Is it not counter-intuitive to let the players rolls dice, like, at all...

Is it not counter-intuitive to let the players rolls dice, like, at all? I get it that it serves as means of giving PCs something to fiddle with and represents "effort" but on the downside isn't it just a spoiler, since GM ultimately describes the action?
>rolls le nat20
>giddy eyes at GM waiting for le epic success story

>GM ultimately describes the action
Stop being a shitty player playing with shitty people.

You're right. Let's put ANOTHER FUCKING THING on the GM's plate for them to handle while the players put forth even LESS effort while we entertain them.

Like, I get what you're saying, and on one level I even sort of agree (that's why we have some secret rolls like rolls to find traps or detect deceit), but there are huge practical issues to implementing something like that for every single roll.

When you started the game, there was an implicit agreement to follow the rules. Some games even let players describe the outcomes of rolls, because everyone at the table already knows what they'll entail, from the dice.

Just stop playing DnD and you'll be fine.

>rolls le nat20
>giddy eyes at GM waiting for le epic success story
I hate this NATURAL 20 meme so much.

In Harmon Quest, where they play in front of live audience, the GM handles all the rolls and it works well.

My players don't even know the rules, so I always roll for them.

>rolls le nat20
>giddy eyes at GM waiting for le epic success story

This doesn't exist. It's never existed outside of a tiny subset of games. A natural 20 just means you've likely succeed on whatever task you're accomplishing, provided the 20 plus your modifiers otherwise equal the DC. That's it.

The only exception is attack rolls, where it's an automatic hit and usually results in double damage. Which can be great, especially in 5e if you're a rogue, but even then there's not a "success story", there's just some addition and then some damage.

The only thing that's counter intuitive to me is letting the players roll for perception, since even if they fail they know that something is up. Well, they also know when the GM is rolling for himself, so...

Except thanks to popularization of D&D nat 20 has become a meme, and newbies now fully expect that rolling it lets you do whatever you please and bitch when told no.

That is actually something that 5e did great in my opinion by separating the passively spot & actively searching rolls.

It's not even a thing in D&D though.

4e already had that.

Maybe you should look at one of those pretentious only players roll dice systems, where the gm is only in charge of a bunch of secret target numbers.
What you suggest only really works for very well prepared horror games with a properly set mood at the table.

Human beings derive pleasure from touching and rolling dice user. This is a very important component of the game, and it gives the illusion of holding your character s fate in your hand.

It's powerful stuff user.
Also if a die has a bad result they blame the die, not you. If they don't hold their fate in their hands you will get the blame instead of the die, they'll just assume you're being a duck to them.
If the rolls are too good they'll think you're coddling them and it's insulting.

...

I never understood that whole being suspicious of your GM thing. Are you not on friendly terms or something? Fucking tell him you want no fudging even if it leads to character death.

Honestly if you have trust issues with your gm you should quit that game.

I trust my players to roll and like to let them take a little more control of the narrative, but i think it depends on the group. If a group of people approached me wanting to play a game with no experience, (and they HAD to play something roll heavy for some reason) i would probably control the dice rolls and let them focus more on the narrative rather than the rules.

>Player says this.
>Bitch and moans endlessly when a mook gets lucky rolls and kills his character.
Everytime.

That was already a thing in 4e.

Sounds like someone doesn't like fun.

I know that 1s/20s have become a meme, but it can be fun for the DM to determine an outcome with some flair. Most people I play with announce their attack with a full description, and the DM will counter with its result based on how high/low they rolled.

Giving the party LESS to do, sounds like a bad idea that will lead to more distraction and boredom, and put MORE stress/work on the DM. I do enough as it is. I don't know about you, but my friends are genuinely upset if they didn't get to roll enough in a session.

I think people would prefer they determine their own skill at the cost of the DM getting to describe it. Otherwise you might as well be masturbating behind that screen. I bet you hate open-world exploration too.

That's how it was done back in the day, but then people realized that having players roll their own dice was exciting and kept them in the game.

This!

People don't want the GM to fudge rolls but they also don't want RNG to kill their characters within the first session.

That's been a meme since the extremely old days, hell it was a stronger meme back during 3.5.

>frumpy cat
>rolls le nat20
>le
>dnd
get the fuck out.

your friends sound like they have adhd, games are no substitute for medication and proper help.

Good players learn to ignore metaknowledge like that. A key moment is when they realize they're not playing to win the game, but to embody that character.

But I guess that's not an option for most online games, so I can see the appeal in general. You can't always pick your players well.