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

[AlViking]

I think this shows you have little faith in your players to act accordingly between character and the meta. You think these tricks are aides, but really they are just GM enforcement of illusion.

That is even worse. You will let them spin their wheels after a few attempts on something that ought to reveal itself as impossible.

Why should the characters know something that is only obvious to the players? If a character is blind do you let them pinpoint attacks because you still have minis on the table that the plsyer can see?

It's a preference of course but I think the characters should only act on knowledge that the characters can know.

 

[payn]

Why should the characters know something that is only obvious to the players? If a character is blind do you let them pinpoint attacks because you still have minis on the table that the plsyer can see?

It's a preference of course but I think the characters should only act on knowledge that the characters can know.

That’s the point, the characters should know after interacting. I won’t keep them spinning wheels on a dead end. It’s not interesting and a waste of time.

 

[MGibster]

We''ll assume for this question that a DM rolling in the open can occasionally roll behind the screen, e.g. for stealth or other rolls that are preferably concealed.

When I DM, I most often roll in the open. I answered, "I do not care," on the poll because I don't expect other DMs to run things exactly the same way I do. Also, I'm an easy man to please. I'm a DM who likes to see big hits at the table. Big hits against the PCs and the PCs hitting the monsters hard. I love critical rolls no matter who is rolling. It's more fun for everyone if the players can see me roll those critical successes or failures.

 

[AlViking]

That’s the point, the characters should know after interacting. I won’t keep them spinning wheels on a dead end. It’s not interesting and a waste of time.

I would give the players the same information the characters have. I may have the player roll an appropriate check if I think the character could grasp what's going on when the player does not. It doesn't seem to have much to do with rolling in the open or not.

 

[payn]

I would give the players the same information the characters have. I may have the player roll an appropriate check if I think the character could grasp what's going on when the player does not. It doesn't seem to have much to do with rolling in the open or not.

Then we agree, which the poster I originally quoted does not.

 

[AlViking]

Then we agree, which the poster I originally quoted does not.

I almost feel like we're reading different posts I guess. In any case I sometimes roll in secret if the roll would reveal something I don't think the characters would know. People should do what works for them.

 

[Skyscraper]

I use both. I think this is really a play group level preference and I think it's a really odd topic. Theres two real reasons.

First about, you should do both. What you roll in private and in public are powerful tools for manipulating player's emotions. Just blanket rolling in one way or another is limiting that tool needlessly. If I always roll in private, opening up a roll to the players can have a huge impact on the tension. In the reverse, rolling behind a screen when you normally roll in the open can do the same. Anytime the norm changes, your players will notice. So you should use the opposite method from time to time to "toy" with your players. It's a really neat trick I rarely see DMs use.

Secondly, I feel this, in many instances, is about a lack of DM trust. Like so much of the discussion on this board, if you trust your playgroup and DM this is a non-factor. And I believe this is a completely ineffective tool at band-aiding DM trust.

For example, many here cite fudging and a dislike for it as to why rolling in the open is better for them. But to be honest, if you want to fudge, its inefficient to fudge the dice rolls. You go to the source, you fudge the stat-block. Fudging HP is far more effective at balancing the pacing and feel of combat than fudging dice numbers up or down. Fudging HP down solves nearly every non-adversarial issue a DM can face; from the enemy doing too much damage to the enemy not doing enough. It solves them by getting you out of the combat quickly, all with the perk of the PCs feeling good about winning that combat.

Fudging a combat through individual dice rolls requires more "fudging." If I have to fudge a "to hit" roll one round, chances are I will have to fudge the same roll a second time soon thereafter. So if a DM is in such a position where they cannot fudge the statblock to solve the issue, they likely made another mistake that caused that situation. A common one I see is when a DM comments on the enemy HP directly or indirectly in a way that prevents them frin changing the HP later. DMs talking too much is the cause of a lot of issues, they really need to shut up about the game in general. Rolling in the open, in this case, just forces the manifestation of the mistake in game. It doesn't actually leave the fate to the dice, because the DM's encounter balance decided it hours prior.

So I think this is just a weird discussion about DM trust. Because you can't remove the DM's intent from the encounter, you can just mask it to the extent that placates the player' skepticism. And for that reason, it will vary from play group to play group because some play groups are far more skeptical than others. People on here seem to error on the side of that skepticism.

Very interesting and thoughtful input. The shift if fudging from dice to HP is a topic in itself!

That aside I provided a few posts down from the first my own main reason for preferring open rolls here. In essence: to make player and DM reactions simultaneous so as to share the die roll moment that can be sometimes quite dramatic! It is unrelated to fudging at first glance, but it still is in the end because as the DM narrates the outcome of their die roll they sometimes are bad actors whose lie is apparent. So not only are we living the die roll result in offset, but also we have to endure bad acting.

 

[Lanefan]

I think this shows you have little faith in your players to act accordingly between character and the meta.

In the meta I want them to be laughing and enjoying themselves. In character I want them thinking as - and with only the information available to - their characters.

That is even worse. You will let them spin their wheels after a few attempts on something that ought to reveal itself as impossible.

If they want to persist and it's what the characters would do, who am I to stop them?

 

[Zaukrie]

No, this is utterly false. It's not about the game vs the story. It's about the game as a randomised story generator vs the GM's curated story.



I agree with this part.

It's a dial, not a switch. You can have both.

 

[Reynard]

In the meta I want them to be laughing and enjoying themselves. In character I want them thinking as - and with only the information available to - their characters.

I think this is a vain pursuit because as GM you cannot possibly provide them sufficient information. Everyone knows they are playing a game and that the available information is truncated. You must make allowances for that for them to play their characters effectively.

In other words: the metagame is part of the game. It is part of the information you are trying to transmit to the players, and it is Parr of the "in character" response from the players. It is inseparable.

If they want to persist and it's what the characters would do, who am I to stop them?

You are their eyes, ears, noses and magical sensory abilities. It is your responsibility to tell the. What they need to know. Sometimes you can do that entirely "in character." But due to the limitations of the medium, sometimes you can't, and refusing to provide players that information isn't "protecting immersion" it is abusing your position in play.