D&D General Do You Use a DM Screen?

[Stoutstien]

One utility that is often over looked for screens is it allows you to have information facing the players all the time.

For one group that is made up of players that are new(ish) the back has a print out with basic rules and a brief description of the action resolution system/ ability scores.

My other group has a calendar, current weather, and different binder clips for time of day.

 

[Reynard]

No. I find it disingenuous. If I have built an encounter, and the group runs through it, so be it. If I built an encounter and the group nearly dies, so be it. I always err on the side of caution when building an encounter and try to add more things that are interesting than deadly. But the last thing I worry about are the swing of the dice. That, at least to me, is part of the fun of the game. If we wanted to tell a story with predicted outcomes, we would choose a different game.

I can see some people's wheels turning about how a DM screen doesn't mean the DM fudges rolls. No offense, but I call bull. It may be my experiences, but every time I've played with a DM that uses the screen, magically, the big-boss battles are hair-tight and only at the last second does the group win. And in those moments when the big-bad managed to get another round or two because of bad player rolls, the big-bad either does something stupid (even though they are brilliant) or they magically miss a bunch. Meanwhile, all the DMs I've played with that don't use a screen, the battles go exactly as the dice go. It doesn't mean you die, but if your third level and miss three times in a row, and the rest of your group is rolling poorly, you're in trouble. With the no screen DM, I've seen TPKs, reboots (as in that went horribly bad, let's make it all a vision you had that night), divine interventions, etc. With screened DMs, that doesn't happen.

I agree that some GMs use screens to fudge rolls, but not all GMs that use screens fudge rolls.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

We play in person, and no, I don't use it and I never have. I just do not have need for it. The way we're sitting people cannot read my notes from my notebook or iPad, and even if they could, it would not reveal anything of importance. Most of the secrets and plot twists will exist only in my head. My notes will not say "Jareen the Alchemist is a traitor and secretly allied with the demon cultists," or anything of the sorts. They might just say "Jareen, alchemist, human male." I don't need notes to remember what's going on, so notes are mostly just about names and numerical information etc.

 

[Oofta]

I used to use a DM screen off and on long ago but haven't for a long, long time. Nowadays I use DDB so I run my monsters online and occasionally glance at the player's abilities if there's any question of how they work (typically with newer characters/levels). Any background info or cheat sheets like my list of names that I might need once in a while are also accessed from my laptop. I do generally have my current session notes printed out and in front of me, because that's what I'm going to refer to on a regular basis. If someone really wants to read stuff upside down I guess they can.

Rolling? With the exception of the occasional opposed check, I always roll in the open.

I think part of not having a screen in front of me is that having one makes me feel like I either have something to hide or want an increased sense of separation. That latter thing is a matter of preference and is a bit nebulous of course. It's just a feeling that the DM is putting themselves separate and in some ways above the other players in a way I don't care for. Which is kind of funny because during game-time I do believe the DM should make the final call to keep the game moving. So ... it's complicated and I'm not sure I can fully explain it. Maybe it just feels a bit formal? Dunno.

In any case I don't use a screen because I don't need it and I don't care for the aesthetics.

 

[Meech17]

I wonder if there is a decently mobile lectern solution. I want to use one when I run at cons.

I've seen table top lecterns before.. I'm not sure how mobile I'd consider them.. I'd imagine they're still pretty heavy and a bit bulky..

Just browsing the web it looks like a few places sell telescoping lecterns on microphone style stands.

 

[Vael]

To be honest, if I start running games in person soon, I'll definitely be using a screen. My laptop is... unreliable and I can't afford to replace it, so I'll have to go to old school pencil and paper

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Like... you use it while online? You dont use a VTT or have any rules references online or PDFs? You actually read from the screen while running a game online?

All of the above. Integrated rules and maps in the VTT. Digital versions of books open, and physical versions of the most referenced ones open also. Desktop computer and my old laptop are both open. Anything I can do to reduce search and retrieval time.

 

[Clint_L]

No. I find it disingenuous. If I have built an encounter, and the group runs through it, so be it. If I built an encounter and the group nearly dies, so be it. I always err on the side of caution when building an encounter and try to add more things that are interesting than deadly. But the last thing I worry about are the swing of the dice. That, at least to me, is part of the fun of the game. If we wanted to tell a story with predicted outcomes, we would choose a different game.

I can see some people's wheels turning about how a DM screen doesn't mean the DM fudges rolls. No offense, but I call bull. It may be my experiences, but every time I've played with a DM that uses the screen, magically, the big-boss battles are hair-tight and only at the last second does the group win. And in those moments when the big-bad managed to get another round or two because of bad player rolls, the big-bad either does something stupid (even though they are brilliant) or they magically miss a bunch. Meanwhile, all the DMs I've played with that don't use a screen, the battles go exactly as the dice go. It doesn't mean you die, but if your third level and miss three times in a row, and the rest of your group is rolling poorly, you're in trouble. With the no screen DM, I've seen TPKs, reboots (as in that went horribly bad, let's make it all a vision you had that night), divine interventions, etc. With screened DMs, that doesn't happen.

Except, as I previously posted, you can choose when to use the screen (or whatever) to hide dice rolls. So using a DM screen does not, in fact automatically mean the DM fudges rolls. Context matters. So I call “bull” on your “bull.”

I roll everything openly if the characters have access to the information. So that includes combat rolls. But a screen of some kind is important for situations where the characters will have to make some guesses because they don’t magically know what is happening in an NPC’s mind, for example. And I think the game is way more fun that way.

Edit: also, Matt Mercer always rolls behind a screen and his every roll has been scrutinized for evidence of fudging. So it does demonstrably happen that there are DMs who always use a screen for rolls and not to cheat.

 

[the Jester]

I basically never use a screen, but if I do ever want to use one, I already have the greatest innovation in DM screen technology ever, the... I believe 4th Edition?... Hackmaster GM's Screen.

 

[Scott Christian]

I agree that some GMs use screens to fudge rolls, but not all GMs that use screens fudge rolls.

GMs? I agree. There are some games where specific and commonly used information is needed. Rolemaster is an example of this. (Although why it can't lay flat is beyond me.) DMs? No. There is nothing a DM (especially 5e) needs to have on a screen in front of them. The only exception is if they change the screen for each session so they can have references to NPCs, creatures, rumors, etc.