The "Hidden Rolling" thread brought an idea to mind, to wit the titular question:

Can the mechanics be shifted to put all rolls completely in the PC's hands?
Switch NPC attacks around (which is all I'l be rolling) so the PCs are rolling, but not just they roll for "the attack" instead of the GM, but rather they are rolling their "defense".

Example under the standard rules; a Stormtrooper Minion group 3 string has an attack of 1A2C with Ranged (Heavy), a PC at the Medium range band have a defense of 2D plus any Armor or defenses (we'll say the PC took light Cover and have no better armor, so 1S).

Normally the GM would be rolling 1A 2P 2D 1S . (1A2P2D1S)

With my idea the Player instead would roll 2A 1B 1D 2C . (2A1B1D2C)

And then instead of dealing damage based on Successes, and trying to use Disadvantages and Despairs in the PC's favor (and the Advantages and Triumphs against them), you deal damage based on Failures, and use Disadvantages and Despairs against the PCs (as per every other die roll) and they get to apply Advantages and Triumphs (as per usual).



This is mostly a thought experiment, I'm not sure the weight of the dice support this sort of shift. But what do you guys think?

I've never seen anything to be gained by putting all of the dice in the players' hands. If the game was originally written that way, then go for it, but I just don't see it as being worth the time to re-engineer.

the statistics of the faces of the dice are different by design

setback =/= boost

ability =/= difficulty

challenge =/= proficiency

this is a great article written by the amazing jay little

http://gsa.thegamernation.org/2013/01/16/nerd-numbers-terminal-outcomes/

Can the mechanics be shifted to put all rolls completely in the PC's hands?

Switch NPC attacks around (which is all I'l be rolling) so the PCs are rolling, but not just they roll for "the attack" instead of the GM, but rather they are rolling their "defense".

Sure, everything you suggested should work fine. There is almost no mechanical difference between rolling the NPC's attack versus the PC's defense or the PC's defense versus the NPC's attack. Mechanically, the two approaches are virtually identical.

Although, as New Zombie mentioned, there is a subtle mathematical difference since the positive and negative dice are not exact mirrors of one another. They're close, but not exact .

But as long as that subtle difference isn't enough to bother you, then your idea shouldn't pose any problems.

I've never seen anything to be gained by putting all of the dice in the players' hands. If the game was originally written that way, then go for it, but I just don't see it as being worth the time to re-engineer.

Also, this was a thoguth experiment... though OverMatt may have sold me...

Although, as New Zombie mentioned, there is a subtle mathematical difference since the positive and negative dice are not exact mirrors of one another. They're close, but not exact .

Maybe I should have been clearer (likely), but that's the part of this I'm questioning. I'm all for never picking up another die again as a GM, but if the system would "unfavorably" balance things in the Players favor...

Hah. What am I saying. There is no problem with that. If it looks like things are going too easily I'll just throw more Difficulty/Challenge/Setback dice at them.

i hope my post didn't come off as dismissive.

i very much believe that people can do whatever they want with the rules at their table.

i have a preference for making succinct posts, sometimes that can come off as curt.

The "Hidden Rolling" thread brought an idea to mind, to wit the titular question:

Can the mechanics be shifted to put all rolls completely in the PC's hands?

Switch NPC attacks around (which is all I'l be rolling) so the PCs are rolling, but not just they roll for "the attack" instead of the GM, but rather they are rolling their "defense".

Example under the standard rules; a Stormtrooper Minion group 3 string has an attack of 1A2C with Ranged (Heavy), a PC at the Medium range band have a defense of 2D plus any Armor or defenses (we'll say the PC took light Cover and have no better armor, so 1S).

Normally the GM would be rolling 1A 2P 2D 1S . (1A2P2D1S)

With my idea the Player instead would roll 2A 1B 1D 2C . (2A1B1D2C)

And then instead of dealing damage based on Successes, and trying to use Disadvantages and Despairs in the PC's favor (and the Advantages and Triumphs against them), you deal damage based on Failures, and use Disadvantages and Despairs against the PCs (as per every other die roll) and they get to apply Advantages and Triumphs (as per usual).

This is mostly a thought experiment, I'm not sure the weight of the dice support this sort of shift. But what do you guys think?

It looks workable and shouldn't throw balance out much so I don't think you'd have to make more than the usual course corrections with opposition.

However, I fear this would damage the vital feeling of GM vs. Players that rolling dice against each other normally engenders.

whoa - curt can look like a really rough word when you quickly glance at it.

i hope my post didn't come off as dismissive.

As in "This guy mentioned the weights being different, here's my 2 cents on that angle", without all those words.

However, I fear this would damage the vital feeling of GM vs. Players that rolling dice against each other normally engenders.

Have I mentioned he's repeatedly started campaigns by gunning down my character as the opener?

(Mostly so he could use that as the "hook/rails" to get the group together against a common foe or at least force my... more oddly built and harder to motivate characters to go the mission. Also, he knows I won't mind, as long as it doesn't end up altering the character.)

I've never seen anything to be gained by putting all of the dice in the players' hands. If the game was originally written that way, then go for it, but I just don't see it as being worth the time to re-engineer.

The advantage is in Player investment and engagement.

I'm not seeing any advantage in player investment and engagement. This game already involves both sides in resolving a roll of the dice, so the only difference will be in the hand that touches them. In that case, don't change the rules (or the dice distribution), just ask the player to physically roll the bad guys' dice pools if they have to have their hands on them and then resolve the roll as per the rules.

I'm not seeing any advantage in player investment and engagement. This game already involves both sides in resolving a roll of the dice, so the only difference will be in the hand that touches them. In that case, don't change the rules (or the dice distribution), just ask the player to physically roll the bad guys' dice pools if they have to have their hands on them and then resolve the roll as per the rules.

I think this is a good point. When it's the character's skills that are opposing the NPC's actions, that makes sense to translate everything to a PC-centric roll, but because combat difficulty is generally not based on the skills of the defender (aside from a select number of talents), I'm not sure I see the advantage either.

Ultimately, I don't have a problem with inverting the roll, but I don't think it's something I would entertain for my table. Not to mention reverse my thinking for spending threats/advantages and all that.

I'm all for never picking up another die again as a GM, but if the system would "unfavorably" balance things in the Players favor...

For the record, the change you're considering would indeed shift the balance slightly in favour of the PCs.

The Boost die averages 0.333 successes and 0.666 advantage.

The Setback die averages 0.333 failures and 0.333 threat.

The Ability die averages 0.625 successes and 0.625 advantage.

The Difficulity die averages 0.500 failures and 0.750 threat.

The Proficiency die averages 0.833 successes, 0.666 advantage, and 0.083 triumph effects.

The Challenge die averages 0.750 failures, 0.666 threat, and 0.083 despair effects.

Normally if an NPC attacks a PC, the NPC is rolling the positive dice and the PC is represented by the negative. Positive dice average slightly more successes than negative dice do failures; although this is partly countered by the fact that a sum of zero successes is treated as a failed roll (usually a total miss in the case of an attack roll).

If you invert the dice, now the NPC attacker is represented by the negative dice and the PC defender by the positive . This means that the attacker will average fewer net successes than before, while a total of zero still counts as a failed roll. He'll be more likely to miss altogether, and will average less damage when he does hit.

So in the system you're proposing, PCs will be hit a little less often and will suffer a little less damage on average when they are hit.

Whether this is good or bad for the game depends on one's personal preferences, I suppose.

So in the system you're proposing, PCs will be hit a little less often and will suffer a little less damage on average when they are hit.

Whether this is good or bad for the game depends on one's personal preferences, I suppose.

Compare it to how it feels versus how combats felt as a Player doing it the other way around.

That's one of the very things I want to break these guys of (okay, one of them). The ex-GM of the last game is very... confrontational. He's more "old school" in the "It's my game, my plot, and you guys are lucky to be taking part in it" kind of mindset.

Is this GM me?

Have I mentioned he's repeatedly started campaigns by gunning down my character as the opener?

No, seriously - do we know each other?

So in the system you're proposing, PCs will be hit a little less often and will suffer a little less damage on average when they are hit.

Whether this is good or bad for the game depends on one's personal preferences, I suppose.

It probably doesn't make a big difference to people who arent mathomaniacs... but if dice rolling is more engaging for the players (it isn't for me. It's a chore!!) another option for groups with math junkies might be to figure out the pool as normal and hand the dice to the player.

as a PC i want to roll for heroic things.

not getting shot for the most part, is not heroic