Dissatisfaction with Your Gaming Group?

[Yair]

/hijack/

I have never seen a GM do open rolling. I certainly wouldn't do it as a GM -- my PCs spend the combat deducing the monsters' AC as it is so they can properly calculate power attacks. I wouldn't especially enjoy them being able to figure out their opponents' hit, grapple, damage and saves.

If you want to curtail that and don't mind a little more math, may I humbly suggest rolling AC (add d20 instead of 10) to the DM's characters, behind the screen. That way they have far less reliable data to work with, and the results are a little more predictable. If you've already thought of that, just ignore this message
/hijack/

It looks like you are seeking an excuse to leave the group. I think you can either voice your opinions adamantly and be ready for some fallout and possibly expulsion or the breakup of the group, or quietly fade into the night (drop from the game). If you don't decide which of these it's going to be, you'll end up finding yourself bitterly arguing in the midst of the first option, which will probably be a bit worse.

that's my 2 cents.

 

[Akrasia]

... That secret dice rolling thing is weird. It's obviously so the GM can 'cheat'. I only once had a GM that did that. He was pretty bad.

Absurd.

I have never heard of a decent GM 'open rolling'. It enables players to engage in all kind of meta-game nonesense -- viz. determining NPC attack and skill bonuses, hit points, levels (when casting spells), etc.

Indeed, I would greatly disrespect ANY GM who rolled did NOT engage in 'secret rolling'. Secret rolling is essential for any GM worth her salt to maintain a sense of drama and mystery.

 

[Akrasia]

For me, open rolling is where it's at - there's simply no better way to promote trust in the GM and utter impartiality.

Rubbish.

If you don't trust the GM to make the rolls in secret, just quit.

Trusting the GM's motives is key to any game.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

Ramien,

Some of your points could just as well be in the imagination as real. For instance, the favoritism towards the blind player. Maybe you're right and maybe you're not. As far as the issues go about the rolling the dice behind the screen and the other issues, that seems to be the standard way its done. (Though occassionally I will have everyone - including myself - roll in the open for more excitement.)

I guess I see some of your problems in the final point you make but wonder whether or not it is something worth quitting the group over. Are you having any fun at all?

See, regardless of whether or not you are right, your GM is right or whatever, teh real question is whether or not this is something you look forward to or not. I had a player in a game who dropped out because I (the GM) had too much role playing and investigation and not enough mindless combat for his tastes. If he had posted that here he likely would not have gotten too much sympathy. But right or wrong, if he (and you) are not having fun in a game no matter who is right or wrong, surely you can find somewhere else to play.

But there is another aspect I'd like to point out. If you are in a decent game, don't leave because things are not the way you'd like them to be. By overhearing conversations at the game store, at cons and even on message boards, I am convinced that lots of campaigns are ones I would not enjoy and very week I am pretty thankful that my group is pretty cool (despite some minor complaints).

That is my partial advice/partial soapbox for you.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Absurd.

I have never heard of a decent GM 'open rolling'. It enables players to engage in all kind of meta-game nonesense -- viz. determining NPC attack and skill bonuses, hit points, levels (when casting spells), etc.

Indeed, I would greatly disrespect ANY GM who rolled did NOT engage in 'secret rolling'. Secret rolling is essential for any GM worth her salt to maintain a sense of drama and mystery.

I roll in the open because otherwise I would never have the resolve to kill a PC, and conversely, my players would lose the sense of danger that comes from knowing that their characters might die.

I hate combats where we (the PCs) succeed against apparently overwhelming odds (perhaps barely) with the GM secret rolling, because there is always that suspicion that the GM fudged things in favour of the players - and that takes away all the satisfaction that I would have gained through my character and his comrades triumphing.

Indeed, it sometimes destroys my pleasure in the whole campaign itself, because it makes it all seem false and meaningless. I want to think of my character as a mighty, legendary hero - but I know the truth is that he's just a walking fraud who'd be six feet under if the GM hadn't cheated on his behalf.

Where's the challenge?

Where's the danger?

Where's the adventure?

Personally, I'd much rather have to roleplay my way round a bit of player meta-information than lose the edge that comes through having no GM safety net.

 

[Akrasia]

...
Indeed, it sometimes destroys my pleasure in the whole
Personally, I'd much rather have to roleplay my way round a bit of player meta-information than lose the edge that comes through having no GM safety net.

So you don't trust you GM to do her job.

Sounds like a problem with the GM.

I would prefer the 'mystery' (and avoid the temptation to engage in 'metagaming') of a game with a trustworthy GM, than having to 'keep the GM honest'.

In short, if you feel the need to have the GM roll openly, why not just play a friggin' computer game that does that for you? You have reduced the GM's role to pure number-crunching monster-creator, and umpire. The realization of all the worst stereotypes of 3e.

 

[Southern Oracle]

There are rolls a DM should make in secret, so players are not tempted to metagame...Appraise checks for the value of treasure (indeed, I believe the Player's Handbook actually says the DM should roll), Knowledge checks (so the players don't know what DC they need and keep having people make checks until they find out the info), Search checks (so the players don't know if there's anything to find or not), etc. Of course, some gaming groups can handle doing all these rolls in the open, and I do so when I'm gaming online...but not during my tabletop game. Our DM also rolls his attacks and damage behind the screen, but occasionally he'll roll for everyone to see, especially during a tense scene where life or death, success or failure, hinges on the balance. DMs can and should fudge rolls to further enjoyment of the game...there's nothing worse than the entire party dying at 1st level just after finishing making the characters. In the end, it just comes down to personal preference, but everyone has to compromise; it's practically impossible for a group to have everyone with exactly the same play style and tastes.

 

[Nellisir]

I roll in the open because otherwise I would never have the resolve to kill a PC, and conversely, my players would lose the sense of danger that comes from knowing that their characters might die.

I roll in secret, until the big climax of a fight. Then I roll in the open, and the characters die honestly. If I need to fudge, I just add hit points to the foe (or rarely, subtracting hit points).

Going back to the original post, I don't think adding average hit points is "standard" -- I've always known rolling for hit points after first level to be the standard. As a DM, I'd probably allow it (taking average), but you'd have to take the absolute average, and the .5 extra on even levels wouldn't count for anything.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Psion]

My only dissatisfaction is the group is currently too small.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

So you don't trust you GM to do her job.

Sounds like a problem with the GM.

I trust the GM as much as I trust myself. And I don't trust myself to kill PCs. I know I've pulled the "it only does 3 HPs trick" in the past, and I know some of the other guys have done it when GMing.

It's all very well saying that people want rolls applied without bias, but having their character killed will upset them and I don't want to be the one to have done it. If the dice was rolled in the open then I don't feel guilty because it was the dice that did it. But if I roll behind a screen, where it was my decision whether to keep the roll or ignore it - then I feel like I did it, so I'll fudge to avoid feeling like a heel.

Now maybe you have the strength of character to avoid this, which makes you a better man than I, or the rest of my gaming group come to that.

Also, I as a player feel differently about open rolls than closed rolls.

I don't mind minor things been done hidden to maintain suspense, but at the end of the day, when I'm down to four hit points and a barbarian's battleaxe is heading straight at my head, I want my fate to be decided by physics (i.e. the roll of the dice) not the whim of the gods (i.e. the GM deciding whether to fudge the roll).

That way, if I die it's because of my actions and not because the God's didn't want to save me. In a sense, it doesn't matter whether or not the GM did fudge the roll, simply that the GM could have fudged the roll.

There's still fudging involved when I GM. I can alter the hitpoints of creatures, or eliminate reinforcements I'd planned to have arrive. But at the end of the day, when I roll my D20 my players know that I might roll a critical followed by maximum damage and if that happens there's nothing they or I can do.

In short, if you feel the need to have the GM roll openly, why not just play a friggin' computer game that does that for you? You have reduced the GM's role to pure number-crunching monster-creator, and umpire. The realization of all the worst stereotypes of 3e.

Because computer games don't act, nor respond to acting? Because they don't come up with complex plots that revolve around the PCs? Because the bits of roleplaying that I like most (the near diceless, storytelling aspect of it) are the ones that are *least* like computer games?

If you never fudge dice rolls then I don't see how simply making the screen see-through would be the same as replacing you with a crude software application.