User talk:Spazalicious Chaos/Freedom to Roleplay - The DM Rolls All The Dice

What...?
This variant rule, if it could be alleged to be such, is possibly the most divorced thing from the original D&D that I've ever seen. In fact, it's like the anti-D&D. Have you ever even tried using this? I mean, confiscating character sheets...word? A player has a character sheet so they don't have to be so fucking obsessed with every minute detail that they know their characters like the back of their hand. And making the DM roll every single die when they are already in the most burdened position in the game will make it impossible for them to keep shit straight, and thus impossible to run with even the slightest semblance of coherence. The only reason the DM isn't even more of a hot seat than it is is because the responsibility of keep tracking of the characters' shit is largely the responsibilities of the players themselves. This is a ludicrous idea, and if anyone makes the claim to have been able to play it I would call them out as a liar. It really goes against just about everything in D&D. - TG Cid 01:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * On a side note, if you want something like this, I suggest free-form. 108.23.93.53 01:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If D&D is about dice and stats for you, this variant has lost you already. If exact stats and details are needed to be on hand for reference, this variant has lost you. If you can not handle actually listening to your players, this variant has lost you. If you are uncormfortable or think it unwise to declare your every intention, this variant has lost you. TG Cid, this variant has lost you. And you have apparently called me and several others as liars, for I originally codified this variant for long car trips, using license plates on passing cars for dice. Characters stats were little more than mental notes, newly created characters were described to me as I crunched the numbers and createde a mental character sheet. Quite frankly, I'm surprised you have never been exposed to something like this; you and Ghostwheel both seem to me the kind of people where this is a "no-duh", or at minimum something you have done before on a taco run or road trip or something. Really, I think a lot of us have done this at some point, but lacked codification.
 * As a final side note, this evolved table top-wise when some of my players got pissed that I was rolling secretly for just about everything they were doing, from secret diplomacy checks to talk past guards to secret spot checks everytime I heard the phrase "I look around the room." They wanted me to take an "all or nothing" approach to how I was doing this. Thus, I made this variant, and thus far it is pretty successful, as my player get to spend the entire game actually doing thiangs instead of rolling dice.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 01:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with this whole concept is that the whole mechanical basis of D&D lies in rolling dice; that's what separates it from "let's just smoke a load of cannibis and make up a free-form story". Without these mechanical things, the players really have no way to determine what happens to them. There is no longer any measure of autonomy for the players; everything rests in the DM's hands. This hugely increases the potential for the DM shafting their players (inadvertently or otherwise) with a situation such as "Oops, I rolled for all of you for the trap. Suddenly you all died." Taking the power to determine what is actually going on from the players is bad; putting all the onus on a single person to do ALL the die-rolling is also bad. This does both. Need I say more? - TG Cid 02:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This has inspired me to make a variant rule where rather than rolling dice, we look at our watches, compare to the current lottery numbers, add the result of the numbers, run it through a few mathmathical sequences, and output the result. Truely it is the most random seed possible, for the most realistic in dice randomization.  "But Eiji" you say, "that's stupidly complex and unnessicary, just roll some dice".  But it's ok, I totally playtested this with my friends Rosie Palm and Amanda Hugginkiss, and we totally like it, ergo it's good for the rest of you.  If you think otherwise, this is lost on you and you are too intollerent to see that this is the best rule ever.


 * Next up, turning feet into meteric, and giving a critical hit chart which have over 9000 results for maximum realism, including severing belly buttons and critically mashing genitals (because we play adult games). This won't bog down the game at all. -- Eiji-kun 03:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha ha... TG, did you even READ this? The dice are still there. Players determining what they do is still there. D&D is still there, just with the die rolling moved to new hands. This variant puts RNG in the GMs hands, but RNGs are just RNGs. I don't see anyone complaining about Halo just beacuse all the programing and logistics is done by your X-Box and you never get to do any yourself, and in a well run game with this variant the GM is the logistics computer. He knows the setting, he knows your chances, and if you play the game enough so do you. But what you do is under your control alone; I even put a few warnings in their that says, in so many words, "don't use this if your GM is a shitty one." And it takes a half-decent to good GM to make this work. This is the same game, with the same rules and the same RNGs and the same challenges, just localized to free head space. Hell, only only difference between this and the highly advocated "Players Roll All the Dice" is who has the headache.
 * Also, I have nosticed a distrubing trend for people to think of having RNGs as having control, when this is possibly the stupidest idea since Neo-Nazism. I think of this "dice are the rule" mentality this way: let's supposed you somehow ended up duct-taped to a tornado. Yay, you have a tornado in your hands! But, you can't really control it, it does what it wants regardless of you want it to do, and beacuse your duct-taped to it you pretty much have to live with whatever it does. AND on top of all that wonderfulness, beacause you are duct-taped to it and there for "must have some way to control it" despite the reality, everything it does is your fault--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 05:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC).


 * ... Dumb, dumb, and dumb. You just don't get it, do you? This does nothing to improve gameplay, other than enabling others to whine about, "What's my roll?" "What was my equipment again?" "I think I have a feat that lets me do this." "What are my spell again?"


 * Sadly, you have not learned anything, have you? I will say this once-- and only once: THE ONLY TIME THE DM NEEDS TO RP A CHARACTER IS IF A PLAYER IS MISSING OR REQUESTS THE DM TO DO SO. This variant rule ruins all of D&D's core values. Everything about D&D is all about the dice, and taking that away from the players is wrong-- DEAD WRONG!. Note-taking is extremely volatile and it does not help with this variant rule AT ALL!


 * So do something for yourself-- MAKE A RULE THAT WORKS WITH D&D INSTEAD OF TRASHING IT.


 * Oh, and by the way-- there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to find a perfect group of disciplined and determined individuals. There will always be a lunkhead within a group. This rule defines the very definition of stereotyping-- which is NOT what we are looking for in the D&D wiki. Xeadin 05:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "don't use this if your GM is a shitty one." Good to know we're all shitty DMs.  Really, what were we thinking, making a fully fleshed out world, trying to analyze and react appropriately to the PCs with a cast of millions of NPCs at beck and call, planning tactics to challenge the makeup of our party, ad libbing on the fly when the players inevitably go outside your plans... really, adding on the character sheets of half a dozen players WE DIDN'T MAKE should be nothing.  Plus, if my players don't remember that they had a crowbar on their sheets when they're looking for a way to bash down the door, well, they're shitty players for not remembering the tiny details on the sheet for a useful item they bought 6 levels ago.  It's ok though, the DM has all the processing power of an X-Box, he'll crunch those numbers much faster solo than several brains working in tandem.  That's stupid, that's why modern computers only have a single core.  Because it's efficient.


 * This rule reminds me of a rule where a DM would gather the spot and listen checks of players and make them for them, since they tend to be passive, reactive abilities. But this rule is far superior because it includes even the active abilities that you'd only use when you're trying to, like balance or craft, or attacking something.  I mean really, why bother with "I want to get in the door." "Make an Open Lock roll, it is 13?  You pass/fail" when you can shorten the phrase to "I want to get in the door."  "You fail."  Fewer words spent means more efficient gaming, and we're all about efficiecy in this Green-firnedly future.  ARE YOU AGAINST THE FUTURE AND LOVE BEING SLOW AND INEFFECTIVE?  Of course not, this rule is the natural choice for anyone with half a brain.


 * This reminds me of another rule though... what was it. Right, it was the rule where you right numbers on paper, just like D&D.  The only difference is, it's your tax forms, and you have to fill about a thousand papers, have you W2, and crunch some numbers.  EXACTLY LIKE D&D 3.5!  So you see, nothing has changed, this is the same game because there is a similarities between D&D and this Variant, which I believe called Taxes & Auditing 3.5 Variant Rule.


 * Now, the only question I had was what you meant by the last part. But then after a few blows to the head, it all became clear.  You see, it was a metaphor all along.  The Neo-Nazi is duct taped to a tornado, an inherently incorporeal thing generated by kinetic energy in a medium.  And being a Nazi, Godwin's Law states he must try to control it.  But there's no way to control the tornado because it turns out duct tape doesn't work on wait, and so it's your fault and you're stupid for thinking this is a shitty rule.


 * Truely, there is no equal. I give this page over 9000 internets, each internet containing a copy of Timecube.  Thanks.  -- Eiji-kun 05:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It has become clear to me not a single one of you has read this article. None of you. DICE=/=ROLEPLAYING! All character decisions, all character actions, all character abilities, all things that defines a player character remain with the player! The GM has no more control over your characters than when he did before this variant was written. The GM gains nothing but my prementioned tornado. It is clear that people are using dice as a crutch for roleplaying, and that crutch should be kicked out from under them and used as a drumstick, that the assailent practice his Rock Band playing on the victims head. Dice are just dice, they are not some sacred gamer cow that should be untouched! I have never heard of a unenchanted player rolling his dice to decide what his character does in combat. You never roll your dice before saying, "oh, that sucks, so that was just my roll to sneeze." Decisions have been, and always should be made, before dice are touched! DICE HAVE NOTHUNG TO DO WITH DECISIONS!!!
 * Listen, I love this game, I would never do something to intentionally make it unenjoyable, and I strongly want this game to be fun. The fun of being a player is in deciding you are going to do things, not rolling dice to see if you do things. It's late, I need some sleep, and not to go all Foamy on you guys, but go choke to death on your dice if they are so fucking important. Then I won't ever have to be at a table with you and I can enjoy gaming with real players who make dicisions in their games. Good night! Tell Tarkisflux I'm still waiting on that list of suggestions.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 05:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Now back to seriousness for a moment (sorry, you triggered Godwin's Law, that was just too rich)... You are right, dice are not roleplaying. However, dice are part of D&D.  Now, it's not the act of rolling dice which is the main problem (though this IS fun, and SHOULDN'T be removed because everyone likes rolling dem bones), it's the fact all the work is piled on one person, and to honestly expect any mere mortal, much less the DM, to handle all the dice rolls is quite absurd.


 * Now you can say "well you can still roleplay and get rid of the dice" and you can, more power to you. This style of gameplay is called freeform, and I am actually an avid freeformer myself.  It is, however, NOT D&D.  D&D implied by nature a particular d20 based system, which uses dice as its modus operanti, which one can decide random or chance-based events in while roleplaying.  The exact details on HOW you use your dice roll and when vary, but the dice are always there.  If you were going for a "no dice" approach you should know it's not D&D.  There's no shame in it, freeform is fun, but it is not D&D.


 * You seem to be confused that it's the dice per se which grants us players our enjoyment, and while enjoyable that's not it. It's a means to an end, and I don't roll dice to decide "what will my character do".  That's not what the dice are there for.  Roleplaying is entirely seperate thing from dice, no more related as listening to the radio is related to driving.


 * So, as you can see we're not arguing with you on that. I need you to focus on the actual problem, and that is one of logistics.  I need you to explain what makes you think it is reasonable for a single person to do all this work.  As an experienced DM I can say that is stupidly unreasonable and I don't think there is a DM on the internet who would disagree... that's a lot of goddamn work.  So, there's your problem you need to fix.  How do you make it less work for the poor DM?  Solve that, and this rule becomes 1000% better.  Go for that goal, good luck. -- Eiji-kun 05:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

How is this a Variant?
Seriously, how is this a variant? There's no rules changes here, just some guy rolling dice instead of others. The UA change, Players Roll All the Dice, at least brings along die mechanic changes. This looks more like a playstyle description than a variant rule. Is this it, or are there plans to rule it up a bit? - Tarkisflux 04:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a rough draft, there are no mechanics to it at this moment, and while this variant doesn't require them, if it helps keep this "within code" I'm happy to take suggestions.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 05:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My suggestion would be to do these kinds of rules on your talk page. These rules that you are doing seem to be more blogs than rule variants, in that regard. Mechanics or not, this isn't the most appropriate place for your rules-- since, I do agree with Tark, these seem more like playstyles than variants. Variants actually change around the core gameplay rules, such as hit point variations, class changes/ additions, etc. -- NOT how a player or DM plays the game. Xeadin 05:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Playstyle guidelines like this are not variant rules, as there's no real "rules" here. As you suggest above, you're not altering the gameplay with this, just who is rolling dice and maybe what people have in front of them at the table. Unless you're going to alter the game in some way, it would be better written up as a blog and located in user space than listed in the variants. - Tarkisflux 05:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you're waiting on me to solve this / suggest changes for you, I'm just going to move it into a subpage of your user page. If you come up with rules that make this an actual variant we can always move it back. - Tarkisflux 16:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Guys. Guys.
He's a grognard-less version of shadzar. You don't argue with shadzar. You just click the ignore button and continue on your merry way. --Ghostwheel 06:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * But Ghost, Hitler attached to whirlwind-form air elementals via magical duct-tape. Your arguement is invalid. -- Eiji-kun 06:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts and Suggestions
"Let me have your character sheet..." Hell. No. Not because I'm particularly attached to the numbers on it, but because my character sheet is my pile of notes. Every line on that sheet is a reminder of an ability I can use, of some equipment I'm carrying around "just in case", and so on. Telling me "well, just take some notes instead" is like asking me to make a second character sheet without numbers on it, and it's pretty unreasonable. If you want me to send you my sheet before game so you can have a copy for the rolls, or you to make me a copy without numbers, sure. But as you suggest it? Not so much.

Beyond that though, I'm going to diverge from the majority opinion here and say at the start that I don't find this idea straightforwardly offensive. Many of the die rolls in games I've played have devolved into -> -> , and this seems to cut out the reporting phase. But it also extends the recording phase, since you can't just call stuff out and let other people worry about tracking it. So I think Eiji's concerns that it extends things are a bit off, it looks more like a wash to me. I could even see this as being a fun way to play if the following (and probably more that I'm not remembering at the moment) was true: I would not join a pickup game if I knew this style was in use, and I'd walk if they didn't tell me until I walked in the door though. Seriously. I'm not fond of railroading, and this looks ripe for that sort of abuse.
 * 1) I knew all of the other players and the DM
 * 2) I trusted the DM not to railroad the game or lie about die results
 * 3) I trusted the DM to handle the increased workload

As for suggestions to make this a variant instead of a playstyle guideline, I don't think it's really possible. The UA one works because it alters die mechanics so that everything is done from the player's perspective. Roll high to hit, roll high to get missed, etc. Doing a similar thing in this case doesn't work because then it's roll high for the monsters to get hit, roll high to avoid your monsters getting hit, roll high for an obstacle to frustrate a player (if you could even make that work)... and so on. But it's probably easier for the DM to not do those things and just run the normal way to reduce the number of formulas they need to track (and the amount of rules checking that delays games), so such a rule wouldn't be a particularly useful one. And since that's about the only change I see that would really fit with the style instead of just being an "in addition to", I don't see much for it. Which is fine really. - Tarkisflux 07:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All GMing is ripe for abuse, but I agree that the abuse potential is high in this style. Your points on what kind of group this works with is dead on, and a point I have been trying to hammer home, albeit unsuccessfully. I'm starting to believe I am the poster child for "a man who defends himself has a fool for a lawyer", and having been thinking of ways around that. Fixing my spell check would help too...--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 07:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)