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

[Lanefan]

If you’re a DM and you don’t roll in the open, you’re bad and you should feel bad.

OK, I'm bad.

Now that we've agreed on this, let's move on.

 

[Morrus]

If you’re a DM and you don’t roll in the open, you’re bad and you should feel bad.

Dial the gatekeepy onetruewayism back, please.

 

[Scott Christian]

The number of demeaning and insulting comments towards those who roll behind a screen, that are present in this thread, are a low point for this community since I've joined.

I hope that things are better in the future because it makes me sad to see this type of discourse over a game.

To be fair, I don't think anyone has been insulted. They may not like the other person's view, but they weren't insulted. Everyone I read who likes open rolling has said one of the following:

• It's more suspenseful
• It's more honest
• It's not difficult to do if you as DM prepped thoroughly

 

[Thomas Shey]

So the real conclusion of this thread is that we should all play more Amber and Lords Of Gossamer And Shadow.

You're a bad person and should feel bad.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair, I don't think anyone has been insulted. They may not like the other person's view, but they weren't insulted. Everyone I read who likes open rolling has said one of the following:

• It's more suspenseful
• It's more honest
• It's not difficult to do if you as DM prepped thoroughly

There's a matter of perspective that can come up on contradictory views when something quite this far reaching comes up.

I've made it clear--outright said it at least twice--that as a default (that is to say, without reference to a specific group of players who it may serve better for a number of reasons) rolling mostly in the open is, in my opinion, best practice.

Someone who does that routinely without such reference to specific groups can (not inaccurately) read that as what they're doing is "bad practice". And "bad" is a concept that feels intrinsically critical at least, and potentially insulting.

Its just that, well, any time you make any sort of general evaluation and say "I think X is a bad idea", people who routinely do X are potentially going to find it critical and insulting. I think there's a big difference between "I think you're doing a bad thing" and "I think you're a bad person" (because, after all, you can be doing it in good faith because you see it differently) but for those who are unable or unwilling to make that distinction, there's not much that can be done; I don't think completely avoiding being critical of other ways of doing things should be a requirement to have a civil discussion area.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

To be fair, I don't think anyone has been insulted. They may not like the other person's view, but they weren't insulted. Everyone I read who likes open rolling has said one of the following:

• It's more suspenseful
• It's more honest
• It's not difficult to do if you as DM prepped thoroughly

I think if you look closely at what has been said, you may find some of what I'm speaking about. I'm going to pick on you here, not because you are alone or especially bad. But because I don't want to ping a bunch of Enworlders for this. After all, they will see it if they want to engage with the thread again.

Insinuating that DMs who roll behind a screen don't prep seems to be a recurring theme of yours. If I said "cooks who don't add garlic often burn food," I'd be called out, and fairly so, as it's patently absurd. Yet, here we are. The same statement in D&D terms being repeated over and over again. All in spite of the statements being gross over-generalizations and demonstrably false. Feels like a way to make people feel inferior at the hobby, but maybe that's just me.

To me, those are players that often have a DM that doesn't know how to put in the prep work to balance encounters.

The only reason to have just the DM roll behind the screen is because they didn't prep for the session - and therefore they have to obfuscate the results of dice because their on-the-spot impromptus had unintended consequences.

Since those DMs do the work, our sessions are not destroyed by a few bad die rolls.

Or how about if we claim that rolling in secret means the DM should actively enable actual cheating. In essence ignoring the asymmetric design of the most popular systems. Claiming that if I roll behind the screen that means I should just allow my players to cheat. Even though, as a DM, I am allowed by rule, at least in modern D&D, to fudge the roll and the players are not. Maybe this is innocent, but it seems to me to be comparing my behavior to cheating - something that is very likely to be completely false.

Maybe you mean that if I roll behind a screen I should be okay with playing with cheaters? Or, in a real malicious reading, that I deserve to play with cheaters. The best reading I can come up with is a childish "well if the players have to trust you, you have to trust them" followed by a tongue.

The only question is:

Should the players roll behind a screen? This is especially true once they figure out a targets' AC. If you say no, then the DM shouldn't either.
All the same thoughts apply:

• The player could want to add tension to the story by failing their tightrope walk knowing they have feather fall as a backup.
• The player could want to add a climax to the fight and score a crit on the big-bad because they are low on hit points and about to die.
• The player could want to roleplay their character and show off their strengths by convincing the king with two consecutive 20 rolls for persuasion.

Of course, if you disagree that the players would use it for story purposes, then perhaps you should not be ok with the DM doing it for story purposes either.

If you are ok with rolling behind a screen as DM, then you should also be ok with letting your players. The same for rolling in the open.

But the GM that rolls behind the screen is still doing the exact same thing as the player who does.

So maybe my statement was too specific. Focusing too much on those who cross the line. Those who said it out loud. Like on page 2 where one Enworlder just calls people who fudge cheaters - in spite of it being allowed by rule. Or just a page or two ago where a large swath of the community was called bad for their choice here. And those are just some easy examples.

We can bicker about whether it's demeaning, or insulting, or debate the intent behind the statements, but at best it is off-putting, dismissive and hostile on the surface. And you were, sadly, not alone in this.

I will let you have the last word here, as I think my time in this thread has come to an end. I hope in the future we can engage in vigorous debate in a more positive way.

 

[ezo]

The only question is:

Should the players roll behind a screen?

Unless I actually am close enough to watch every roll they make, they might as well. They roll in dice trays, I couldn't tell you the last time I actually saw a player's dice roll result.

This is especially true once they figure out a targets' AC.

Once they hit the precise AC, I inform the group that was the target. The vast majority of the time it doesn't matter since PCs hit so easily in 5E. Frankly, they are shocked when they miss.

If you say no, then the DM shouldn't either.
All the same thoughts apply:

• The player could want to add tension to the story by failing their tightrope walk knowing they have feather fall as a backup.
• The player could want to add a climax to the fight and score a crit on the big-bad because they are low on hit points and about to die.
• The player could want to roleplay their character and show off their strengths by convincing the king with two consecutive 20 rolls for persuasion.

Of course, if you disagree that the players would use it for story purposes, then perhaps you should not be ok with the DM doing it for story purposes either.

Since I don't see their rolls, they could be doing all these things for all I know.

I also don't track their HP. So, when they get hit repeatedly but still haven't gone down, I might start to wonder, but then again sometimes I tell them damage and they tell me they are at 0 hp and I am surprised--I thought the hit wouldn't be enough to drop them.

I trust my players not to change their rolls or their HP. They know the only time I might* adjust hp is for a BBEG to keep the climax interesting.

We had an insane BBEG battle last night actually. In the end, one PC dropped into death saves twice, but we kept him from dying, another (with 111 max hp) had to use relentless endurance to remain at 1 hp, my DMPC (with 100 max hp) went down but made 3 death saves as the fight ended so stabilized, and our rogue was under half hp as well IIRC. The battle took over 10 rounds... Players missed 3 out of 4 attacks more than one round. One time I hit a PC three times in one turn and dropped him from 58 hp to -3 hp.

At any time the players could have fudged things, certainly, stayed up, continued the fight, but the tension is greater and more desperate when they don't.

*as I posted upthread, I only use this tactic if the encounter turns out to be a cakewalk for the PCs, and once I reach this point--they never lose or die. They have "won" and the rest is narrative.

 

[ezo]

I like games where all the rolls are performed by the players. I think Numenera works like that.

Personally I would be fine with a set-up like this for 5E.

 

[ezo]

If you’re a DM and you don’t roll in the open, you’re bad and you should feel bad.

I SOOOOO want to laugh at this... but they might actually mean it.

 

[Lanefan]

Unless I actually am close enough to watch every roll they make, they might as well. They roll in dice trays, I couldn't tell you the last time I actually saw a player's dice roll result.

IME the players usually police each other's rolls if such seems to be required (and sadly, now and then over the years it has been).