The Gaming Den

In my new game, the players elect a representative, who plays a single round of RPS with the MC to see if they win. MC wins ties. The MC then tells a story that may, if the MC desires, have some relation to the RPS round. Or not. Whatever.

My game is the best, because the rules are super short, there's very little time spent on mechanical detail, and there's ZERO time spent rolling!

silva wrote:Ok Virgil, perhaps I overabstracted in my example. But consider the following:

3 PCs vs 3 NPCs.

In a trad game, the GM must do a series of rolls for each NPC, that may go from initiative rolls to attack rolls, defense rolls, damage rolls, etc. All this take time. On a AW-like "only players roll" concept, you dont do any of these rolls, because they are subsumed in the players rolls. So you cut time by half.

Got it now ?

No, you're the one not getting it. Having only players roll and having "only players roll" are extremely different concepts with different outcomes. Conflating the two is intellectual dishonesty on your part, or intellectual deficiency if you're not seeing where the disconnect is happening.

We have covered heavy abstraction in combat resolution before, and I advise that you go through the threads on this forum that have covered the subject in depth instead of trying to shill Apocalypse World yet again.

momothefiddler wrote:In my new game, the players elect a representative, who plays a single round of RPS with the MC to see if they win. MC wins ties. The MC then tells a story that may, if the MC desires, have some relation to the RPS round. Or not. Whatever.

My game is the best, because the rules are super short, there's very little time spent on mechanical detail, and there's ZERO time spent rolling!

RPS takes at least two seconds. Roll a d6. MC wins on 1-4, players win on 5-6. Keep everything else. I now demand 70 % of the profits.

Virgil wrote:No, you're the one not getting it. Having only players roll and having "only players roll" are extremely different concepts with different outcomes.

Im not denying it may be, Im just reminding you what the thread is about: the concept as seen in games like AW, Icons and Numenera.

Making players roll dice for NPCs and things like that is not what this thread is about.

silva wrote:Making players roll dice for NPCs and things like that is not what this thread is about.

silva wrote:What about the GM never rolling dice ? How would such a concept fair in a pretty trad percentile game like EP ?

Then maybe you should control yourself when it comes to asking questions?

@silva
This is page 4, after more than one topic change.
IOW, you're wrong.

silva wrote:

Virgil wrote:No, you're the one not getting it. Having only players roll and having "only players roll" are extremely different concepts with different outcomes.

Im not denying it may be, Im just reminding you what the thread is about: the concept as seen in games like AW, Icons and Numenera.

Making players roll dice for NPCs and things like that is not what this thread is about.

You're just a paid shill for apoc world, right? Because once again, you post something indicating your extreme lack of knowledge about apoc world.
It's almost a coincidence in Apocalypse World that the GM never rolls dice, not fundamental to the system. If you're designing a new game based on Apocalypse World, there's no reason why you couldn't give NPCs moves for spellcasting like you'd give to PCs.

radthemad4 wrote:

momothefiddler wrote:In my new game, the players elect a representative, who plays a single round of RPS with the MC to see if they win. MC wins ties. The MC then tells a story that may, if the MC desires, have some relation to the RPS round. Or not. Whatever.

My game is the best, because the rules are super short, there's very little time spent on mechanical detail, and there's ZERO time spent rolling!

RPS takes at least two seconds. Roll a d6. MC wins on 1-4, players win on 5-6. Keep everything else. I now demand 70 % of the profits.

No, no, no!

That game has infinity times more die rolling and is thus infinity times less good.

momothefiddler wrote:In my new game, the players elect a representative, who plays a single round of RPS with the MC to see if they win. MC wins ties. The MC then tells a story that may, if the MC desires, have some relation to the RPS round. Or not. Whatever.

My game is the best, because the rules are super short, there's very little time spent on mechanical detail, and there's ZERO time spent rolling!

Your game isn't nearly cinematic enough. My group runs around pointing at each other and yelling, "Bang!"

momothefiddler wrote:In my new game, the players elect a representative, who plays a single round of RPS with the MC to see if they win. MC wins ties. The MC then tells a story that may, if the MC desires, have some relation to the RPS round. Or not. Whatever.

My game is the best, because the rules are super short, there's very little time spent on mechanical detail, and there's ZERO time spent rolling!

Variant to speed up gameplay.

The player plays rps against themselves. Left hand is mc right is player.

Krusk wrote:

momothefiddler wrote:In my new game, the players elect a representative, who plays a single round of RPS with the MC to see if they win. MC wins ties. The MC then tells a story that may, if the MC desires, have some relation to the RPS round. Or not. Whatever.

My game is the best, because the rules are super short, there's very little time spent on mechanical detail, and there's ZERO time spent rolling!

Variant to speed up gameplay.

The player plays rps against themselves. Left hand is mc right is player.

Too many motions. Let the players decide what kind of game they want, and decide what they will always throw (rock, paper, or scissors). The MC can then challenge their throw with his own every time they want to 'do' something, determining the difficulty by choosing whether it's a Rock scenario or a Scissors or something.

silva wrote:

Virgil wrote:No, you're the one not getting it. Having only players roll and having "only players roll" are extremely different concepts with different outcomes.

Im not denying it may be, Im just reminding you what the thread is about: the concept as seen in games like AW, Icons and Numenera.

Making players roll dice for NPCs and things like that is not what this thread is about.

They tried putting AW mechanics into D&D, and your opinion on the results are already well-known. You have said you found them "flavorless", which is exactly what happens when monsters don't have agency. Of course there's no flavor when "the beholder waggles its eyestalks at you, what do you do" is functionally identical to "the goblin waggles its sword at you, what do you do".

Give Numenera a read, you'll see its the exact same crap. There's none of the sci-fi naturalism you'd get from something like the Alien trilogy, instead you get Mass Effect where everyone shoots neon at each other until one side dies of HP attrition, because nothing is mechanically differentiated.

Sakuya wrote: which is exactly what happens when monsters don't have agency. Of course there's no flavor when "the beholder waggles its eyestalks at you, what do you do" is functionally identical to "the goblin waggles its sword at you, what do you do".

Sakuya, if the game manages to make the behaviours and effects of those enemies distinct, I dont see a problem. Ie: it mechanicaly depicts the Goblin as a poisoning and fragile bastard, and the Beholder an agressive and tough petrifying-ray caster.

The fact you dont need to roll for those monsters actions doesnt mean those actions need to be identical in effects and flavour.

Sakuya Izayoi wrote:
They tried putting AW mechanics into D&D, and your opinion on the results are already well-known. You have said you found them "flavorless", which is exactly what happens when monsters don't have agency. Of course there's no flavor when "the beholder waggles its eyestalks at you, what do you do" is functionally identical to "the goblin waggles its sword at you, what do you do".

Give Numenera a read, you'll see its the exact same crap. There's none of the sci-fi naturalism you'd get from something like the Alien trilogy, instead you get Mass Effect where everyone shoots neon at each other until one side dies of HP attrition, because nothing is mechanically differentiated.

So players rolling all the dice is why Alien is better than Mass Effect?

Yeah, that doesnt make any sense at all.

Pot, kettle.

I'll just say it's a bad, tangential analogy now, rather than trying to force it.

But what I was thinking at the time, was how "grounded" a setting feels, and part of that is the antagonists having stat blocks that can be compared to the PCs. A balor is scary because it plays by the same rules as PCs, but also has mechanical advantages against low level characters that can't just be overcome by "engaging the fiction". What I probably forgot to say, is that a Xenomorph can be equally scary. Some of that comes from the "fiction", IE being able to capitalize on certain environments that are dark, labyrinthine, and full of nooks and crannies, but also mechanical ones that it needs to be able to roll dice to really employ, like being able to win initiative against troops without motion detectors, and using distractions to win initiative against those do.

Forgetting ME, I'll just use Numenera directly. Enemies are basically a skill check. The difference between a mook and a Deathbot 9000 is basically the DC. You could say that, because the mook's guns hurt you, and the deathbot's death ray disintegrates you, they have mechanical differences, but considering the onus is on the GM to be "fair", your players will riot if they can't "cleverly" defeat the deathbot without being in fear of disintegration. When the logical assumption might be in a game where the deathbot can roll dice, is that you should probably run.

Sakuya wrote:What I probably forgot to say, is that a xenomorph can be equally scary. Some of that comes from the "fiction", IE being able to capitalize on certain environments that are dark, labyrinthine, and full of nooks and crannies, but also mechanical ones that it needs to be able to roll dice to really employ, like being able to win initiative against troops without motion detectors, and using distractions to win initiative against those do.

How is that any different from a game that simply applies effects directly without asking for rolls, or applies its effects as consequence to players own rolls ?

Forgetting ME, I'll just use Numenera directly. Enemies are basically a skill check. The difference between a mook and a Deathbot 9000 is basically the DC.

If the only difference between enemies is the type of damage, then I agree with you. But - dont take me wrong - I find it hard to believe thats really true and theres no other differentiating aspects in place.

but considering the onus is on the GM to be "fair", your players will riot if they can't "cleverly" defeat the deathbot without being in fear of disintegration. When the logical assumption might be in a game where the deathbot can roll dice, is that you should probably run.

But there is a dice roll, only its the players doing it, not the GM.

Under the default 40k RPG rules (Deathwatch) your character has an attack roll (for example Melee Skill) and if you succeed, your opponent has a chance to avoid the blow (Dodge or Parry).

The problem is, the avoid chance isn't directly related to opponent skill in any way, shape, or form. It is d 100 roll low. If your Melee Skill is 99 and you roll a 1 (best sucess) and your opponent has a Dodge of 33, he has a 33% chance to avoid the blow. If you roll a 98 on your attack, he still has just as much of a chance to avoid.

The thing is, he also has that same chance if the worst swordsman in the universe attacks him. If your WS is 10 and you manage to roll a hit, your opponent is no more likely to avoid your attack than if you were the best swordsman.

Essentially, because these checks are independent of the opposition, they are unsatisfying. Players want their skill to matter, and they also want their opponents skill to matter .

I agree with you Deaddm. But I suspect Numenera takes opposing skill into account for players rolls. No ?

I had a look in Numenera, I had some things wrong.

Enemies have initiative, in the form of a static TN that you can either roll over (faster) or over (slower).

Attacks can deal more than one kind of damage, either Might, Speed, or Intellect. So I suppose a Mind Flayer is different from an orc of equal level.

So I will admit I was wrong about "only players rolls" as it applies in Numenera, and would be as interested as you if someone had actual play info from running Numenera's mechanics as a hack.

Sakuya, thats my point: all "GM never rolls dice" games I know are like that (aka: provide enough differentiation among opposition as to make fictionally distinct enemies also mechanically distinct), from Numenera to Icons to AW, etc. And all them tend to make gameplay faster because of it.

But yeah, I would like to see Numenera in practice too.