Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Thomas Shey]

Absolutely. If you do happen to roll that one monster on the random table that can avoid the alarm. I think if dealing with "jaded" players you build trust for a bit. If nothing happens, or the alarm just works enough times, you shouldn't be suspicious if it goes the other way on a rare occasion. I think unfair DMs, those who just make the bad thing happen to suit their agenda, are why so many are jaded.

Absolutely. Its a thing that always complicates trying to judge if this is going on, though: have you hit a GM who is cooking the books (entirely possibly for what they think is good purposes after all, though whether all their players feel the same is another question), a bad set of coincidences, or an overly sensitive radar on your part from past bad experiences? There's no certainty.

What is funny is that just as many GMs are secret player helpers as there are secret monster helpers. So rolling in the open gets rid of both to a degree. Some things can't be rolled in the open but when you can its best I agree.

I'm not actually sold cooking the dice to favor people is immensely better than doing it against them in some cases. As a player, if I'm going to have issues with how the dice go, I'd rather either use a system that doesn't have that happen as often, or one that has mechanical processes (metacurrancy, say) to mitigate.

And yeah, some information access rolls seem to lose something if rolled in the open (some people don't care or have good enough firewalling that it doesn't apply, but I don't think those are typical). But for things like combat rolls and the like, I've concluded its all to the good.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Everything can always be rolled in the open

It can be, but I think its narrow to assume you get good results in all cases with all players to do so.

 

[Emerikol]

'OK, make a perception check'.

Success = you can see an enemy in the bushes. It appears to be stalking you.

Failure = an enemy bursts out of the bushes and attacks you from ambush

Yes but the guy stalking the person may have been stalking him for some time. I needed to check more than one time.

Also, if there is a chance to notice a secret door and failure means you don't notice that is an issue. Sometimes failure means nothing happens that you notice.

 

[Emerikol]

Imagine how much more tension would be generated if you did that in the open. Not having a screen doesn't make you unable to make random rolls.

Oh they can hear the rolls and be tense without any difficulty. In D&D if I rolled a natural 20 and nothing happened they'd infer something from that roll.

 

[Emerikol]

Absolutely. Its a thing that always complicates trying to judge if this is going on, though: have you hit a GM who is cooking the books (entirely possibly for what they think is good purposes after all, though whether all their players feel the same is another question), a bad set of coincidences, or an overly sensitive radar on your part from past bad experiences? There's no certainty.

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt until I can't. I think it's best to start with a new DM from a position of trust.

I'm not actually sold cooking the dice to favor people is immensely better than doing it against them in some cases. As a player, if I'm going to have issues with how the dice go, I'd rather either use a system that doesn't have that happen as often, or one that has mechanical processes (metacurrancy, say) to mitigate.

Oh I'm sure both are bad for my style of game. I was just pointing out both happen.

And yeah, some information access rolls seem to lose something if rolled in the open (some people don't care or have good enough firewalling that it doesn't apply, but I don't think those are typical). But for things like combat rolls and the like, I've concluded its all to the good.

The question is "Will the number on the dice provide more information than the character should get?" If it is giving too much info I roll secretly. If it is not then an open roll can work. You'd be surprised though in a battle when it ends mattering.

I tend to just say the info if I want the dice rolls to indicate something.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes but the guy stalking the person may have been stalking him for some time. I needed to check more than one time.

Also, if there is a chance to notice a secret door and failure means you don't notice that is an issue. Sometimes failure means nothing happens that you notice.

There's also the fact that a "successful" check that doesn't yield knowledge strongly suggests nothing to find (this is effected by DCs or the equivalent in other games, but there still can be rolls that tell you either the roll was proforma (i.e. there was nothing to find) or the roll was so difficult you had no chance of doing so.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh they can hear the rolls and be tense without any difficulty. In D&D if I rolled a natural 20 and nothing happened they'd infer something from that roll.

Even if its just you doing the "fake roll" thing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt until I can't. I think it's best to start with a new DM from a position of trust.

Yeah, but as my wife puts it, some people just have scar tissue.

Oh I'm sure both are bad for my style of game. I was just pointing out both happen.

Ten-four.

The question is "Will the number on the dice provide more information than the character should get?" If it is giving too much info I roll secretly. If it is not then an open roll can work. You'd be surprised though in a battle when it ends mattering.

With player facing rolls on non-obscured cases, I don't actually think there's any such thing, honestly, but I'm also of the opinion many GMs consider things like how skilled or armored an opponent is far harder to discern than I think it should be. By the time dice are being rolled, they, after all, mean something so outside of said obscured cases, I have no problem with players drawing the conclusions if they're paying attention. Heck, with the die roll macros I'm using, the opponents bonuses on attack are visible as soon as I hit them; I just don't much care.

 

[chuckdee]

Oh they can hear the rolls and be tense without any difficulty. In D&D if I rolled a natural 20 and nothing happened they'd infer something from that roll.

But that inference wouldn't necessarily be correct. That's the fun I have. And I can notice the tension when I roll really good, go hmmm... and they wait for the other shoe to drop at some point later. When I was just noting that it was a good roll- I wish it had actually been for something.

 

[soviet]

I think the impact of fake rolls quickly goes away and they become hollow. Players come to understand that they don't necessarily mean anything. This idea of the GM as a showman magician whose job is to misdirect and amaze needs to get in the sea. It's much more suspenseful to say what a roll is for and what the target numbers are and roll that out in the open. 'Right, on a 10 plus, the guard patrol heard you and will come to investigate.'.