• Sunsofold@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    That’s why you would keep the randomness of the dice, but isolate it. It’s easy to trust a DM to be reasonable when it comes to some things, but the randomness is useful in making the play more interesting, and people aren’t great at creating statistically distributed randomness. And if your DM is just looking at the die and saying, ‘yah’ or ‘nah,’ they shouldn’t be your DM. If your players can’t handle being told their characters’ attack didn’t land, they aren’t ready to play the game. It isn’t possible to win or lose DnD, but it’s absolutely possible to succeed or fail to play.

    And you wouldn’t be removing the mechanical elements, such as the smite, just putting player focus on the diegetic space. They can still smite, but with their attention spent on thinking about the righteous smash of their weapon against the enemy’s armour and less on going ‘okay, then we carry the one, and…’

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      And if your DM is just looking at the die and saying, ‘yah’ or ‘nah,’ they shouldn’t be your DM

      Where do you think DMs come from?

    • chillhelm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      This sounds like a “GM is the entertainer” thing to me.

      Either you think doing rolls is a mechanical burden that strips away immersion and reduces fun. In this case making the GM do all the rolls does the same to them and why would that be ok?

      Or you don’t think rolling all the dice is a burden for the GM. Well then it wouldn’t be a burden for the players to do it either.

      There are systems that are all player facing (players make all the rolls), but I’ve never heard of the system that expects the GM to make all the rolls.