general play question

[ragnorakk]

would you have a harder time playing a game where the DM rolled all of the dice for your character, or one in which you did not have access to your character's stat scores and game mechanic information?

[greyharp]

I'd prefer the former over the latter, but wouldn't like either as an option. As a player it's nice to roll at least some of the dice and knowing your stats and the mechanics helps you decide as a player how to, in part, play the character.

[benoist]

(reposting this from K&KA) I would have a harder time with the DM rolling the dice for me all the time (note that sometimes I think it's okay, though). After all, in a game like AD&D, a lot of mechanical stuff is happening behind the DM's screen. If the DM has the stats of the character on his side as well, that would just be an extension of that original concept, to me. Not rolling the dice myself, however, is like changing the game's nature and make it more into a "shared storytelling" experience, which I do not believe makes for a good RPG (or an RPG at all, for that matter).

[dwayanu]

If you've got dice that care who rolls them, then the usual term for that is "cheating".

I understand the psychology, though. D&D Volume 1 has the referee rolling up characters, and I have read that for some time players in Arneson's campaign did not even see their character cards. His style apparently was very much to keep players in the dark about mechanics, focused on their personae. He would tell them to roll dice, but they might not be privy to just what the rolls meant in "game system" terms.

"Rules are the referee's business" is a view that I can heartily embrace, and I think it goes back to the Kriegsspiel and field exercises of the 19th century. As a role-player, all I want is just that: to play my role.

However, that seems to be an uncommon view. In my experience, players usually prefer to get involved with the number crunching and dice rolling. Knowing your hit points tally, rates of damage output, and so on introduces another strategic element.

[waysoftheearth]

I think it would be harder on players, on both counts.

I agree whole-heartedly with Dwayanu'a comment that "Rules are the referee's business", and also with Greyharp's comment that "knowing your stats and the mechanics help you decide".

As a player, resource-management and risk-management are two of my principle concerns.

Effective resource-management (hit-points, spells, arrows, torches, food, etc.) almost necessitates having a tally sheet of some kind. If you take that away, you take away a whole aspect of the game (or shift that responsibility to the referee!)

Effective risk-management depends on a character sheet to a lesser degree. It may be enough to simply "know" that your character is a strong but clumsy fighter. Attempting anything that requires good hand-eye-coordination is a risk. But with or without a character sheet, the best risk management strategy is to carefully question the referee about the circumstances.

Die rolls are just die rolls. It shouldn't really matter who makes them, but in my experience players (including myself) do like to roll for their PCs. Perhaps it gives us a sense of controlling our own fate?

On the other hand, allowing players to know why they have to make a die roll is an important piece of information. If the referee just rolls privately without telling the players why, then they are none the wiser about what risks they have taken.