D&D 5E How do you roll, DM?

[Flamestrike]

If players can't see the DM's dice, there may be reason to believe the DM is fudging.

They can believe what they want. But they'll never know the truth or be able to metagame the DM based on his rolls, or even metagame what or why he is rolling in the first place.

A player that is concerned about the DMs rolls is taking an adversarial position with the DM, and to me, that's indicative of a deeper problem at the table.

IME, truly great DM's use the dice as a tool. Bad ones let the dice dictate the reality.

 

[Laurefindel]

If players can't see the DM's dice, there may be reason to believe the DM is fudging. A lot of people aren't okay with that. Some people are, which may be why the DMG puts rolling in the open or rolling behind a screen at the level of table rules rather than rules of the game.

A DM can be fair, reasonable, knowledgeable, and entertaining without rolling behind a screen.

A DM can also be fair, reasonable, knowledgeable, and entertaining without rolling behind a screen as well.

 

[Mort]

• I almost always allow PCs to auto-succeed Perception checks except in surprise situations.

I'm not quite this permissive, but close. Tend to be leery of putting anything important behind a successful perception or investigation check. (unless there is a clear other way of discovering information).

• Stealth is only rolled the moment (and each time) a sneaking character could be spotted and failure has immediate consequences.

• That's how I do it too. I see stealth as a solely opposed check. If there's no one there to perceive the character, why bother with a roll (there's no chance of failure)? If there is someone to find the character then it's a contest either against an opposed active perception check or a passive perception check (there but not actively looking or similar scenario).

 

[Blackrat]

I usually roll in full view, but in certain situations I hide them.

 

[Umbran]

Oh, goodness. Another dichotomy war.

Folks, do not pass judgement on each other for how you play.

 

[iserith]

They can believe what they want. But they'll never know the truth or be able to metagame the DM based on his rolls, or even metagame what or why he is rolling in the first place.

A player that is concerned about the DMs rolls is taking an adversarial position with the DM, and to me, that's indicative of a deeper problem at the table.

IME, truly great DM's use the dice as a tool. Bad ones let the dice dictate the reality.

I think there are better ways to deal with "metagaming" than messing about with the dice.

As the DMG points out, if the dice are rolled where the players can see, "they know you're playing impartially and not fudging rolls." This does not suggest any adversarial relationship in my view. It simply reinforces the role of the DM as impartial arbiter between the rules and the players. This may be why, in part, the DMG suggests fudging and phantom rolls should be used sparingly if at all.

 

[Umbran]

A DM can also be fair, reasonable, knowledgeable, and entertaining without rolling behind a screen as well.

In the end, the question is whether the play experience is fair, reasonable, and entertaining. The GM being knowledgeable is merely a means to the end of a good play experience.

There are different techniques you can use to make the play experience good, with dice hidden, and dice open. They work with varying degrees of efficacy depending greatly on the details of the situation and groups involved.

We find that a great many terms that get tossed around in such discussions are not nearly so clear in definition as folks would like. Take "fair" as an example. Fair can mean "unbiased", and it can also mean, "just". It may unbiased to allow a roll of a 20 to lead to a critical hit that kills a PC. It may also be just to reward a player who has been highly engaged and engaging and an asset to the group with an end to their PC that satisfies them. But, what is unbiased may not lead to just reward for effort.

Which you should focus on will depend on your groups particular needs, not on some arbitrary precept.

 

[Umbran]

This does not suggest any adversarial relationship in my view. It simply reinforces the role of the DM as impartial arbiter between the rules and the players.

1) It is not necessarily true that the GM's role is of "impartial arbiter between the rules and the players." That's one playstyle choice. Please let us leave room for other playstyles in the discussion.

2) One's need to actually see the die rolls to accept the results with aplomb measures the limits of the trust relationship between the participants. If you always must see the die rolls, for example, then you have rather little trust. We could ask why there are limits on that trust - one common reason is that the relationship is somewhat adversarial. In that sense, it is suggestive - just not determinative, as there are other possible reasons.

 

[iserith]

1) It is not necessarily true that the GM's role is of "impartial arbiter between the rules and the players." That's one playstyle choice. Please let us leave room for other playstyles in the discussion.

That's the role the DMG defines (pg. 5) and is as a result one of my DMing principles as outlined in my second post in this thread. Stating what the DMG says and saying what I do is in no way shutting out discussion for other "playstyles."

2) One's need to actually see the die rolls to accept the results with aplomb measures the limits of the trust relationship between the participants. If you always must see the die rolls, for example, then you have rather little trust. We could ask why there are limits on that trust - one common reason is that the relationship is somewhat adversarial. In that sense, it is suggestive - just not determinative, as there are other possible reasons.

What I find is that it's more dramatic and there's a sense that nobody's going to bail you out of your own decisions which goes to a player's feeling about their agency. It has nothing to do with not trusting the DM. For some tables, they may not trust the DM. That's not me though.

 

[Stormdale]

I'm another all dice rolled in the open camp. I want my pcs to feel they've earned their victories fairly and the buzz they get when overcoming the odds and succeeding is then real. I've played with a couple of poor dms who fudged badly in favour of pcs and so iIdon't do that as I don't want to cheapen my pcs victories- there are plenty of tools a dm can use in other ways to manipulate things.

You can still create tension with unexplained dice rolls, I do it all the time but the dice are usually rolled by the players- "roll me a d10 and don't get a one". Wandering monster checks, all sorts of things are now handled by pcs whether knowingly or unknowingly.

I try to have 90% of all idce rolling done by the players so even things like removing traps are done by the players. The key I've found though is asking them what they do after they have attempted to disarm a trap before BEFORE they roll.

The conversation goes something like this:
"I try to disarm the trap on the chest."
"Okay how are you going to do that?" (They then explain how they are going to try and disarm it). Once satisfied with understanding their intent I ask what they are going to do after trying to disarm the trap and then once we are clear on that they roll the dice- that way we avoid the "Oh crap I rolled do a 3, John, you'd better double check that chest for me."

Stormdale