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

[sevenbastard]

This is one of my "die on the hill" gaming philosophy. Roll in the open.

 

[James Gasik]

For many years, I played with DM's who rolled secretly behind screens, and one DM who rolled openly. After a particularly harrowing encounter with pirates on the high seas, my roommate's character was left bleeding out. After the session, he was in a bad mood, and I asked him why.

"I don't get it. What am I doing wrong? It feels like every battle, I go down, no matter how much I build up my AC."

"Well, what is your AC anyways?" I asked.

He told me, and I engaged in a thought experiment, crunching the numbers to try and figure out what the enemy's stats likely were. I quickly realized, however, that something was very wrong.

Either A, the pirates were way stronger than anything we should be fighting, or B, the DM had rolled nothing lower than a 17 every time he attacked my friend! The next session, I did some investigating in game- did the pirates have masterwork or magical weapons? Were there any spellcasters, like maybe Clerics with bless or Bards who could have granted bonuses to the group?

The DM, apparently thinking that I was looking for better treasure, was like "haha, no, they were all level 2 Warriors, that's all." And he showed me their stat blocks.

I was floored. Instead of being highly optimized or powerful NPC's, none of these guys had any real chance of hitting my roommate's character, let alone taking him to 0 hit points!

The DM had fudged his rolls the entire encounter, gleefully "critting" people simply based on his whims of how deadly the encounter should be. Suddenly, every time an enemy "hit" one of us, made a saving throw, or we "missed" an attack, I knew that the numbers didn't matter, our character builds didn't matter- the entire game was based on DM fiat.

I had a talk with the DM I knew that rolled openly, and he admitted that this is very common behavior. Many DM's, he claimed, have no real idea how to balance encounters, as the guidelines are often terrible. So they select monsters but adjust difficulty on the fly- if the enemy is too hard, you softball their attacks and damage. If too weak, the opposite.

I thought back to every time I had a DM ask me how many hit points I had left in battle, and I was dismayed to realize what they were really asking was "am I about to kill your character?".

I lost all my trust in DM's who rolled behind the screen for awhile. I realize that sometimes, yes, fudging might be necessary to keep your game running smoothly- it is hard to build an appropriate encounter. I usually find my encounters end up much harder or easier than I think they'll be, because there's a lot of factors involved, and the swinginess of die rolls doesn't really help matters.

What I decided to do, however, from that moment, is stop using a DM screen entirely. Yes, I was inviting disaster by "letting the dice fall where they may", but ultimately, I felt that this was a necessary concession, so that my players would know they can trust me to be fair. I embraced being as transparent as I could be- for awhile, I would let my players make checks to learn pretty much everything they wanted to know about a creature, inspired by 4e and Pathfinder- though since then, I've learned that players can only retain so much information, lol, so I usually only provide information if the player asks me outright, or it would be fairly obvious in-universe- the enemy was easy to hit, or it took less damage than expected.

I answered yes, DM's should roll openly, but I will concede that each group is different, and that it is entirely possible that an individual game could be improved by having secret information. But for me, I'd rather have less barriers between me and my players, because I find that the transparency greatly facilitates everyone having fun at the table. The players know I'm neither a control freak or out to get them, and thus I earn some goodwill for when encounters I've designed go drastically wrong, lol.

Ultimately, though, I've found there's something more important to the player/GM relationship than rolling dice openly or not. Being able to admit your mistakes. Yes, I overtuned that encounter. Yes, my ruling on a spell/ability/corner case wasn't ideal.

I made a mistake, and I'll do better in the future. I'm a hack DM who sometimes focuses on the wrong things. I've seen many DM's who refuse to admit they are wrong left wondering why their games implode or they start hemorrhaging players. And just being able to admit you're not perfect has gotten people back to the table more often than anything else.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

But for the vast majority of rolls, they roll in front of the players: init, attack rolls, damage, saving throws, most skill checks, ...

Exactly this. I mean, I'm not passionate about it and enjoy the game either way, but I find the game better when all possible rolls are open. It raises the stakes. There's nothing like everyone knowing that the next roll is vital, and holding their breath as the roll is made.

Plus it keeps the DM from fudging, which I personally think makes the game better.

 

[Clint_L]

A DM can roll in the open and still fudge the roll - the PCs don't know what bonuses the NPC gets on each roll.

Not if you tell them what roll is needed before you roll. Which I try to always do, unless there are story reasons for them not to know (e.g. deception checks). I agree with @Lanefan about keeping things secret that the characters couldn't know.

So combat rolls are almost always done in the open - the characters will know if the mob partially dodged the fireball, or it scored a critical, whatever.

 

[payn]

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.

Yes, as you have deemed the player has earned it by gatekeeping behind hidden rolls and arbitrary distinctions.

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

Good grief.

 

[greymist]

When I play, I have no real concern if the DM rolls in the open or not.

When I DM in-person, I tend to roll behind a screen because I like having a screen in front of me to cover maps and notes and rolling around the screen is a pain.

At the moment, my games are on Roll20, I asked the players if they want me to roll real dice on my desk (not visible) or use the Roll20 dice roller and if the latter, hidden or not. They chose the dice roller, not hidden. So that’s what I do. No fudging for attacks/saves/skill challenges etc.

I do keep Death Saves hidden from the group (although the player gets to roll them). I also make some rolls for PCs when they will not necessarily know the result when an action is taken; e.g. disarm a trap; move silently.

 

[billd91]

I had a talk with the DM I knew that rolled openly, and he admitted that this is very common behavior. Many DM's, he claimed, have no real idea how to balance encounters, as the guidelines are often terrible. So they select monsters but adjust difficulty on the fly- if the enemy is too hard, you softball their attacks and damage. If too weak, the opposite.

Uh huh. Yeah, the guy who always rolls in the open… how the hell would he know if that’s very common behavior or not?!?

 

[MGibster]

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.

Bingo. I tend to think there's good metagame and there's bad metagame, but either way I expect it to happen.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Uh huh. Yeah, the guy who always rolls in the open… how the hell would he know if that’s very common behavior or not?!?

Because he's heard a lot of people talk about it? I've seen GMs talk about doing things to other GMs I don't think they'd have said with one of their players in the room, and I'm not talking about campaign-information stuff, but just things in the "The players enjoy it more if they think you're rolling straight, but they wouldn't enjoy it if you did" (and yes, that's a specific quote from someone I heard talking once).

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Indeed, but given the choice I prefer to err on the side of too little than too much; and if what I give isn't enough for them to make decisions I expect them to ask me for more detail.

What I don't want is the players to glean meta-info their characters don't and can't know. This is why, for exemple, I roll behind the screen for their finding of secret doors when they declare they're going to search, as if they fail to find one they've no way of knowing whether it's a) because there's nothing there to find or b) because they simply missed it (i.e. a poor search roll).

If those rolls were player-visible the roll itself would give info the characters, in-character, wouldn't know.

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.

To the bolded: only to a very small extent IMO, and to be minimized further whever possible.

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.

If I can't describe what their characters sense without going out of character then I'm to some extent doing it wrong. And sure, sometimes I'll use modern comparisons in my descriptions just to save time, as in "You see a box in the corner, it looks a lot like that refrigerator <points to kitchen> over there - same size, door on the front, etc." but that's merely saving me having to tell them the dimensions, orientation, etc.