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

[GMMichael]

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.

I'd like the time-coded URL as proof of this. Because I can't sit through an entire Matt Colville video.

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.

Providing these "major benefits" would be nice.

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.

Oh, thanks. I wanted to see these, being in the No camp, myself:

1. This is a good idea, if for some odd reason the GM needs to establish trustworthiness.
2. The DM's job is to "interfere." Monte Cook calls it an "intrusion," though.
3. Needing examples, here. If this means "PC died," a good DM would own it. #gygaxlives
4. Nothing encourages me more than knowing there's a fair-rolling DM behind the Great Oz's curtain.

The judgementalsim about a game that isn't a competition is stunning to me. Wow.

Judgy, yeah. But you seem to be talking about Role-Playing-Not-Games. RPG Players compete against GM challenges, the dice, and even each other (hence all the cries for "balance").

 

[Velderan]

I'm a fan of the DM rolling in secret, but as a player I tend to defer to whatever makes the game easier for the DM to run. That being said, I have never fudged a roll as a DM and would probably quit a campaign if I knew the DM was doing it. So why roll in secret? Because I think the less information a player has, the more immersive the game tends to be. The "ah ha!" moment for me was switching to using Foundry VTT where each player has their own line of sight and noticing how differently the players approached a dungeon crawl when they could only see what their character could see. If one of the enemies retreats around a corner where reinforcements are and the barbarian chases in blindly, the other players don't know how much danger the barbarian is in and will react the way their character would. If the barbarian player doesn't think to have their character call for help, they just assume the barbarian is continuing combat against the single retreating foe. Maybe I describe additional noises if the fight warrants it.

So how does this apply to dice rolls? If the players can see me hitting on a 5, they'll quickly realize this enemy is tougher than one that misses on a 15 and treat combat differently. But if the only thing they have to base their decision making on is how much damage the enemy is doing, I find it creates a more immersive combat where they react to the end effect (e.g. the barbarian just lost half their health in 1 swing) instead of the dice mechanics leading up to.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So how does this apply to dice rolls? If the players can see me hitting on a 5, they'll quickly realize this enemy is tougher than one that misses on a 15 and treat combat differently. But if the only thing they have to base their decision making on is how much damage the enemy is doing, I find it creates a more immersive combat where they react to the end effect (e.g. the barbarian just lost half their health in 1 swing) instead of the dice mechanics leading up to.

I think that as experienced combatants the characters could assess the power and skill of the enemy and knowing the numbers could simulate that.

 

[not-so-newguy]

edit. should've read the OP.

I roll in the open. The players like to roll dice and there's never a question of fudging

 

[The Sigil]

It depends.

WHEN PLAYING WITH MOST PLAYERS:

When a die roll is being used to resolve a check where success/failure will be obvious (e.g., attack roll, saving throw), I roll in the open.

When a die roll is being used to resolve a check where success/failure will NOT be obvious (e.g., Search or Knowledge) I roll behind the screen. If "you Search and find Nothing" it may be because you rolled low... or it may be because THERE IS NOTHING TO FIND FOR THE LOVE OF MUD PLEASE MOVE ALONG (similarly a knowledge check giving you nothing could be a failed roll or it could be that no extra knowledge is available).

The problem is that most players (especially newer ones) seem to dislike the idea of random chance governing the outcome of a play session... they want to have some sort of empirical proof there is nothing to find and will not be satisfied there is "nothing to see here" until they see a natural 20 rolled on the Search check and hear "you search and find nothing." I guess it's due to Fear of Missing Out? I don't know... I understand how the playstyle works, but I don't understand why people find it enjoyable, as I myself frequently take suboptimal actions and accept low dice rolls because they can make for an interesting story... just rolling over and over until you "win" seems boring to me.

WHEN PLAYING WITH PLAYERS I CAN TRUST TO ENJOY STORYTELLING BASED ON RANDOM CHANCE (much less often than I'd like):

All die rolls are in the open, because the players are capable of using die-rolling to shape the story (and here I am thinking of Critical Role when Travis rolls to see whether or not the subject Fjord is interrogating might be untruthful and comes up with a Natural 1 and immediately responds with a completely credulous, "I BELIEVE you!") ... rather than seeing the story as some sort of adversary to be "solved" to their satisfaction where they think the point of die rolls is simply to "slow down" getting to the resolution they want so repeating dice rolls until the result corresponds with the story they want is their play style.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Judgy, yeah. But you seem to be talking about Role-Playing-Not-Games. RPG Players compete against GM challenges, the dice, and even each other (hence all the cries for "balance").

Your definition of "RPG Player" is not a universal truth, nor is your definition of "Role-Playing-Not-Game". You may interpret them as you do... but I just want to make sure other people reading your post know that your opinion is not the actual definition and that things that are "roleplaying games" can mean a whole host of different things, not just what you believe them to be.

Fiasco is a "roleplaying game" and has nothing to do with GM challenges, dice, or players being "balanced" against each other, for example.

 

[soviet]

Your definition of "RPG Player" is not a universal truth, nor is your definition of "Role-Playing-Not-Game". You may interpret them as you do... but I just want to make sure other people reading your post know that your opinion is not the actual definition and that things that are "roleplaying games" can mean a whole host of different things, not just what you believe them to be.

Fiasco is a "roleplaying game" and has nothing to do with GM challenges, dice, or players being "balanced" against each other, for example.

Surely fudging is not welcome (or possible?) in Fiasco either?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Surely fudging is not welcome (or possible?) in Fiasco either?

Fudging (as is usually used in a D&D context) is not possible in Fiasco because the dice that are there are used purely during character creation, and one die at the end of each roleplay scene is used to indicate whether the protagonist of the scene does or does not get what they want at the end of it. And there always always plenty of both types to hand to the player that indicates scene result so no one needs to "fudge" one way or the other.

But the fact there are no dice rolls to fudge or not fudge does not mean it is still not a roleplaying game.

 

[Reynard]

I think that as experienced combatants the characters could assess the power and skill of the enemy and knowing the numbers could simulate that.

This is what I meant when I said that the metagame is the game and it relates information in a way that is important to actual game play.
Does it harm immersion? Maybe, but immersion has never been high on my priority list for TTRPGs.

 

[jasper]

My answer: ..... (let the dice fall where they may): Absolutely.

jester if your dice roll once more into the onion dip, your are sentence to the tower......