Board RolePlaying?

[Sarra]

agrarvyn said:

I know I had the strangest feeling about honour dice rolls, because suddenly natural 20s were no longer amazing. You had to mention that you rolled a natural 20, the most unbelievable die roll possible, and trust that they would believe you, especially if said die roll was all that stood between you and certain death!

I know exactly what you mean. The honor system can be a pain. But there is no other way to do it that I know of unless you have the code to do something like we had over at the LWRPGoL.

Maybe KL would know. Is it possible to do that again?

[zipp]

sarra said:

agrarvyn said:

I know I had the strangest feeling about honour dice rolls, because suddenly natural 20s were no longer amazing. You had to mention that you rolled a natural 20, the most unbelievable die roll possible, and trust that they would believe you, especially if said die roll was all that stood between you and certain death!

I know exactly what you mean. The honor system can be a pain. But there is no other way to do it that I know of unless you have the code to do something like we had over at the LWRPGoL.

Maybe KL would know. Is it possible to do that again?

Possibly the best way would just be to have the GM do all the rolls. If you can't trust your GM, who CAN you trust?

[Agrarvyn]

Of course you can't trust the GM, but if he says it happened, it happened. Trust is not required

[Sarra]

zipp said:

sarra said:

I know exactly what you mean. The honor system can be a pain. But there is no other way to do it that I know of unless you have the code to do something like we had over at the LWRPGoL.

Maybe KL would know. Is it possible to do that again?

Possibly the best way would just be to have the GM do all the rolls. If you can't trust your GM, who CAN you trust?

That is one solution. But as a player it is nice to think that you have some control of your fate.

[Maerin]

My experience with play-by-post is that it does not matter, except in terms of impact to the quality of the game (which is generally measurable more by its impact on the GM than each of the players).

The only perceptible difference I have observed between having a GM roll everything and having the players each roll their own dice (or somewhere in-between) is that the latter involves more work for the GM...sometimes A LOT more work ("A Twist In Time" would have been virtually impossible to run had the GM made all the dice rolls). Honestly, more often than not, creating more work for a GM in any game, play-by-post or otherwise, generally results in a negative impact on the quality of the game. That impact may not be much and, I concur, beggers are rarely choosy. But not much is not quite the same as none, and that not much can add up to a GM calling it quits on a game much quicker than her or she might otherwise have done.

There are other arguements for and against, regarding this topic. A recent arguement I read elsewhere suggested that it was easier for the GM to do all the die rolling for the purposes of introducing new people to RPGs. I can see some merit to that arguement. I regularly demo RPGs for newcomer gamers at conventions and such, and so have regularly seen people initially swamped by game mechanics and the like (heck, many did not even have the necessary dice). But there is a limit, and I have to question the validity of that in a more sustaining context. It's one thing to be running a short 4-hour convention game session for newcomers who has no knowledge of game or setting, and perhaps no dice. But the goal of running such a session is always to carry them forward and away from that lack. After all, how else is someone going to learn how to play a game if they do not practice? Perhaps more importantly, how are they ever going to transition to people who might eventually run games themselves (don't knock that particular consideration until you give some thought to where my point of view might be coming from as a person who ends up running far more games than he ever plays). We have enough computer games out there to "spoon-feed" existing and new gamers; I prefer to see my players as the age and intelligence that they actually are.

Former players of "A Twist In Time" have seen examples of what I am talking about here. The players of Mind Blade/Dusk, Celestia, and Black Willow were all relative beginners at any d20 game system, were completely ignorant of the Lone Wolf setting, and yet it took a relatively small degree of help and guidance from the GM and two of those three players were able to play 19th level characters fairly effectively (the third never had the chance to join the game before the site went down in January). And that did not involve the GM rolling dice for anybody, save in specific instances that had more to do with GM, rather than player, knowledge "in game".

And that brings me to the point of view that most often supports the ideas of a GM rolling all the dice or needing some sort of online dice roller (though it is the point of view few like to explicitly point out because it is insulting and rightly so): lack of trust of the players. I have very little to say to that, except that my experience suggests that most players are good players. If they did not want to play the game the way it was meant to be played, they probably would not bother at all. It's easier to enter a cheat code into a computer game than it is create a "living" character. Players that willing to cheat themselves out of fun are more likely nowadays to take that easier path away from play-by-post RPGs where such cheating requires more work than it truly yields in benefit. That is even more true when one is talking about running a play-by-post on a site dedicated to an established/published setting. If one did not enjoy the Lone Wolf setting, one would not be here at all (and one certainly would probably not remain long-term). Why expect that people who respect and enjoy a setting that much to do something that will harm both their respect and enjoyment of a setting as well as those of all else involved in the game (or watching the game from the outside)?

[Balgin Stondraeg]

sarra said:

agrarvyn said:

I know I had the strangest feeling about honour dice rolls, because suddenly natural 20s were no longer amazing. You had to mention that you rolled a natural 20, the most unbelievable die roll possible, and trust that they would believe you, especially if said die roll was all that stood between you and certain death!

I know exactly what you mean. The honor system can be a pain. But there is no other way to do it that I know of unless you have the code to do something like we had over at the LWRPGoL.

Maybe KL would know. Is it possible to do that again?

The GM rolls all the dice. Seriously, if people forget about the numbers and simply enjoy the roleplaying then the GM has to handle all the numbers. It does lead to some nicer roleplaying 'though when stuff's an unknown quantity. Either people get nervous and edgey or they just take risks anyway since they need to geuss the odds based on sensual feedback provided by the GM.

[Sarra]

balgin said:

sarra said:

I know exactly what you mean. The honor system can be a pain. But there is no other way to do it that I know of unless you have the code to do something like we had over at the LWRPGoL.

Maybe KL would know. Is it possible to do that again?

The GM rolls all the dice. Seriously, if people forget about the numbers and simply enjoy the roleplaying then the GM has to handle all the numbers. It does lead to some nicer roleplaying 'though when stuff's an unknown quantity. Either people get nervous and edgey or they just take risks anyway since they need to geuss the odds based on sensual feedback provided by the GM.

True. Like I said, it wasn't a problem in the game I did with Zipp. In any event, if KL wants me to set up the board I can. I can also help moderate it, no problem.

[zipp]

Maerin has a point about adding work to the GM's already heavy load.

However, I'd like to see a GM do away with a fair bit of the rules and make rolls only when neccesary. I think RPGs have too many rules.

[fallingphoenix]

I'm actually running a Star Wars game on RPOL (under the old WEG system, if it matters ) and don't tell my players, but I don't very often roll for the bad-guys...I just kind of judge by the player's roll and the relative skill of the bad guys and good ideas on the players' parts and dramatic timing...

Seems to be working so far!

Not sure if that's very helpful or relative to the conversation at hand...
Although, I do agree that most players can be trusted with their die rolls...

FP, master of many fates.

[Sarra]

Good to see you got the avatar okay and that it works, FP.

[Beowuuf]

I have your banner linked on the avatar thread too if you want it!

I think players making their own rolls is good psychologically as part of the game element, but personally I'd like to secretly opposed roll it anyway, just to temper a good roll (natural 20s happen one time in twenty for goodness sake!) or mitigate a bad roll - yes, you perfectly perceived someone's ativity, sadly that draws an eronious conclusion! Or yes, you might have totally forgot that piece of knowledge, but it does stir memories about this other thing...

[Balgin Stondraeg]

beowuuf said:

(natural 20s happen one time in twenty for goodness sake!)

One of the experimental hosue rules I considered using was to allow the players to pick whatever number they want the die to roll without needing to roll it. The reason I'd allow them total freedom is that they'd need to roll all the other numbers on that die before they were allowed the same one again.

So they'd have all the numbers from 1 to 4, 1 to 6, 1 to 8 etc written down for each die and cross them off as they used them. Once all the numbers on a single die type had been used they could start with a new one that had all the numbers on it.

That way people could get the good numbers when they needed them but they'd need to decide when they could afford low numbers too. I'm not sure how it would've worked out because I never got round to using it yet.

[Sarra]

balgin said:

beowuuf said:

(natural 20s happen one time in twenty for goodness sake!)

One of the experimental hosue rules I considered using was to allow the players to pick whatever number they want the die to roll without needing to roll it. The reason I'd allow them total freedom is that they'd need to roll all the other numbers on that die before they were allowed the same one again.

So they'd have all the numbers from 1 to 4, 1 to 6, 1 to 8 etc written down for each die and cross them off as they used them. Once all the numbers on a single die type had been used they could start with a new one that had all the numbers on it.

That way people could get the good numbers when they needed them but they'd need to decide when they could afford low numbers too. I'm not sure how it would've worked out because I never got round to using it yet.

Never thought of doing it that way... It could work in theory. I kind of like the idea of the GM keeping all of the rolls behind screen better. I like it because it focuses more on the role-playing aspect of role-playing instead of dice-rolling.

[Maerin]

With respect for those who may not share my view, it is my opinion that the semi-mythical "allergy" of "roll-playing" (in contrast to "true" roleplaying, a term that does mean different things for different people) is one of the most blown-out-of-proportion "threats" to one's enjoyment of a game. I am frequently reminded of George W. Bush's speeches on terrorism, and not the least because "roll-playing" is also used as sole justification for many of the most ridiculous rules and game designs one finds out there.

If one is under the illusion that eliminating dice-rolling will elevate roleplaying, one has only to wander around World of Warcraft (or pretty much any other MMORPG) for a bit to see that idea proved unequivably erroneous. The reality is roleplaying is a skill, one that has to be learned and then developed. Now it does not take much effort or imagination or intelligence to learn and develop, mind you; but it equally does not come automatically. Anyone who tells you otherwise is likely trying to sell you something...

[Maerin]

balgin said:

So they'd have all the numbers from 1 to 4, 1 to 6, 1 to 8 etc written down for each die and cross them off as they used them. Once all the numbers on a single die type had been used they could start with a new one that had all the numbers on it.

It seemed like it worked okay for game systems using similar mechanics, like the old TSR/WotC SAGA system (which, admittedly, was somewhat different in that it used hands of cards so players did not have automatic access to all possible numbers).

The only places where I have seen something similar work reasonably well, however, were single-roll resolution systems where the number of dice involved in that single roll was a small number (preferably one). I think the idea would work less well for games like d20, which tend to call for sequences of dice rolls (such as attack roll followed by a damage roll), or games like Shadowrun or World of Darkness systems (old and new), which call for a dice pool that may have anywhere from a couple dice of one type to upwards of 20 or more dice rolled. It also may not work real well in a game system where dice are rolled and the highest number in the dice set is taken as the result (a game like Ironclaw/Jadeclaw).