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

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Sure.

(Its a complex question when someone is honest that they fudge sometimes, and don't want it to be obvious when they do. I suspect its just as well I take a pass if that's the case, because we're back to them expecting me to trust their judgement without any ability to check it, and fundamentally I don't. Fortunately, I'm normally GMing more often than not, and its a non-issue).

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

They also can't tell if its your judgment in setting up things or deciding what rolls to fudge, or just a bad series of die rolls.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I have to point out that just moves the question back a slot, which is asking "Why does it make a better game?" Not the not-fudging part (which is a topic that while I don't consider unrelated to this overall discussion, is not central to it) but the rolling openly. That you consider it a virtue (as, note, I do to) you have some sort of premise for assuming that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

People overthink this way too much. You either are fudging the die rolls or not. Trying to explain it off with roles in the game, motivations, etc. is ridiculous. You either want fudging or don't.

Its abundantly obvious that the latter simply isn't true; historically its been assumed that if the GM is fudging he's doing it for the overall health of the game, where a player doing so is likely doing so for his own self-interest. That neither of these is automatically true is self-evident, but its still the default assumption many people work with.

Of course there are players that are going to say they want the DM to fudge sometimes. To me, those are players that often have a DM that doesn't know how to put in the prep work to balance encounters.

Well, to be really blunt, in many sets of mechanics you can do the best job humanly possible and strings of die rolls can produce results a player may find unpalatable, and would like the GM to fix before it gets there. I think the price of being able to do that is too high, but not everyone agrees.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If the GM decided in their prep that Suspect B is the murderer, and I figure this out in play, I feel like I have achieved something.

If the GM decided in their prep that Suspect B is the murderer, and I guess C, but the GM decides that C makes the better story or it's easier to finish the session now, and so changes it to C, I have been pandered to and my achievement is hollow. The goalposts have moved.

Of course that's because you and the GM have different priorities.

 

[soviet]

I have to point out that just moves the question back a slot, which is asking "Why does it make a better game?" Not the not-fudging part (which is a topic that while I don't consider unrelated to this overall discussion, is not central to it) but the rolling openly. That you consider it a virtue (as, note, I do to) you have some sort of premise for assuming that.

See my other posts in this thread. Basically, rolling in the open (and announcing modifiers, DCs, etc to put that roll into context) makes play more exciting because it builds a group tension over the outcome of the roll. We all see it happen together rather than have one person see it and then narrate it afterwards. I likened it to the difference between being at a live sporting event or hearing it described on the radio.

 

[Velderan]

Out of curiosity, do you roll behind the screen for some practical reason? Because its what the players expect? Out of habit? I'm only asking because it seems no obvious reason given your post above to do so.

I mentioned it upthread a bit, but basically IME players react differently the less the player knows and I tend to see players reacting more in character when they only have the result of the roll. Seeing more information in the form of what dice rolls have what result tends (again IME) to emphasize the game part a bit too much and that while part is important, the role playing part is too.

 

[AlViking]

If the GM decided in their prep that Suspect B is the murderer, and I figure this out in play, I feel like I have achieved something.

If the GM decided in their prep that Suspect B is the murderer, and I guess C, but the GM decides that C makes the better story or it's easier to finish the session now, and so changes it to C, I have been pandered to and my achievement is hollow. The goalposts have moved.

Agreed. I actually want to be wrong or mistaken sometimes. It would feel artificial otherwise.

I do sometimes use player ideas for inspiration but only if my plans are still undecided. There are times I have a general concept rolling around that hasn't gelled yet but that's different.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I saw that after I posted @soviet.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mentioned it upthread a bit, but basically IME players react differently the less the player knows and I tend to see players reacting more in character when they only have the result of the roll. Seeing more information in the form of what dice rolls have what result tends (again IME) to emphasize the game part a bit too much and that while part is important, the role playing part is too.

Fair. I admit I'm coming from a posture where, as I've put it before, I really want my chocolate with my peanut butter.