I was recently GMing a game using the Polymorph system for the first time. One "feature" of the system is that the GM never rolls dice. They don't roll to hit for enemies, the player rolls to dodge. They don't roll to deal damage the characters, the players roll to resist their wounds. The rulebook was quite insistent, even in bold text, that the GM never rolled dice.This got me thinking of another trend I've seen in semi-recent games like 10 Candles. They advertise themselves as "zero prep" games. The GM shouldn't come up with a story, location, or anything else beforehand. It should all come up in the course of play.These trends both seem really weird to me. As someone who prefers GMing to playing, I LIKE rolling dice, and I LIKE preparing beforehand. And mechanics like these seem to treat the GM as only an accessory to everyone else's fun, as if we're just here for the players and nothing else.Wanted to see what everyone else thinks. Do you like rolling dice or doing prep as a GM? Are there any games you don't find fun to GM for mechanical reasons like these?
Obligatory, and sincere, "DnD 5e" answerBeyond that, I find the no-GM-roll games neat from a novelty perspective, but I have no desire to run them. I played co-op Symbaroum with a buddy using Mythic as a GM emulator and we basically did genre improv, which was fun. I don't know if I'd wanna sit there and not roll anything for hours unless there was a story going that seemed so cool that I was actually able to just watch the players entertain themselves using the game I set out for them, which I'm not sure Symbaroum can really pull off. Cool setting and rules otherwise, but almost certainly not a megacampaign sort of system or setting
>>97979001Any RPG where players are allowed to describe events is automatically hell to a GM because now his job of keeping the world consistent in his head has become impossible by definition. I never run or play games like that.
>>97979180The halfway point is games like L5R where the players can put a spin on things without breaking everything, and the GM still has the final say. If it's too much, you can always say no. GMing games like that is fun for the GM because then you're really reacting to what happens at the table, and there's space for a lot of things to surprise you, so you look forward to seeing what comes next.As for games that I don't like to run...games that introduce concepts but then don't have clear rules for them. Then you have to stop everything, come up with shit on the fly, gloss over or whatever, and then you need to come up with a subsystem yourself later. I found myself in this position when a player wanted to make drugs to sell in Cyberpunk 2020, rules in the core are barebones, and we couldn't find anything more in depth. The rest of the system is solid.I tried an almost zero GM rolling system with eyes beyond the torchlight and it was still pretty fun, you just focus on keeping the ball rolling, I can see how they could be good for some newbie GMs that could be overwhelmed by both having to juggle what's happening during the game and the crunch itself, especially when they still don't know the rules by heart.All in all I must say that most system I tried were decent to me, mainly because if I look into a system and don't like it, I'm not gonna GM it anyway.
>>97979001The merit I see in a 'player always rolls' system is that it does a better job of making sure the players are paying attention and participating.The player gets attacked, and they have to actively pick up a dice and do something about it, instead of just sitting there waiting for the GM to tell them how much damage it is. That's all something that I can see a practical reason behind.Similarly, there are some very rules-lite games that I've had a good time with that use that sort of approach. Ghost/Echo is one I'd point to where it basically is just a list of names and a resolution mechanic and relies on the GM and players to decide what the world actually is. And I think that works because it doesn't really have mechanics centered around answering those questions. The games I've tried where they put a lot of structure on who answers questions when just tends to ruin it. Because then there's less free-flowing creativity, and more stopping to make sure everyone has a turn and every question gets answered.
>>979791555e took a little more work for me to understand then I expected considering how everyone treats it like a gateway system, but after a few small hurdles it's actually become one of the easiest for me to run, especially with brand new players.The key really was just that 5e lowballed the fuck out of the CRs, and also that if groups have a mix of people who regain most of their stuff on either short or long rests, you really need to escalate how difficult it is to rest. If they're all on the same clock there's no need, but with a mixed group you need to make rests risky. Aside from that, 5e is one of the best supported games for a DM, and especially the amount of online tools at your disposal makes it really easy to do just about everything.
GURPSThere's too much shit to remember and prep to doBUT it's still a great game, just that someone with a better memory than myself should be GM
>>97979001I'm a prep-heavy GM but I really like not rolling dice. It forces all consequential rolls into the open, which keeps me honest. It offloads one source of cognitive load onto the players (I have enough to do without adding numbers together even if the arithmetic is easy, just saves me brain space). It doesn't stop me rolling on tables for myself (e.g. loot) or choosing things at random (e.g. targeting PCs with attacks or the like). It lowers the "swing" in the system a little if there are no opposed rolls. It means the players feel ownership over all the big upsets from the dice: the main villain never whiffs his roll, it's always a heroic party or block from a hero. It also lead to me trying a couple of alternative initiative methods, one of which (popcorn) I now stuck with. Not only did I like it a lot when I first tried it, I'm now considering converting my usual generic system to a no-GM-roll mode.
>>97979001I agree w/ your assessments. Although the "no rolling for the GM" could probably be done well w/ some gimmicks. Like if the GM had point pools or a hand of cards or something, to add some other element of unpredictability into GMing that gives me a chance to also "play."The "no prep ever, sandbox only!" bullshit also annoys me, and I think your suggestion prolly takes that to an even further extreme. Prepping is my part of the game. I have no interest in that style of game.
>>97979249I love being the DM. Ive DM'd more campaigns than Ive played it. I just cannot imagine not rolling dice as the DM. In 3.5 and 4e I had so much fun designing the world eve. Though my players only explored 10% of it.
>>97979289I see what you mean about it making the players pay attention, but that still feels like it’s at the expense of the GM having fun. It’s getting the GM out of the way as much as possible, so they inherently have less to do. One reason I love GMing is that I have no downtime. No having to wait until it’s my turn to do something. It’s constant action and interaction.
>>97980757>but that still feels like it’s at the expense of the GM having funI guess I don't quite see it that way. Like, yeah, it's fun to roll dice sometimes, but it's a very tertiary aspect of what makes GMing enjoyable.To put it another way, are you not having fun as a GM when you tell a player to make a saving throw, and letting them know they got some status condition when they fail? There's still no rolling involved on the GM's part when that happens, but they're still interacting throughout the process, because they're the one telling the players what they need to roll and what happens as a result. Granted, some games probably have varying levels of how hands-off they want the GM to be, but simply having all the rolls be player-side isn't exactly a problem by itself.
>>97980757It's about offloading busywork so the GM has more time and attention for GMing. You don't have to think it works or even that it's desirable, but it's pretty obvious that's the point. Because the GM having "constant action and interaction" means they're the bottleneck.
ACKsLargely due to the fact that I consider any system where I would have to set up a spreadsheet to run it to be unfun. Getting to play it would be cool though.
>>97980780>>97980802Dice rolling as a GM means there’s an unknown/random factor to the story for me. I don’t know how everything is going to go because even the bad guys could fail spectacularly. A lot is written about how failure is more interesting than success in RPGs and I think it adds to the experience that even the villains could colossally fuck up and create an opportunity for the players. By having only the players roll, success and failure is only expressed through the player characters and the bad guys are just generally competent unless I choose to make them screw something up.
>>97980757...okay but conversely the fact that you get to constantly have things to do also means the traditional method is to give the dm fun at the expense of the players. You're just arguing that your fun is more important than the other people who spend a lot of time sitting around.
>>97982074Sounds like you're just doubling down on "I don't like it therefore it's bad" rather than acknowledge the very obvious upsides.Most of the time there is no practical difference between enemies failing and heroes succeeding. Orienting mechanics around that distinction does not seem worthwhile.
>>97982179You know what? Fair enough.>>97982817I mean, I'm not saying it's objectively bad. I am arguing from a personal point of view here that I don't have fun when it's that style.
>>97984261>I'm not saying it's objectively bad. I am arguing from a personal point of view here that I don't have fun when it's that styleYou're not allowed to have a nuanced take. If your tastes are even slightly different than mine, then that's a personal attack on me. You're stupid, and my dad could beat up your dad.
>>97979001The point of 10 candles specifically is that the group does it togetherIt’d be stupid to do prep because you wouldn’t be the one deciding things in the first place. It’s a different kind of game
>>97979249Not that I’m terribly familiar with cyberpunk 2020 specifically, but having definite rules for everything is kinda antithetical to ttrpgs in the first place, particularly the role of the GM. There’s so much minutia that you’re never going to be able to have rules for every possible thing that’s going to come up - you’re either going to have to arbitrate, or you’re better off playing a video game where everything that doesn’t have rules simply isn’t allowed. You have to “come up with shit on the fly” - that’s the whole point of you being there. In your particular example - was it really that hard to come up with [the player needs to find suppliers for materials, needs to acquire chemistry equipment or something that approximates them, and needs to pass some kind of check to actually produce the drugs, wasting materials and time on a failure]? That’s so routine of a thing that I wouldn’t think it’s worth mentioning.
>>97979295>lowballedFrankly i find it to be the opposite - they tend to vastly overestimate the strength of monsters with their CRs. Usually I have to go a lot stronger to provide good encounters. >>97980757Rolling dice is not what I’d find fun about GM-ing. As others have said it’s more an aspect of busywork than anything else, so I’m not inherently opposed to offloading that onto players>>97982074There’s literally no difference between a player rolling to block and a monster rolling to attack. When it’s a hit you can narrate it either way - the monster being especially strong or the player letting their guard down. Same thing with misses. You could do this before>>97984261> that I don't have fun when it's that style.Yeah that’s fine. But you gave a stated reason why you don’t have fun - if myself (and other anons) see that reason and are telling you it doesn’t make sense, that’s a good thing for you. It means you might be able to expand the ways you can have fun by thinking a bit differently
>>97984261>I mean, I'm not saying it's objectively badIt sure sounded like it.>>97980757>feels like it’s at the expense of the GM having fun>It’s getting the GM out of the way as much as possible
