in-character thought without being distracted by game mechanical details.
But it's also relevant to your point to mention that they only started asking for this after months of playing together where I did roll openly (for anything their characters would be aware of) and they could see that I
always took the die rolls as they were, with no fudging or "I don't like the result - roll again", so they trusted me to not lie about the results even if they weren't able to observe the rolls directly.
I would say that nominally, "The GM rolls everything" is slightly more feasible as OSR-acceptable than "The GM never rolls", but not by much.