If players want to rally their troops, or make a push so the opposition will break, then *they* roll for it.
My current gaming philosophy is that of asymetrical rules: all rolls are on the players' side, the GM does not touch the dice.
wow. cool. might have to give that a go as GM.
so the players roll for the NPC enemies?
Not exactly. the PCs always roll for their actions. The thing is, every time an enemy NPC acts against a PC, you can transform that action into a PC reaction and, then, make the PC roll for their reaction instead of making the NPC roll for the action :
- NPC casts a spell at PC ? Make the PC roll for avoidance or resistance.
- NPC attacks the PC physically ? Make the PC roll for defense.
- Contest of skill between PC and NPC ? Make the PC roll and use NPC skill as a basis for difficulty.
And if an NPC acts against another NPC, I don't need to roll dice, I can decide what happens - since the PCs are not involved, I don't need to roll, I just need to come up with something dramatically appropriate (which can be a flurry of near misses).
The basic idea is : if it affects a PC directly, make the player roll for the outcome. If it doesn't, describe what happens without rolling.
On the GM's side of the screen, time and attention are critical resources. The time you spend letting the dice decide for you is time you don't spend describing the situation and reinforcing suspension of disbelief.
To be honest, it is a work in progress for me - decades GMing with symmetrical rule systems make old habits die hard.