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

[soviet]

Just because they might also DM doesn't make it less weird that they don't trust their DM.

They don't trust themselves?

 

[ezo]

I agree that death saves should be a secret roll. Hard to get players on board with that though, since it's all they get to do on their turn.

Well, then they learn to not put themselves into danger quite so often.

Seriously, it is a secret roll, and they get to roll it, it just gets rolled behind the screen. I know it, so if the roll a nat 20 they have 1 hp and can get up, etc.

 

[GMMichael]

Here you go. This is from the moment he starts talking about the work he does to prevent the players from knowing that he has fudged the roll. Verbatim of the important part (which comes about 15-20 seconds after the linked time, for context I guess you could say), "I will even go so far--and, hopefully, none of my players are watching this--I will even go so far as to have a pre-rolled result behind the screen, so that if the players challenge the reality of the roll, which they often do when thingss get incredibly tense and dramatic, I can lift up the screen and show them the result of the fake roll."

Frickin' Matt Colville. Just when I want to hate him for setting up fake die rolls, he goes and spouts some wisdom like, "that's basically what a GM's job is. Lying to the players."

I just believe that if a DM cannot accept the result of a die roll one way or another, then that die just shouldn’t really be rolled in the first place.

There's truth here. A GM's job, amongst other things, is deciding what happened. If you know what happened, you don't need a die roll for it. But there is the case in which a GM isn't really sure, and going through the motions dictated by the rules makes it more clear. Which often results in a "fudge." As MCDM points out, lying to the players is the GM's job, and in this case, the lie is, "the rules will do the deciding here."

I'm not familiar with Fiasco. Where's the "game" part?

I'd like to know, too. From what I just read, Fiasco is an activity or form of play - not a game.

 

[Oofta]

I was thinking about this and realized that I have another reason for not wanting to hide my rolls. I dislike using a DM screen, it always makes me feel like there's a separation between me and my players. Like I'm trying to set myself apart. The implication feels to me that I'm putting myself separate and above the players, I'm the guy behind the glass in a control room giving orders.

But that's probably just a "me" thing.

 

[AlViking]

Frickin' Matt Colville. Just when I want to hate him for setting up fake die rolls, he goes and spouts some wisdom like, "that's basically what a GM's job is. Lying to the players."


There's truth here. A GM's job, amongst other things, is deciding what happened. If you know what happened, you don't need a die roll for it. But there is the case in which a GM isn't really sure, and going through the motions dictated by the rules makes it more clear. Which often results in a "fudge." As MCDM points out, lying to the players is the GM's job, and in this case, the lie is, "the rules will do the deciding here."


I'd like to know, too. From what I just read, Fiasco is an activity or form of play - not a game.

I don't lie to my players. I may withhold information, I may give them false information from an NPC because it makes sense for the NPC to lie. But when it comes to the rules and results? Nope.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Frickin' Matt Colville. Just when I want to hate him for setting up fake die rolls, he goes and spouts some wisdom like, "that's basically what a GM's job is. Lying to the players."


There's truth here.

No, there isn't. Fiction is not lies. Fiction certainly isn't real--but not being real does not make something a lie. A lie is deception. Anyone who is deceived by playing D&D into somehow thinking that dragons are real needs to see a psychiatrist ASAP.

I get very, very, very tired of this utterly wrong claim that "the DM is always lying to the players." No! They're not! They're describing a fictional space. Just because the descriptions they give don't obtain in the physical, tactile world does not mean their truth-value is totally negative.

Odysseus is a fictional figure (perhaps limitedly inspired by a real Mycenaean noble/general), and Telemachus is his fictional son. "Telemachus is the son of Odysseus" is not a lie just because "Odysseus" and "Telemachus" are fictional characters. "Unicorns have a single horn" is not a lie just because unicorns don't exist; it is a true description of a fictional entity, which has a cultural history and has, in fact, had significant impact on the real world despite being almost entirely unreal. "Almost" because unicorns likely arose from images of real animals with horns viewed in profile, thus creating the impression that they had just one horn when the real animal depicted had two.

A GM's job, amongst other things, is deciding what happened. If you know what happened, you don't need a die roll for it.

Yes. And rolling in the open is one of the most effective tools for reminding GMs that they shouldn't roll for things where they already know the outcome they want to produce. I find that a lot of GMs who demand the ability to roll behind the screen do so because they're quite lackadaisical, or even lazy, about drawing that distinction. To steal a bit from the next part of this quoted post: they allow almost everything to fall into the "GM isn't really sure" space, which is a poor GMing tactic, something they should learn to avoid.

But there is the case in which a GM isn't really sure, and going through the motions dictated by the rules makes it more clear. Which often results in a "fudge."

Only for those who think fudging is a good thing. I don't.

As MCDM points out, lying to the players is the GM's job, and in this case, the lie is, "the rules will do the deciding here."

Again: no it absolutely the hell is not, and I'm so gorram sick of people claiming it is.

But you are, at least, correct that the GM actually does lie to the players--as in, actually does deceive them into thinking something is real when it isn't--when they pretend to follow the rules but actually break them. Because that actually IS claiming that something really is true in this physical, tactile world of ours, when it is in fact false.

And that would be why I dislike it so. I don't like being lied to and I definitely don't like being manipulated.

I'd like to know, too. From what I just read, Fiasco is an activity or form of play - not a game.

How exactly does one have a "form of play" that isn't a game? Especially since Fiasco explicitly bills itself as a "roleplaying game." Bully Pulpit Games describes it as, "an award-winning, GM-less game for 3-5 players, designed to be played in a few hours with no preparation." What is missing for it to be "a game"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, there isn't. Fiction is not lies. Fiction certainly isn't real--but not being real does not make something a lie. A lie is deception. Anyone who is deceived by playing D&D into somehow thinking that dragons are real needs to see a psychiatrist ASAP.

I get very, very, very tired of this utterly wrong claim that "the DM is always lying to the players." No! They're not! They're describing a fictional space. Just because the descriptions they give don't obtain in the physical, tactile world does not mean their truth-value is totally negative.

Odysseus is a fictional figure (perhaps limitedly inspired by a real Mycenaean noble/general), and Telemachus is his fictional son. "Telemachus is the son of Odysseus" is not a lie just because "Odysseus" and "Telemachus" are fictional characters. "Unicorns have a single horn" is not a lie just because unicorns don't exist; it is a true description of a fictional entity, which has a cultural history and has, in fact, had significant impact on the real world despite being almost entirely unreal. "Almost" because unicorns likely arose from images of real animals with horns viewed in profile, thus creating the impression that they had just one horn when the real animal depicted had two.


Yes. And rolling in the open is one of the most effective tools for reminding GMs that they shouldn't roll for things where they already know the outcome they want to produce. I find that a lot of GMs who demand the ability to roll behind the screen do so because they're quite lackadaisical, or even lazy, about drawing that distinction. To steal a bit from the next part of this quoted post: they allow almost everything to fall into the "GM isn't really sure" space, which is a poor GMing tactic, something they should learn to avoid.


Only for those who think fudging is a good thing. I don't.


Again: no it absolutely the hell is not, and I'm so gorram sick of people claiming it is.

But you are, at least, correct that the GM actually does lie to the players--as in, actually does deceive them into thinking something is real when it isn't--when they pretend to follow the rules but actually break them. Because that actually IS claiming that something really is true in this physical, tactile world of ours, when it is in fact false.

And that would be why I dislike it so. I don't like being lied to and I definitely don't like being manipulated.


How exactly does one have a "form of play" that isn't a game? Especially since Fiasco explicitly bills itself as a "roleplaying game." Bully Pulpit Games describes it as, "an award-winning, GM-less game for 3-5 players, designed to be played in a few hours with no preparation." What is missing for it to be "a game"?

Calling it a game does not make it so. I was asking what part of the experience is actually a game? Again, I know nothing about Fiasco.

 

[billd91]

Frickin' Matt Colville. Just when I want to hate him for setting up fake die rolls, he goes and spouts some wisdom like, "that's basically what a GM's job is. Lying to the players."

Well, ultimately, the bigger point is that it’s the DM sitting behind the screen who is going to choose what decision rules to use for their game and how to use them. Not some Bozo on the internet saying that fudging is cheating or spreading conspiracy theories that DMs rolling behind screens are all part of some tyrannical Illuminati.

 

[SteveC]

I voted yes, that the DM should roll in the open.

The most obvious reason for this is so that your players won't have any thought that you're cheating. But that's not the reason I'm saying it (although I have had my share of DMs/GMs who've cheated before).

I'm suggesting it because it's a really small way of saying, "We play to find out what happens." This is a PbtA concept (at least that's where I first encountered it) that says, "We might expect a situation to come out of rolling the dice. We might even want it to happen. But when we roll the dice, we're saying we don't know what will happen."

If there's a situation that no one at the table can bear to leave up to chance, then you shouldn't do that.

 

[Clint_L]

Frickin' Matt Colville. Just when I want to hate him for setting up fake die rolls, he goes and spouts some wisdom like, "that's basically what a GM's job is. Lying to the players."

Not sure how that is wisdom. I'm not sure what his point is at all, actually. But I definitely disagree with secretly fudging rolls. Why bother having rolls at all? You can play a perfectly fun RPG without them, if that's what you're in the mood for, but if you're going to have them, they shouldn't be BS. IMO.

On that note, for those who are wondering what Fiasco is, it's a fantastic roleplaying game in which each of the players takes turns being the GM, either alone or as a group. There are no dice roles within play, just as part of set up. There's a really fun Tabletop episode of it, if you want to see it in action. It's one of my favourite RPGs.

I don't really understand the confusion over whether or not it's a game. It's a game.