DM screen or no DM screen? That is the question...

As a DM I do not use a screen. If I need to make a roll for a player, I will just cover it up by a book or something. But I feel when rolling attack rolls and whatnot is something that doesn't need to be hidden by the players. First off, they know that I won't cheat and second it's easier to see all them not cheat. Generally that's not a problem though, but of course it's happened with everyone I'm sure at some time. Anyway, I feel that not using a screen generates more trust between a DM and his players.

We have another DM who doesn't use a screen either but he uses attack rolls behind a book or something. Often enough I ask something like "Does AC 16 hit?" and he says yes, then a couple rounds later I say "I hit AC 16" and he tells me it's a miss, when NO spellcasting has happened, no special circumstances come up to warrant that and no actions were taken that could have activated some sort of magic item. Also at times I've seen those rolls behind his book, and often he states they are much higher than they really were. I ALWAYS call him on this, and he has the nerve to get pissed off at me when all I ask for is honesty. I can't have fun in his game if he can't be honest. Sure, if you roll too high and feel like possibly sparing a character his life, that's one thing, but to intentionally screw the characters is a whole different story.

That's why I think some rolls (like attack and damage) should always be viewable. After all, eventually we'll gauge in a fight approximately how often a creature can hit us anyway. It's not a major science or anything.

Anyway, that's why I prefer not to use a screen and hide certain rolls and why I also have less fun when a DM does do that sort of thing. What do you guys think?

Dice rolling in the open is something I do when important life and death rolls are being made sometimes but to be honest, as a GM, sometimes I cheat. There's no point in having a player get aced by a lucky goblin who got a critical in my campaign unless the player did something really stupid and the laws of averages will eventually kill almost any character so cheating is sometimes in order for my group.

I've noticed during RPGA events most DMs aren't using screens. When I DM I don't use one either.

About all the screen is good for is blocking accidental reading of notes and looking up information printed on the screen.

~D

Oh, don't get me wrong, sometimes I will cheat for the players "benefit". Generally I don't do this with attack rolls though. I think it lets my players know that they NEED to be more careful when fighting and know when to retreat, cuz if they don't, then know that I won't be fudging a die roll that attacked them when I just get done rolling it right in front of them. As a result, last Friday the entire party actually died unfortunately. That was ok though since I was planning on incorporating the Ghostwalk rules anyway.

I decided a few months back to try rolling in the open when I DM, but I still intend to use a screen. Quite apart from liking screens (which I do), having one gives me a spot to lay out small maps, notes, NPC stats and so forth where my players can't see them. I also throughly enjoy the feeling of being behind the screen -- plotting, always plotting.

I've run games without a screen before, but for a long-running D&D campaign I would always want one available.

One good compromise, however, is to set up a small table next to the one you're gaming at (assuming you game around a table, of course) -- and put the screen on the side table. This gives you hidden space, but also allows to you to interact with your players without any obstructions. The DM in one of the games I play in does this, and it works quite well for him.

I find that using a notbook on the side with notes works fine without the screen. And if I have some stats or thing for creatures that don't need to be seen, then the 3x5 cards I use fit nice and snug under the battlemap until I need them.

haiiro said:

I decided a few months back to try rolling in the open when I DM, but I still intend to use a screen. Quite apart from liking screens (which I do), having one gives me a spot to lay out small maps, notes, NPC stats and so forth where my players can't see them. I also throughly enjoy the feeling of being behind the screen -- plotting, always plotting.

I've run games without a screen before, but for a long-running D&D campaign I would always want one available.

One good compromise, however, is to set up a small table next to the one you're gaming at (assuming you game around a table, of course) -- and put the screen on the side table. This gives you hidden space, but also allows to you to interact with your players without any obstructions. The DM in one of the games I play in does this, and it works quite well for him.

Click to expand...

That's a great idea.

I use a screen but do a select number of rolls in front of the PC's. Tend to increase the drama. I do fudge but only for the benefit of the PCs. This is rare but sometimes is needed to keep the hero alive. I wish I had more space for a side table but usually I don't. For basic encounters I roll in the open. For really critical spots I make a judgement call and about 50% of the time I'll do it right on the table.

I have found that with different groups a screen is better and for others it is not. Same for situations. Sometimes it's best to take it down and for others it's really needed for notes and the like.

Almost all the games I play right now are online so it's a moot point, I have a thousand+ dollar screen between me and my players

When I do play face to face, I use a screen; it keeps them honest (no accidentally getting a peek at the notes/maps on the table) and allows me to fudge things from dramatic/story effect (I've never been of the "it's ok to fudge in the players favor but not against them" school).

/gnarlo

I don't use one. I've never liked them.

However, they are kind of neat in that they show the "office" of the DM. It's almost a bit of RPG pageantry.