In the typical RPG model, players roll dice for antagonists, and GMs roll for everything else. Some systems have options in place to either reduce or remove the need for the GM to roll dice. If a PC attacks, the player rolls to hit; if a PC is attacked, the player rolls to defend. This is player facing. Two systems come to mind for this: Cinematic Unisystem and Ubiquity. They go about it in slightly different ways.
Cinematic Unisystem, the engine behind Eden Studios' licensed properties like Army of Darkness and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, breaks the game's stats down into three scores (by combining stats and adding an average die roll), which provide the check number and target number for anything affecting the NPC in question. To paraphrase my friend Thomas Deeny, the GM and the players are essentially playing two different games. The method Cinematic Unisystem uses could be adapted to a lot of games. In fact, D&D 4E and Star Wars Saga Edition use a similar philosophy to come to its Defense numbers (which replaced the original d20 Saving Throws)--attribute bonuses plus average die roll.
Ubiquity uses a dice pool system with very simple math behind it--each die has a 50% chance of success--so you know if your dice pool is 10, for instance, your average roll will bring five successes. Since the core mechanic is opposed rolls, it's easy to see how a GM would never have to roll. Even if there's an odd number of dice (in which case, Ubiquity rules you just roll one die to find out which way it goes), the GM can simply choose to round in a direction based on the situation--it's basically one more way a GM can set difficulty.
Not all systems can be made to work this way without extensive modification. For instance, no system with exploding dice could be modified to work this way easily. It would just make for too many wonky situations. Systems with no opposed roll mechanics--or at least target numbers derived from theoretical opposed rolls--are also off the table if one is looking for easy conversion to this resolution method.
I'm a fan of player-facing rolls because I find dice-rolling more enjoyable as a player than as a GM. Also, it really does help a system get out of the way of a story and gives the GM much more control over the pacing at the table. Few things slow a table down like waiting for the GM to roll for a bunch of attacks or defenses. And in the case of games with an opposed roll mechanic, it cuts the total number of dice rolls in half. Finally, games without the wild factor of GM rolls tend to be easier to prepare for.
If your system of choice lends itself to this type of change, or if you have a chance to try a new system, I recommend giving player-facing rolls a try.
I first saw this model used in Dragonlance Saga: FIFTH AGE. It was before Buffy, even, and when I saw it used in Buffy I thought "somebody else liked that, then!"
ReplyDeleteThat brings me back! I never got to use the Fifth Age rules (I definitely read them) because my players at the time dismissed it as a total heresy, to Dragonlance and gaming in general.
ReplyDeleteI was going to bring up Saga too, only I was going to mention the Marvel version, which had some really revolutionary features. Great post Ron. I agree that I find dice rolling as a player way more fun than I do in the GM roll. By moving ownership of some processes into the player sphere, the GM has way more time to think on her/his feet and bring awesome challenges to bear.
ReplyDeleteGood Blog, I had not considered systems like this. You are right, it takes a lot off the hands of the GM's hands and gets it out of the way of the story.
ReplyDeleteAnother effect I see is that it takes the adversarial notion of GM vs. player in many games. Some GMs really struggle with being fair while at the same time being challenging to the players. Meanwhile, players see the GM and not the NPCs as their adversary. With the players rolling the dice all the time, they just have the dice to blame.
Seawolf,I had not considered the change in perception on the player side. Very interesting! In addition, it may make players think more strategically since the GM "can't save them."
ReplyDeleteEveryone, again, thanks for reading this!
Player perception is actually the part of this style of system/play I wonder about. Removing the "GM adversarial" idea seems like a good thing, but is it always?
ReplyDeleteRon mentions that players may think more strategically since the GM can't save them, but isn't the flip side of that the loss of GM influence on the mechanics and by extension, the story.
Or to look at it another way, playing such that if things go wrong the players have only "the dice to blame" couldn't the GM be viewed as more culpable for choosing to run a system where important points can fail simply due to a randomizer which by definition will be random.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to perception, and how two people can look at the same thing and sometimes see it completely differently.
Interesting concept. I gotta say I do like rolling the dice as a GM, especially when you grab a whole bunch of them and watch the player's eyes light up!
ReplyDeleteNO ONE CARES, RON, THIS IS THE WORST BLOG EVER TO SEW A LACE DOILY
ReplyDeleteI mean, hey, it's Jason, interesting article, lol.
You can also contrast this to resource-allocation games like the Marvel Universe RPG where we all have a pile of energy stones and by moving them around to match/beat each other in different areas, we affect the story.