D&D General Should the DM roll in the open?

[Micah Sweet]

The problem is, all kinds of GMs think being dishonest with their die rolls is good GMing; not only do I not think that's generically true, I don't feel like its something they should be deciding because, again, I don't trust people's judgement unlimitedly even with the best of intentions.

Fundamentally, there's only a limited number of what I consider good reasons to conceal die rolls, and most rolls don't land in that, so if a GM insists on hiding them, I consider it fairly likely he's doing things I think are bad ideas.

That would be an excellent stance to make clear in session 0. That way, if it turns out they are fudging, you were justified in your distrust.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It isn't about trust, it's about player agency. A GM that fudges entirely for positive reasons, such as making things an 'appropriate' level of challenge or mitigating extreme swings of luck, is still placing their own sense of what should happen above the say of the dice and the rules. I do not want that experience. As a player I would rather have outcomes determined by arbitrary impartial forces that I can see - win or lose, live or die, succeed or fail, including the anticlimactic too-quick victories or the long drawn out struggles or the shocking defeats. As GM I want that too, I don't want to curate the experience I want to be surprised by it.

If you don't want hidden rolls because you're concerned about fudging, then I don't see how it isn't about trust.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Interestingly enough, this is a rather dishonest framing of what people have said. The majority of posters in favour of open rolling have said that they prefer to roll openly as GMs because it builds trust with their players (or it reduces their own temptation to misrepresent rolls).

So it's a trust issue either way. Sounds like the same problem to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Without knowing what your particular definition is for something being a game, I really can't answer. Although @EzekielRaiden did an excellent job of explain the core conceits of what Fiasco is and how it plays.

I'd assume people's opinions on what makes a game a game would be wide and mixed, so even if my opinion is that Fiasco is a game and thus rendered my point about it true... someone else could believe otherwise and thus claim the opposite. It's like the Strong National Museum of Play having put the stick, cardboard box and blanket into the Toy Hall of Fame... they did so because children have used those items as playtime objects for centuries, but many people have said they can't be "toys" because toys are "made" and not just 'found objects'. And no amount of explanation would convince them otherwise of that. Likewise... everyone will have a different opinion on what makes a game a game.

I see games as having some degree of challenge to overcome in order to achieve goals, and a possibility of failing to achieve those goals. All RPGs I would want to play have those things, and admittedly I have a hard time seeing activities that don't have those things as games. They could certainly be forms of play (like the box and stick you mentioned), but I don't see play and games as the same thing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you don't want hidden rolls because you're concerned about fudging, then I don't see how it isn't about trust.

The issue described is not a trust issue. It is a learnability issue.

A DM that fudges rolls is one that is interfering with the ability to learn to play the game better. Every roll is now couched with, "...unless the DM secretly decided to change the rules this time." Now, instead of learning to play the game, you are functionally learning to play that specific DM, except that you can never actually know the difference between the DM rewriting the rules and/or world when they feel like they should, and when you're actually getting the outcome of the game itself.

You could entirely trust the DM in question, believing they would never use this power for unreasonable or nefarious purposes, and still wish to be learning from the consequences the game generates, rather than the "curated" consequences the DM likes better now and then.

A trust issue arises when you believe the power will be used unfairly or inappropriately. A learnability issue arises when you see any such intrusion as breaking the action-consequence connection.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The issue described is not a trust issue. It is a learnability issue.

A DM that fudges rolls is one that is interfering with the ability to learn to play the game better. Every roll is now couched with, "...unless the DM secretly decided to change the rules this time." Now, instead of learning to play the game, you are functionally learning to play that specific DM, except that you can never actually know the difference between the DM rewriting the rules and/or world when they feel like they should, and when you're actually getting the outcome of the game itself.

You could entirely trust the DM in question, believing they would never use this power for unreasonable or nefarious purposes, and still wish to be learning from the consequences the game generates, rather than the "curated" consequences the DM likes better now and then.

A trust issue arises when you believe the power will be used unfairly or inappropriately. A learnability issue arises when you see any such intrusion as breaking the action-consequence connection.

I mean it's a trust issue if you as a player are concerned the DM will fudge rolls if given the opportunity, so you want to remove that opportunity. If you don't make that assumption, you can learn play with hidden rolls just fine IMO.

 

[soviet]

If you don't want hidden rolls because you're concerned about fudging, then I don't see how it isn't about trust.

I'M THE GM

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'M THE GM

Then the concern is that the players might not trust you not to fudge?

 

[soviet]

Then the concern is that the players might not trust you not to fudge?

No. As GM I roll in the open and do not fudge because I find it makes for a better game. The trust aspect is something you have inserted yourself.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. As GM I roll in the open and do not fudge because I find it makes for a better game. The trust aspect is something you have inserted yourself.

How does it make it a better game that has nothing to do with trust or fudging?