GM is god?

[John Kim]

As far as I am concerned, a player always has a veto -- it's an inalienable right and not something which can be instituted or taken away.

But then, that's just the problem: many players and GMs fail to realize this.

I would say a player's ability to "veto" depends on the Social Contract.  If the group feels that it is wrong, say, to argue with the GM on a ruling -- then players can't argue with the GM on a ruling.  That is, a player physically can argue, but it will be discouraged and rejected by the group.  Of course, the player can always quit, but that is universally understood.  Even absolutist control freak GMs still realize that players can and do exercise the right to drop out of a game.

[Callan S.]

I was going to analyze them point by point but it all came down to the last one: I think ultimately the most a player can do in a game is leave.

Not really. They can make the GM leave to some or a full extent. If you don't grant any credibility to someones input, their input isn't there...they may as well not be there themselves. "Well then, rocks fall and everybody dies!" "Yeah, yeah, whatever...so who's gunna GM next?"

It's an interesting point.  In principle, it should be possible for someone to take over GMing.  However, my experience is that in practice this almost never happens.  i.e. It is pretty much a given that a GM "owns" a campaign.  So a player can leave and the campaign continues, but the campaign can't continue if the GM leaves.

If we remember that the GM is just another player who the other players decide to grant this or that powers to at any given moment, it becomes a bit clearer. In most games, the players have not made up whole towns or cities or continents. It's the player who is being called GM who made them. If he leaves, this contibution goes with him because basically it was his expression. Someone can't take over this expression...they can take what they experienced of that expressions style and make their own, but can't take it over.

It's because most people are unwilling to adopt someone elses style of expression (because they have their own unique style to give), that the campaign tends to end. However, it's quite easy to find players who would love to use an old character of theirs in a new game (especially if they only got used in a short lived campaign). If they had written up towns or cities or continents, you'd find them very interested in using these again too. This is an example of the campaign going on without the player that is called GM.

I hope this does help with the original question...which could do with some of its foundation ideas questioned before it itself is answered.

[John Uckele]

On Vetos:

Veto as it was originally worded is essentially always used. I noted an argument I had with a player about the truth of the statement "Your character falls down a pit, take 4 damage." In this case (even though I view GM as god), I was certainly called on my actions, and a veto was brought against me. I argued with the character (and everyone else didn't say anything during this period), but I was not willing to run a game with a player who would not stop objecting to what I felt was a valid action. After it became apparant that this was just NOT going to settle I booted the player on the spot. Now, I didn't face any reprecussions from the group for asserting my authority in this situation (although the game still ended shortly due to depression problems of one of the other players).

If it were a wee bit different situation, say I just blew up his character. "You walk in the room and a red dragon is napping... However you step on it's tail and it snaps you up in one quick bite." I would have been called on, and a veto brought against me. The group would support him this time though, instead of me. If I kicked him out of the game for refusing to die, I likely would have lost a lot of face with my players. I don't even know how they would react, because it would be so uncharacteristic of a thing for me to do.

I think that the term isn't really 'veto', it's more 'object'. A veto refers to blocking something, not moving to block it. A president can veto a bill, at which point it doesn't happen. A lawyer can object at which point the objection might be overruled or sustained.

On Continuation after depature of a GM:

Campaigns will rarely continue after a GM leaves (even in the example of multiverser, it's really the same character hoping from campaign to campaign). Gaming groups can and will continue as they were very often though. The group I kicked out (and thus ended the campaign) still contiued to play D&D. I don't think I played with them after that, but I can't really remember.

On Rotating GMship:

D&D groups I know commonly rotate GMs. Frank designs a dungeon, than Bill, than Lucy, and then Frank makes another one. A lot of comedy is also generally included in rotating GMship games. I personally find the idea compleately counter intuitive because it destroys the capacity for plot secrets and continuous (non-partitioned) plot at the same time.[/i]

[TonyLB]

a veto was brought against me. I argued with the character

I think that's the difference between what you're talking about and a veto.  With a real veto, the GM would not have the right to argue.  Player vetoes, that's final.

[Halzebier]

I would say a player's ability to "veto" depends on the Social Contract.  If the group feels that it is wrong, say, to argue with the GM on a ruling -- then players can't argue with the GM on a ruling.  That is, a player physically can argue, but it will be discouraged and rejected by the group.

It seems to me that many a player actually does not understand that he physically can argue.

Sure, such a player would answer in the affirmative if asked head on "Can you bring the game to a screeching halt whenever you want?" (i.e., veto the game at any point), but during an actual game, it would just never occur to him.

A player is not only able to do that, but also entitled, nay, obliged to do so, if he is deeply unhappy with an aspect of the game.

I know of and have experienced many cases where players suffered incredible levels of abuse or dissatisfaction because "GM is god" was so deeply ingrained that speaking up about it never even occured to them.

Years after a PC had died in a campaign I had run, I learned that his player had practically been in tears about it and had for a time considered giving up the group and the hobby altogether.

This utterly horrified me and I partly blame his silence on the widespread and unquestioned belief in "GM is god". He had just assumed that events were non-negotiable, regardless of how much they spoiled his enjoyment of the game.

In my opinion, "GM is god" is a legitimate way to play only if all the participants (a) truly understand that there are valid alternatives and (b) mentally add "...as long as it suits me" and are prepared to act on that sentiment.

[Edited to add: This paragraph is too harsh. There are groups who have no idea that alternatives exist and players have rights. This does not invalidate their play. However, I'd say it is fraught with a serious potential problem and, yes, medieval.]

Otherwise "GM is god" is, for lack of a better word, a medieval concept.

Regards,

Hal

[John Uckele]

a veto was brought against me. I argued with the character

I think that's the difference between what you're talking about and a veto.  With a real veto, the GM would not have the right to argue.  Player vetoes, that's final.

But that's the thing. The players did vote. They all abstained/supported me. You don't have to preform a formal vote count, to allow players to object. Had I been doing something unreasonable I would have heard voices of dissent from more players. If you hear the outcry of your party, chances are that's a vote against you. If only Chris has a problem with his character falling down a pit, he's going to have to deal.

[TonyLB]

"Veto" is not the same word as "Vote".

A veto says that if one player, any one player, is sufficiently unhappy with a GM decision to resort to using the veto then that decision is wrong.

[John Uckele]

"Veto" is not the same word as "Vote".

A veto says that if one player, any one player, is sufficiently unhappy with a GM decision to resort to using the veto then that decision is wrong.

Now we're getting into dangerous areas. You seem to be saying that as a GM I was wrong because a player was disattisfied with falling down the pit. He could have, and should have been able to overrule that decision because players should have absolute veto power?

I mean, I can see giving a group of players veto power (at which point they DO need to vote (even if informally) on when the group chooses to use it). No way that I look at it can I see players having veto power though. The highest authority needs to be the GM in a typical setting (as compared GM per player, not GM per group) in order to be able to run a game without merely being overruled constantly be troublesome players.

From a technical standpoint a Veto means the power to overrule a decision. No value judgements involved. From a veto in game terms, I don't think the thing really exists without explicitly being defined in a social contract.

[Scripty]

I've had a few run-ins with the "GM is God" mentality. I think "GM is final arbiter" is different from "GM is God" however. This thread seems to be confusing the positions.

Frequently, when I GM, I serve as the final arbiter/referee/umpire. Basically the guy who tells Timmy, "yeah, dude, you got shot" when Timmy hops up off the playground saying Johnny didn't shoot him. Of course, Timmy then invariably declares that he had enough time to get off a spell before he hit the ground dead...

I digress...

But I think this is a very different position than "GM is God". It's okay to debate/argue with a referee. It might not help one's case, but I've changed rulings based on a solid and rational discussion with players. I've never considered myself "God" though, even in game terms. Seems pretty conflated to me...

I think the heart of the difference to these two points is that you can't argue with God. God can be arbitrary. God can be wrong. God can do anything it wants and all you can do is sing His praises. There's no "instant replay" on God. That's the difference, IMO.

It's worth noting that when I've encountered this mindset (which is more often than I would have preferred), I've found it generally to be a result of GMs who were woefully insecure in any number (or all) of the areas of their life. Some were insecure about their social skills. Insecure about their Creative Agenda. Insecure about their creative abilities. Their knowledge of the rules. Their sexuality. Their house. Their pets. The list goes on.

For the terminally insecure, I think "GM is God" is a wonderfully easy sofa to fall upon. It keeps them from having to "work" (in any real, meaningful social sense) when they come out with a bad ruling, heavy-handed plot generation tactics or a really dumb plot twist (and we've all seen them). For some GMs, this is a degree of acceptance/sociability that they don't, or feel they aren't, going to get from any other outlet. Then again, I've played with some GMs who were just on a flat out control trip. Their whole schtick was controlling the players and their actions. It was like S&M without the cool latex outfits (or the sex in most instances). IMO, those GMs were the worst because they took themselves seriously as Gods in the Temple of Play.

Which leaves the players to take any number of limited (often passive) responses (remember you can't argue with God), all of which I have seen manifest: manipulate the GM's insecurities to get a better deal out of the game (and yes egos do purr when you stroke them), clam up and go through the motions (honestly this can be more perverse than the last course of action) or hang up the dicebag and hope for something better down the road (which is sadly something I've had to do way too often in the past).

One of the things I think I like best about all this Forge business is that we're finally starting to move into the direction of changing how these games are played. Think of the pressures on your average GM. They have to know the rules better than anyone. They have to make an awe-inspiring plot that the players will find engaging and refreshing. They have to be the referee and, no matter what anyone says, no one except a suck-up likes the referee (at least in any sport I've ever played/watched). So on top of always playing the "banker" (to use monopoly-speak) they have to be an umpire, a writer, and an ad-hoc character actor all while meeting the leeching creative needs of a group of people they hardly know in any real sense of the term.

Top that off with the insecure, controlling personalities that tend to gravitate towards what they see as a position of "power" over others, the creative "Driver's Seat" if you will, and there's no question, in my mind, why many GMs are just accidents waiting to happen.

Fortunately, games are starting to stop worrying about "realism" (snicker, snicker), stop worrying about dice mechanics and kewl powers and starting to concern themselves with how these roles get divvied up at the table. I'm all for taking some of the duties off of a GM and see Narr games like Sorcerer and its deriviatives as putting some of the onus of responsibility back on the players (who now must ante-up as active participants rather than Doritos munching random dice machines).

Perhaps if we stop expecting miracles from these GMs, they'll stop trying to act like "gods"? Perhaps if we make these games more collaborative we'll see less of this as well? And, more than that, perhaps if we stop allowing ourselves to use a referee's position as a backdoor to control over another living being and, instead, work on the psychological issues in our lives that would lead us to find something of that nature so attractive in the first place, we'll see less of these "Gods Behind the Screen" and get down to having a seriously good time.

Unless we're talking about the Shirley MacLaine thing, in which case we all get to be little godlets... (I'd like to see how that would work out.

It would probably wind up being something like Universalis...
;)

Scott

[John Uckele]

That was a big post. Actually, I see what you're saying. I think we now get into annoying degrees of meaning though...

When I say "GM is god", I mean the GM can control whatever they want in the game. I know that a good GM/Player relationship rarely if ever creates conflicts over how the game is being run (I think part of the reason I kicked a player out for refusing to take damage I assigned was the idea of refusing to take damage the GM truly and fairly assigned had never even occurred to me before that point).

Now, to say that "GM is god" is synonymous with unquestionability, I'm not sure if that's reasonable. I can shout "Father, why have you forsaken me?" if life kicks me in the nuts... Doesn't mean God is going to drop me some good fortune, but I am questioning.

I think the thing we have to watch out for is placing value judgments on words that don't warrant them. The statement "GM is god" among them. It can be (and probably often is) a very negative thing to have this attitude, but sometimes it just means that by the social contract the GM has final and complete authority to the point where questions (while accepted) are not expected.

[Scripty]

Actually, I see what you're saying. I think we now get into annoying degrees of meaning though...

I guess you see my point. But I don't find the degrees of meaning annoying. I find them necessary. The Forge is wonderful for working things out with Social Contracts, Creative Agendas, Styles of Play, etc. But all too often, I think it comes up with some catchphrase that quickly gets diluted or twisted to mean something that it doesn't. Some of that is because people haven't read up on what they're talking about or are discussing something they reached a cognitive consensus with months ago and are revisiting after a duration of time. (I know I've been guilty of that...)

But, in another sense, it's precisely because of these annoying grey areas. If we do not adequately define what we're talking about when we say "GM is God?" then someone else will. And so will another person. And another. And another. I think it's more important to pin down what we mean by the phrase than to win the argument or earn the rights to a new Forge catchphrase.

When I say "GM is god", I mean the GM can control whatever they want in the game. I know that a good GM/Player relationship rarely if ever creates conflicts over how the game is being run (I think part of the reason I kicked a player out for refusing to take damage I assigned was the idea of refusing to take damage the GM truly and fairly assigned had never even occurred to me before that point).

I wasn't at that game, so I can't really comment on what happened. IMO, there are social dynamics within any group activity that make it practically impossible to navigate the various causes/effects of any interaction like that discussed above. But by saying that "the GM can control whatever they want in the game" aren't you leaving it up to a pretty wide interpretation? How does that statement clarify anything we know about the GM role or might want to consciously affect about it? Using that definition, Aren't we just restating any run-of-the-mill paragraph on what a GM is from any RPG at Barnes and Nobles?

And so, what is the purpose of the discussion? To determine whether this is good or bad? Well, there are good "gods" and there are bad "gods" and all levels in between. Which one are you? Well, nobody really knows (except your players). That's pretty much all we can get out of that.

Now, to say that "GM is god" is synonymous with unquestionability, I'm not sure if that's reasonable. I can shout "Father, why have you forsaken me?" if life kicks me in the nuts... Doesn't mean God is going to drop me some good fortune, but I am questioning.

Well, please let me state that just because one is capable of asking a question does not mean that the authority questioned has an obligation to answer it. That's the difference, IMO. If we're dealing with a GM that cannot be questioned, then a player can spout off all they want. But it's inevitably futile. The GM has no obligation or responsibility to that player's inqueries. The GM is unquestionable. What he/she says is law and that's it. For all intents, the GM is a God at that table.

What I've done, or rather tried to do, is to call into question what effect this has on our hobby of choice? What effect it has on players who serve that GM? And what type of personality is drawn to such a role in the first place?

I think answering those questions would be a big step for everyone in the hobby.

It's my personal opinion though that if a person wants to GM because they get to be "God" then that person shouldn't be GMing. Any sane person who understands, truly understands, what a crappy job being "God" is would surely not cling to the position with such tenacity. Heck, I can remember groups where being the GM was something you got "stuck" with. Sort of like being "It" in a game of tag.

I think the thing we have to watch out for is placing value judgments on words that don't warrant them. The statement "GM is god" among them. It can be (and probably often is) a very negative thing to have this attitude, but sometimes it just means that by the social contract the GM has final and complete authority to the point where questions (while accepted) are not expected.

Yes, but again, if we remove the value judgment from the statement what use is it? If we just say "GM is God" and expect it to elicit no response, it's just sort of like saying "Hi". And, IMO, a GM throwing himself around like a "God" and performing a function as a referee are two entirely different things.

No one sacrifices Doritos and Beer to the referees of the Super Bowl...

Yet I've seen GMs get backrubs, free food, game books, movie tickets, rides to nearly anywhere, even free concerts predominately because they were GMs (jokes were even made about earning free XP for these "sacrifices". i don't have the GM's notes so i can't honestly say whether or not XP was given.). So, maybe another question to ask is: where does the role of GM stop at referee and begin at God?

Essentially, I see this question as the foundation of a revolution in Role-Playing and one that, IMO, is long overdue. We're finally seeing people question the Big Chair. Really question it, probably for the first time. Some of these new games are even getting rid of it (Soap) or radically redefining what it is (Rune).

So I guess we should ask ourselves: Do we really want a top down heirarchy that puts us in our place? Or do we want an across-the-table relationship with our GM? Do we want to be dependent upon the GM to act benevolently, fairly, and without malice or prejudice even though, arguably, he portrays the opposing team in our contest? Or do we want rules to hold a GM accountable for the choices he makes? And what does that say about us, as people?

Sure, they're deep questions. Probably a lot deeper than the "Am I a bad GM for kicking this player out of the group?" originally intended. But, you see, that situation is at the heart of a fundamental reality for everyone who sits at a game table as evidenced by the horror stories and debate such a statement brings to people's minds. So you've touched upon something that's real for everyone here. Something they've experienced in greater/lesser degrees and something that forms the basis of what they know to be roleplaying.

I think we could do worse than examine this. Because if we don't, someone will.

Just my take on it.

Scott

[Halzebier]

Yet I've seen GMs get backrubs, free food, game books, movie tickets, rides to nearly anywhere, even free concerts predominately because they were GMs (jokes were even made about earning free XP for these "sacrifices". i don't have the GM's notes so i can't honestly say whether or not XP was given.). So, maybe another question to ask is: where does the role of GM stop at referee and begin at God?

I agree with just about everything else you've said, but I would tend tp read such favors for the GM differently, intent-wise:

Many GMing styles require both considerable prep work and creativity.

As fun as prepping and being creative are (or should be, else you might be doing something wrong), they do require time and meeting a deadline (i.e., gaming night).

I think that favors, gifts, free rides etc. for the GM are given freely and not as 'sacrifices' or dues. IME, they're usually meant as praise ("You've drawn up the entire map in painstaking detail, now we'll treat you to a pizza"; "That adventure rocked. And BTW, we bought and painted a cool mini for you").

So much for their usual intent... As to their effect, well, they might indeed lead to the GM getting a big head (which might lead to the whole "GM is god" attitude) and forgetting that the players are creative, too, and that it's their game just as much.

Regards,

Hal
--
[Edited to quote properly.]

[Vaxalon]

So I guess we should ask ourselves: Do we really want a top down heirarchy that puts us in our place? Or do we want an across-the-table relationship with our GM? Do we want to be dependent upon the GM to act benevolently, fairly, and without malice or prejudice even though, arguably, he portrays the opposing team in our contest? Or do we want rules to hold a GM accountable for the choices he makes? And what does that say about us, as people?

I think if you look out at the world, the answer is, "Ordinary folks want to be led, extraordinary folks want to lead."  To borrow a statistical formula from Sturgeon's Law, 95% of the gamers out there are entirely happy with the DM-is-god outlook, and would be uncomfortable in a game where it wasn't part of the social contract.

We, here, at the Forge, are NOT part of that 95%.

So the ultimate answer is, "Yes, some gamers want their GM to be god."  It is true now and it always will be.

[Tomas HVM]

There have been a couple of refences to the whole, "GM is god" mindset. What are the general views on this type of mentality?

When chance is central in how conflicts are resolved within the game, the GM/player is made into a mediator or translator of chance. I believe this buries the notion of "GM is God".

If you want to make anything into a "God" in roleplaying games, it should be Fortune. Traditional roleplaying games, with their heavy game motors based on randomness, may be described as an elaborate seremony in praise of Fortune.

The rulings of the GM may always be negotiated, whatever game you play. That is a social fact.

This is not true for the die. In most games the die is sacred. We strive to work around it, to mediate or translate it into terms acceptable for us, but the bottom line is still that the die will give the premises for our actions. If the die tell us that your character is dead, you'll have to accept it. We may sympathize with you, but we will not negate the dieroll. Once the die is cast, you have placed your destiny in the hands of "God". And Fortune is as fickle a god as any...

[Scripty]

I think that favors, gifts, free rides etc. for the GM are given freely and not as 'sacrifices' or dues. IME, they're usually meant as praise ("You've drawn up the entire map in painstaking detail, now we'll treat you to a pizza"; "That adventure rocked. And BTW, we bought and painted a cool mini for you").

I agree and disagree. I understand the courtesy of bringing something over to the host of the event. I bring food, soda, or some form of snack to pretty much every game I play without any expectation of favor. However, I think that is something entirely different from some suspect activity I've seen in my days.

I'm fairly observant (unless I'm looking for my keys) and I think I can tell the difference between someone just doing something "nice" for a friend and someone cynically trying to garner favor with a psuedo-authority figure, as in the backrub incident mentioned above. Would you give your GM a backrub in exchange for letting your 5th level character survive a critical hit dropping her to less than -10 hit points? That girl did.

Having spent considerable time on both sides of the screen, I've seen vastly different forms of behavior and I do think there's a difference between, say, pitching in with the group for a pizza and buying a GM, with whom one's sole source of social interaction is the game, a $35 concert ticket to a concert which you have no intention to attend. Not a birthday, not a Christmas present and a bit too pricey, IMO, to say "Gee, nice job" (especially for broke college students). And not an attempt to initiate some form of social comraderie outside of the game either.

It was just a cynical ploy to garner favor from another human being.

I'm not saying everyone who brings chips and bags of ice to a game are guilty of this. I was just pointing out I'd witnessed it. I think many, if not most, of us have to a degree. I also think it's fairly easy to tell the difference between them. There's a big wide chasm of self-interest between the player who says, "Hey, that last campaign was really cool. Let's get Bob that new adventure book so he can keep it going! We can all pitch in and give it to him next game." and the player who comes to the game with a book and says: "Hey, Bob, here's that nice shiny book you pointed out last time we were in the game shop. Cool, isn't it? Now, about that Lich Mage I wanted to play..."

I think if you look out at the world, the answer is, "Ordinary folks want to be led, extraordinary folks want to lead."  To borrow a statistical formula from Sturgeon's Law, 95% of the gamers out there are entirely happy with the DM-is-god outlook, and would be uncomfortable in a game where it wasn't part of the social contract.

I get your point and don't entirely disagree. Although I think it's less a matter of "ordinary vs. extraordinary" than it is a matter of those seeking control of others and those seeking to avoid blame. Of course, with shades of grey running throughout that spectrum.

But the 95% theory doesn't much hold with my recent gaming experiences, where we had fully 2/3 of the group wanting to run their campaign. Typically, most games with which I've been associated have had between 1/3 to 1/2 of the total group who were ready, willing and able to take over the reins at the slightest suggestion (or, in some cases, GM misstep).

But this contrasts with my earliest experience as a roleplayer where the "job" of GM was literally something we drew the short straw for. I think, perhaps, it was because the role of the GM back in those halcyon days was very much a "job". The players got to do all the fun stuff (at least in those games). I saw a definite shift towards the late '80s and early '90s (at least in my play experience) towards the GM getting to take the "spotlight" from the players and holding a creative dominance over the storyline.

It's probably worth noting that my early rpg experiences had little or no "storyline" to them, but were disjointed and modelled primarily after the Conan stories (which have only the slightest thread of interconnection to them in any case). So, the GM's I "grew up" with didn't have this big "plot" to push us in the direction of. It was probably more along the lines of what people do now with HeroClix (although we didn't use minis and the participants talked to each other and improvised storylines along the way).

But I don't think my early ventures into roleplaying are all that representative of what the majority of people experience at their tables and mapboards. In fact, I would propose that it was precisely this early experience of "play" and creative collaboration that spoiled me to the "Me GM, You Player" heirarchical model.

When chance is central in how conflicts are resolved within the game, the GM/player is made into a mediator or translator of chance. I believe this buries the notion of "GM is God".

What about GMs that "fudge" their dice rolls? I would agree with you that the central focus is the random factor if it weren't for this one fairly prevalent fact among roleplaying games. It's even codified in a number of fairly popular rulesets.

If the GM feels it's dramatically appropriate, he or she can alter any die roll or ignore any rule. It's pretty much the essence of the whole "Law of Story" that rpg's adopted after White Wolf's boom and, IMO, a central tenet of the "GM is God" concept.

Orlanth knows I've seen my fair share of players who are superstitious about their dice. Players who wouldn't let another human being touch their dice to keep them from (no joke) getting "tainted". Players who would roll a certain die only when it was really, really important and kept that die on its own special "pedestal" until that time. I've also witnessed bizarre rituals of rolling a die repeatedly outside of the context of the game to get the "bad luck out of it".

And while I do recognize the ritualistic, even magical, elements of such behavior, I don't think it qualifies as "worship". No one's soaking their dicebags in calves' blood and rolling dice for an hour each evening facing in the direction of Hasbro Headquarters (at least that I know of).

By contrast, I've known very, very few GMs (even non-subscribers to the "GM is God" mindset) who would subjugate their entire storyline to a roll of the dice. In fact, most heavy-handed GMs I've known have sought to limit the effect of dice on their plotlines by: limiting their use to a set number of pre-defined instances, limit their effect to a set number of pre-defined outcomes, limit their power in the game by leaving only a certain number of plot "holes" that the dice could fill. Some GMs I've known have pretty much detailed the entire storyline up to the last combat and then allowed the dice to basically supply the denouement. Even then, I've known GMs to "fudge" dice rolls to make the dice meet their pre-defined expectations for how exciting the climax "should" be.

While I personally avoid such tactics, I have found them fairly common among GMs in the area in which I used to live. Especially among GMs who worked behind a screen.

Interesting discussion, though. Oddly, I could see the dice playing a larger part in a game like "HeroQuest" or "Sorcerer" than in a game like D&D. All the dice in D&D do is tell a group what the DM pretty much already knew anyway (or had pretty much planned for), IME. There's much more improvisation off of the die results in HeroQuest, IME, than I ever had to deal with running or playing D&D, WEGd6 or Call of Cthulhu. This could possibly be because most traditional games give a result of "Yes/No" while HeroQuest just gives different gradations of "maybe".

Scott