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

[Caveman]

I try to roll in the open as much as I can and remember. With online dice rollers though that can be tedious.
The reason is that I have fudged far too often as a DM. Its a terrible headspace to fall into. You find yourself adjusting things up to make an encounter more intense then dialing it back again when its too much. Better to just trust the dice to create that drama.
This has really hit home for me as a player. I want to feel like I can lose.

 

[James Gasik]

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?!?

I'm not saying he was correct, that's just what he said at the time. I have encountered several GM's like that, but that's not nearly enough data to work with.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My preference is yes. I understand that this can require extra effort some of the time, e.g. Perception and Insight rolls and whether the players "trust" what the DM tells them. But the major benefits this brings are so much more valuable than the slight extra effort required to handle an only-occasional issue.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't really care if the DM rolls in the open. I haven't rolled behind a screen in years and one of my current DMs doesn't either. I used to, and it allowed me to fudge things a bit (generally in the PCs favour, sort of balancing an over powered encounter), but I no longer feel the need. Besides, I can't be bothered carting around a DM screen.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not saying he was correct, that's just what he said at the time. I have encountered several GM's like that, but that's not nearly enough data to work with.

Unfortunately, my experience is that he is absolutely correct. Many DMs do this. Some even say they do it openly--outside of the game, of course. I was absolutely furious to learn that Matt Colville not only fudges dice, he pre-rolls dice to ensure that he can lift the screen, point to a die, and say, "See? I rolled it, fair and square" despite this being a total lie.

Fudging is, in my not-so-humble opinion, one of the very worst tactics a DM can resort to. I won't say that it's 100% always a bad idea, but it is something that should be avoided very nearly all of the time, and any time you feel you genuinely, absolutely cannot avoid it should be taken as a very serious DM wake-up call.

 

[GrimCo]

Everyone at the table rolls in the open. We have cool custom made dice tower and like to use it. It's fun. We also use white dice with big black numbers for legibility.

As a DM i can fudge even with open rolls if i need to. While players see rolls, they don't see stats of creatures.

 

[Zardnaar]

I generally don't use a screen t roll behind. I have been using the new 2024 one recently but roll in the open generally.

If the players can't see the roll it's die to opposed rolls or things like stealth. Or occasionally I can't be bothered and I'm using a screen.

5Es so easy you don't really need to fudge rolls. Death happens if the players are espicially bad or the DM screws up an encounter.

 

[MoFoCThat]

No, surprised to be in the minority but whatever. For those who cite fudging rolls to be the only reason to roll in the open, that's just a bad DM who's probably bad at other parts of the game. People that vote a hard 'yes' feels like people who say, "Oh, we're more like friends than parents to our kids" with that reasoning. Why does every roll need to be out in the open? Is the DM so untrustworthy that everything they say is cast with suspicion? They are the DM, not a fellow player. Should an opponent in Tic-Tac-Toe tell you where their piece will go during their turn every time? It's the DM's world, not the players, the DM is there to create a story for the players to explore in.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, surprised to be in the minority but whatever.

I mean, the plurality (46% as of the time of this post) don't care what the DM does. So even if you prefer that the DM roll behind the screen exclusively, 46% of respondents have no strong feelings for or against that and would have fun either way.

For those who cite fudging rolls to be the only reason to roll in the open, that's just a bad DM who's probably bad at other parts of the game. People that vote a hard 'yes' feels like people who say, "Oh, we're more like friends than parents to our kids" with that reasoning.

Had I children, while I would appreciate having something like a friendship with them, I understand that that is not a particularly useful dynamic. I also don't want to be a forbidding autocrat reigning from my castle and looking down on them as peasants. My parents were very honest and up-front with me about most of the things in life (e.g., they never hid from me the fact that meat comes from slaughtered animals), and I would do the exact same thing with any children I might have. Setting up the illusion that I am an all-powerful, inerrant being who makes boons appear as if from nowhere is dooming myself to being disliked when the truth is revealed.

Why does every roll need to be out in the open?

Because:

1. It is a significant gesture of trustworthiness to do so.
2. Open rolling removes DM temptation to interfere.
3. It encourages DMs to level with their players if something goes wrong, rather than trying to cover it up.
4. I find that it leads to better outcomes, and encourages players to take risks, because they will feel their decisions are truly informed.

Is the DM so untrustworthy that everything they say is cast with suspicion?

No. But trust must be earned. Earning trust is hard if you refuse to allow people to see what you are doing even when you could. I don't believe DMs are automatically entitled to perfect and total carte blanche just because they've elected to sit behind the DM screen.

They are the DM, not a fellow player.

And? I don't see how that point is relevant to the process of building up trust.

Should an opponent in Tic-Tac-Toe tell you where their piece will go during their turn every time?

Wait, are you saying you play tic-tac-toe where you have no idea where your opponent has moved? Yeah, I would definitely have a problem with a tic-tac-toe player who said, "I'm allowed to see your moves, but you aren't allowed to see mine."

I don't think this analogy worked in your favor.

It's the DM's world, not the players, the DM is there to create a story for the players to explore in.

I reject every part of this sentence.

It is our world. Both the DM's and the players'. We build and change it together. Just because the DM does more of that does not mean that it's exclusively theirs. Maybe in your playstyle, the players are there just to be witnesses to the grand worldbuilding and storytelling the DM provides, but I prefer significantly more player participation, regardless of which side of the screen I'm sitting on.

We, collectively, are there to create the story when I play or run. We create it through the act of play itself, pushing things to the testing point, where protagonism occurs. Each of the PCs is one of the protagonists, and their group is in some sense the collective protagonist as well. Unlike prewritten media, the players actually have the ability to push that narrative forward the way they wish to, rather than simply witnessing the work someone else has done (written, sung, directed, whatever).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Me personally, I roll both out in the open and behind a screen with no real methodology or standardization as to when or why. It's pretty much based on random reasons like whether I'm standing or sitting at the time or how many dice I'm throwing or if it's a roll that seems like it would be more fun to let the players see the result in real time. And it doesn't really matter either way because running games for the players I have... most of the concerns other posters have had for why one would do it one way or the other are rather inconsequential at mine. But to be fair... my tables are much less concerned about the "game integrity". The "game" is a distant second to the story we are generating.