Does your DM hide their rolls?

[eriktheguy]

My rolls aren't in plain sight of the PCs, but I don't intentionally hide them. This means I can often fudge rolls (since PCs don't watch me roll) but I also get the benefit of having an open/honest table (the PCs see me rolling in the open, and assume I'm not cheating). I don't fudge often anyways.
When a roll HAS to be secret (stealth check etc) then I always hide it.
Other than that, I'm very open about what goes on at my table. I often put enemy defenses on a white board for everyone to look at.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is one of the best, most frank, and honest anti-storytelling posts I've seen - in a good way. I don't agree with one word here, but I think you put it very succinctly.

The opposite argument is of course that what its all about is telling the character's story - which would be cut short if he or she died early. Which you would of course not think fun at all.

But you are forcing the story.

You are not dictating the story where the Fighter does die and the rest of the PCs revenge that death, instead you are dictating the story where the Fighter lives and the rest of the PCs go along for the ride. Ho hum.

That is just as much anti-storytelling as what you claim that poster is doing.

I have absolutely no problem agreeing to disagree here.

Yup.

So, it is possible to fudge and still maintain the sense of risk and randomness to a character.

No it's not.

Deus Ex Machina is Deus Ex Machina regardless of how the DM does it.

I don't want the PC to die, so he doesn't die. The end.

Oh, and I'm also not completely adverse to a TPK. If the players just decide to do some obviously stupid things that lead to the death of their characters, then they're dead...period.

I find it interesting how many times a DM has posted that it is ok to TPK if the players do something stupid, but it's not ok if they do not.

Sometimes stupid = heroic.

From the viewpoint of the DM, the player was doing something stupid. From the viewpoint of the player, the player was doing something risky or heroic.


When the DM is impartial instead of being biased, then TPKs result when the entire randomness of the situation (PC actions, dice rolls, encounter setup, terrain, difficulty, etc.) all contribute to the TPK.

It's not a decision of the DM to either save or kill the PCs that way. It's not DM railroading the story.

 

[Jhaelen]

Then you simply adjust your "Combat Expertise" feat so that it can't hit, except by natural 20.....and just pretty much lol at the monster.

... which the monster can easily counter by reducing the to-hit penalty it was applying to increase its damage with Power Attack.

In 3e this is not a problem at all since monsters use the same rules as players. Monsters can have combat expertise as well

There's also lots of ways to gain situational modifiers, so it's really not that easy to reliably determine their 'normal' attack modifier.

 

[Obryn]

I roll everything in the open. If I have erred as a DM in throwing a monster at the party that I should not have, there are other ways to "fudge" like picking non-optimal tactics.

-O

 

[Neuroglyph]

I tend to roll combats in the open and the rest of the "non-combat" rolls like stealth, perception, npc reactions behind the screen.

If I feel the need to fudge a combat roll - which I do occasionally - I will just create a "DM penalty" to my hit roll, unless it's massive - my players don't memorize the attack bonuses of every attack I throw at them (thankfully) so it's easy to do. Damage dice are a little harder to "palm" but I do the same thing there - roll one less dice on an attack or reduce the damage bonus when I add things up.

It's funny, but in 4E, I almost never have to fudge in favor of the monsters - which I did from time to time in 3.5 to give players a hard fight. 4E is tough on PC's... period!

 

[Skallgrim]

I think that it is odd that (at least to my perception), we seem to be talking just about a few things and ignoring others completely.

For example, we are continually bringing up protecting the PCs vs. letting them take their lumps. We are continually bringing up "trusting a DM" vs. being able to objectively verify their rolls.

I often roll dice behind a screen, and I fudge a LOT of them. However, I don't think I've ever fudged one to protect a PC, or to harm one (though that has often been a consequence). A lot of monsters have an attack that is once per encounter. That attack might even be their "signature attack" (say, the death gaze of a bodak). If I have one bodak in the encounter, and it misses with its one chance to use that attack, then no one in the party even gets to "see" what it does! I don't like encounters which don't actually feature the "special effects" of a monster. Sure, I could rewrite the monster so that the power was Reliable, but I can't see how that is any less of a "fudge" than a die roll would be.

On the flip side of the same coin, a monster might have a power which is really effective, and recharges only on a 6. If the monster sees exactly how effective it's big nasty attack is on turn 1, and can simply repeat it on turn 2 (when it rolls a 6), and then again in turn 3 (when I roll another 6), why in the world wouldn't it just do so? I don't see how deciding the monster is suddenly totally stupid is any less of a "fudge" than simply saying the power did not recharge. I'm not saying this is to protect the PCs. The power in question might simply immobilize them, or Stun them. What party wants to sit there through 3 turns doing nothing?

What I am arguing is that you can fudge to simply make a combat more varied and interesting, rather than just to adjust the difficulty level. If the big bad monster gets stunned in turn 1, and fails to save in turns 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (which is totally in the realms of possibility), then the party might have an easy, but uninteresting fight. Every group I have ever DMed would much rather have interesting than easy.

Also, I still don't see how "fudging the dice" is totally a matter of DM trust, but the DM altering the tactics of the monsters, or the composition of the encounter, to adjust for the players is not. If the monsters are supposedly existing in this "real fantasy world", then they should be the same whether the group has 4 strikers or a balanced party of 6, or a huge party of 12. How is it totally OK to adjust the entire world that the PCs encounter, based on the party makeup, and "cheating" to alter a roll occasionally?

 

[KarinsDad]

I think that it is odd that (at least to my perception), we seem to be talking just about a few things and ignoring others completely.

For example, we are continually bringing up protecting the PCs vs. letting them take their lumps. We are continually bringing up "trusting a DM" vs. being able to objectively verify their rolls.

I often roll dice behind a screen, and I fudge a LOT of them. However, I don't think I've ever fudged one to protect a PC, or to harm one (though that has often been a consequence). A lot of monsters have an attack that is once per encounter. That attack might even be their "signature attack" (say, the death gaze of a bodak). If I have one bodak in the encounter, and it misses with its one chance to use that attack, then no one in the party even gets to "see" what it does! I don't like encounters which don't actually feature the "special effects" of a monster. Sure, I could rewrite the monster so that the power was Reliable, but I can't see how that is any less of a "fudge" than a die roll would be.

On the flip side of the same coin, a monster might have a power which is really effective, and recharges only on a 6. If the monster sees exactly how effective it's big nasty attack is on turn 1, and can simply repeat it on turn 2 (when it rolls a 6), and then again in turn 3 (when I roll another 6), why in the world wouldn't it just do so? I don't see how deciding the monster is suddenly totally stupid is any less of a "fudge" than simply saying the power did not recharge. I'm not saying this is to protect the PCs. The power in question might simply immobilize them, or Stun them. What party wants to sit there through 3 turns doing nothing?

What I am arguing is that you can fudge to simply make a combat more varied and interesting, rather than just to adjust the difficulty level. If the big bad monster gets stunned in turn 1, and fails to save in turns 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (which is totally in the realms of possibility), then the party might have an easy, but uninteresting fight. Every group I have ever DMed would much rather have interesting than easy.

Yes, but by fudging, you are protecting or harming the PCs and dictating the results of the encounter by definition.

In this case, in the name of "interesting".

Some people justify their lack of DM impartiality in the name of fun, or the name of interesting, or the name of fairness, or in the name of the continuation of the campaign.

Also, I still don't see how "fudging the dice" is totally a matter of DM trust, but the DM altering the tactics of the monsters, or the composition of the encounter, to adjust for the players is not. If the monsters are supposedly existing in this "real fantasy world", then they should be the same whether the group has 4 strikers or a balanced party of 6, or a huge party of 12. How is it totally OK to adjust the entire world that the PCs encounter, based on the party makeup, and "cheating" to alter a roll occasionally?

It's one thing to create an interesting balanced encounter for the group that you have. Typically, the DM should limit this to number of PCs, but there is often a need to not introduce certain types of encounters if the PCs are lacking certain roles or abilities. It's hard to overcome flying monsters if nobody has a ranged attack.


It's something else to fudge the game on the fly in an attempt to make it more interesting.

Take your death gaze example. 5 PCs lose a healing surge because the DM decided that it would be cool to force a PC to 0 hit points.


The thing I don't like about fudging is that DMs are not omniscient. When the DM is impartial (or at least tries to be impartial), then unexpected events can more likely occur such as 3 PCs out of 5 are unconscious. What do the other 2 do to save the day? That is a lot more interesting to me as a player than seeing a PC knocked to zero so that the DM could show off death gaze.

Opps, sorry. The DM didn't allow multiple PCs to go unconscious. So, the players are not in an interesting situation where they have to pull a miracle out of their butts.

Or alternatively, the PCs kick major butt and win in style without the DM slowing that down. For example, a few weeks back, our group killed the BBEG Lich in an n+4 encounter in 2 rounds and the rest of the encounter foes in 2 more rounds, it was a major encounter and the end of a major adventure and quest. On paper, it should have easily lasted 8 or more rounds (based on number of hit points to take out foes) and been seriously challenging, but it was done in 4 rounds due to luck (multiple crits) and tactics. That was fun and interesting for them, but it wouldn't happen in a fudged game. They walked out of that encounter high fiving. The DM might think "oh, all my hard work wasted". The players thought "what a great fight, we kicked some serious Lich tail".

By railroading the game with a lot of on the fly adjustments, the DM dictates more than just the scenario, he dictates the results of the scenario. Maybe without even realizing it. By making it harder (regardless of motive like making it interesting), he forces the PCs to use up more resources. By making it easier, he allows the PCs to use up fewer resources.


There is a difference between having a heavy influence on the creation of a scenario, and having a heavy influence on the results of a scenario.

By fudging, DMs insert themselves into the results of the scenario. They should only do that to the level at which the monsters have capabilities and intelligence. Not more, not less.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I have been rolling dice in the open for many years.. and my reasons are a combination of not liking the DM screen blocking my view of the table and players, and liking the tension it creates when the chips are down and the players know its all on the dice results.


That being said, I do fudge the results of a scenario from time to time, generally to allow a monster to be somewhat dramatic in its death or to allow a new player to get the last hit in. I do this by altering hit points and using the 'GMs freind bonus of +/- 2', along with an occasional 'encounter' power that grants the critter a boost to hit.
My players all know I fudge a bit on the side. In one published module encounter I literally rewrote the monster stats mid-combat as they were much more of a challenge than was appropriate. {Had I more time to prep I would have fixed that in advance}. My goal in fudging is simply to advance the entertainment of everyone at the table by boosting dramatic events as dramatic instead of anti-dramatic.
That Lich combat mentioned upthread? That is dramatic... the number of rounds have little to do with how cool the fight is. My players should be talking about the combats afterwards in terms of "Holy Sh, that Crayfish almost ripped the Eladrin in twain!" instead of "That damn Crayfish dealt way too much damage for its level, that was unfair"
.. GM prep and encounter balance goes a long way to getting there, but sometimes you need to adjust on the fly as the combat goes along.

YMMV

 

[Aduro]

I don't want my characters clad in plot armor, it defeats the purpose of rolling dice if results are just going to get fudged so I never lose. Yes, sure, I might have had so much more story I could have made for that character, but his death can spawn just as much or more story for his friends and party.

 

[DanmarLOK]

QFT

I roll everything in the open. If I have erred as a DM in throwing a monster at the party that I should not have, there are other ways to "fudge" like picking non-optimal tactics.
-O

WIth 4th edition (older editions are another thread completely) I haven't found any reason to hide my rolls at all. I 'nudge' encounters in what powers I use and who I use them on. I typically run Level +2-4 and I've not had a problem with in plain view dice rolls.

I have though forgotten (in truth and on purpose) to use IA's, aura's, recharge big powers from time to time if luck is completely one side. (I think the new monster stat block will go a long way with helping with the unintentional mistakes)

Since 4th edition I've only killed one player and that was a string of bad dice rolls along with the players as a whole making mistakes.