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

[Stormonu]

Not only should the DM roll behind the screen, the players rolls should be behind the DM's screen. Just narrate the results so the PCs can't gamify the rolls.

/s

 

[Lanefan]

Other than when something big is on the line ("theatrical moments" as someone upthread very adroitly put it) I roll in secret; not so that I can fudge but so that the players don't get more information than their characters would know. Also, rolling in secret allows me to more easily add in meaningless rolls if I need to disguise a roll that really matters, or if I want to make it look like something is-was in doubt when in fact it was a foregone conclusion.

 

[Reynard]

, or if I want to make it look like something is-was in doubt when in fact it was a foregone conclusion.

I generally don't like this kind of illusionism, as a player or GM.

 

[Lanefan]

I generally don't like this kind of illusionism, as a player or GM.

I'm very big on having player knowledge and character knowledge match up, meaning that if the PCs think something might have been in doubt I want the players to also think that, even if in fact it never was.

For example, if I-as-DM know the creature the PCs are trying to tame is already under someone else's Domination effect (or is someone else's familiar!) then I-as-DM know going in that the PCs' attempts to tame it are doomed to failure. BUT, neither the players nor the PCs know this and so the requisite dice are rolled on both sides of the screen; and only on a really good player-side roll that still fails might any suspicion arise that all maybe isn't what it seems.

 

[Autumnal]

When I play solo, of course, I roll the dice out of my sight and have to spend metacurrency to reveal them.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I feel like this discussion usually simplifies into a discussion between those that prefer to focus on the "game" aspect of RPGs (roll in the open) and those that focus more on role-playing/storytelling (those that want a shield with which to fudge). As said, that is a generalization but I think it is more often true than not.

I don't know if this is true. I think a lot of people who enjoy the storytelling and roleplaying enjoy open dice rolls as a way to add random elements to the story. I know as both a DM and player I know it's pretty boring when the story is just going through predictable beats. Great stories often emerge from the chaos of dice rolls.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've largely been doing that in 13th Age and have no regrets. The only issue where I might feel otherwise is heavily information-opaque rolls where the process should largely be invisible to the players (a lot of perception checks mostly).

 

[payn]

I'm very big on having player knowledge and character knowledge match up, meaning that if the PCs think something might have been in doubt I want the players to also think that, even if in fact it never was.

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.

For example, if I-as-DM know the creature the PCs are trying to tame is already under someone else's Domination effect (or is someone else's familiar!) then I-as-DM know going in that the PCs' attempts to tame it are doomed to failure. BUT, neither the players nor the PCs know this and so the requisite dice are rolled on both sides of the screen; and only on a really good player-side roll that still fails might any suspicion arise that all maybe isn't what it seems.

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

 

[DinoInDisguise]

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.

 

[CreamCloud0]

no, i don't think GMs should roll out in the open, in fact, i think there are even some kinds of player rolls that the player/group should not be aware of.

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.

it's nothing about illusionism, it's just that the world doesn't deign to tell people when they're attempting something impossible.