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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I'll need to know what qualifies as a "game" first. As an example, D&D does not have a "win condition" which terminates the game the way, say, chess or Sorry! does. Does that mean D&D isn't a game? Or is it valid to have merely contextual or small-scale successes?

I would 100% consider Fiasco a game. It is a game with the ultimate goal of producing an interesting story, albeit usually "fatalistic" one (the term used in at least one Fiasco rule book I've found). Earlier versions used dice to distribute ideas and topics amongst the players. Later versions, like the one I quoted from earlier, stick to decks of cards, without need for dice. Since I have a dice-based rule book, I'll focus on that.

A session of Fiasco generally uses a scenario for guiding play, but this scenario is basically just a collection of thematic tables that turn die rolls into specific details of various kinds. Setup involves figuring out your character and their context, which uses dice and cards. Play occurs by different people adding complications (for Establish scenes) or setting the context/tone (for Resolve scenes), and each player roleplaying through something interesting. Dice are exchanged as part of this process in the first act, which affects future outcomes. Dice are not exchanged in the second act, but held to determine the final conclusion. At the end, a specific set of dice held by each player (their "Tilt Card" dice) are used to determine the kind and nature of the conclusion, via scenario-specific tables. Black dice generally seem to indicate "bad" ends, while white dice indicate "good" ends, but this is highly relative. At the conclusion, you narrate what happens to your character, in keeping with the requirements established by the other players, the preceding scenes, and the scenario's tables.

This seems to be a game to me. It's not one that is about driving up a score, but D&D isn't about driving up a score either. It's not one that prioritizes overcoming a challenge, but it does seem to invite a degree strategy between players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

And if you realize after the fact that you can't actually bear leaving it up to chance, say so. Putting up a pretense of infallibility just makes it harder to ever admit you've made a mistake.

 

[billd91]

Why bother having rolls at all?

There it is. Like clockwork. Rather than fudging being an occasional tool to, as Colville puts it, curate the experience, the question ALWAYS comes up - why roll at all? Maybe because most of the rolls, most of the time are fine - but some aren’t. Simple as that.

But yeah, I LOVE the implication that I’m a cheater or some kind of degenerate DM because I don’t roll in the open or that I’m not doctrinaire about rolled results.

 

[Clint_L]

There it is. Like clockwork. Rather than fudging being an occasional tool to, as Colville puts it, curate the experience, the question ALWAYS comes up - why roll at all? Maybe because most of the rolls, most of the time are fine - but some aren’t. Simple as that.

But yeah, I LOVE the implication that I’m a cheater or some kind of degenerate DM because I don’t roll in the open or that I’m not doctrinaire about rolled results.

So, I'm not the one using elevated rhetoric or calling people with a different opinion "bozos." I'm not implying anything about you at all, actually.

I am stating that lying to players about rolls is...well, lying. Except I think the word BS is more accurate, since lying, though technically accurate, tends to connote ill intent, which I definitely do not think is the case with dice fudging. To the contrary, I think it comes from positive intent to "curate the experience."

I happen to disagree, strongly, with "curat[ing] the experience" through secret fudging of dice rolls. I think it is well-intentioned but disempowering to players, robbing them of consequences without telling them. I used to do it. I stopped, and feel that my games are much better for it: the stakes are real and, though I set up the situation, what happens next is truly in the hands of luck and the players.

I am well aware that there is a difference of opinion on this, and I am not judging anyone for their position, whether it is similar to my own or completely different. I have been very clear on that from my first post. So if you still find my posts triggering, please feel free to block me. Otherwise, I won't be responding to you in the future if you address me with anger and scorn. It's up to you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I find it weird how so many people don't trust their DM.

I find it weird how unlimited trust seems to be assumed as a requirement to play games with people. As I've said any number of times there's a big difference between trusting people's intentions and trusting their judgment, and I neither do the latter unlimitedly for GMs nor do I expect players to do so for me when I GM.

 

[SteveC]

And if you realize after the fact that you can't actually bear leaving it up to chance, say so. Putting up a pretense of infallibility just makes it harder to ever admit you've made a mistake.

This is absolutely true. There's nothing wrong with breaking out of the normal process to handle something. I prefer to play games that take that into account within the rules, but there's nothing that you can't change things. And of course, that should involve working with your players.

And it goes double that if you made a mistake about how something was handled, own up to it, have a discussion, and fix it.

For me, I perform this sort of calculation in my head when calling for a die roll, and I ask "can this really go both ways?" And even with that, there's been times when I've been wrong.

 

[cbwjm]

I find it weird how unlimited trust seems to be assumed as a requirement to play games with people. As I've said any number of times there's a big difference between trusting people's intentions and trusting their judgment, and I neither do the latter unlimitedly for GMs nor do I expect players to do so for me when I GM.

It isn't unlimited trust, there's nothing wrong with thinking that the NPC the DM is currently running isn't up to something; it's entirely different to want the DM to roll in the open because you don't trust that they're being honest with the dice rolls.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It isn't unlimited trust, there's nothing wrong with thinking that the NPC the DM is currently running isn't up to something; it's entirely different to want the DM to roll in the open because you don't trust that they're being honest with the dice rolls.

The problem is, all kinds of GMs think being dishonest with their die rolls is good GMing; not only do I not think that's generically true, I don't feel like its something they should be deciding because, again, I don't trust people's judgement unlimitedly even with the best of intentions.

Fundamentally, there's only a limited number of what I consider good reasons to conceal die rolls, and most rolls don't land in that, so if a GM insists on hiding them, I consider it fairly likely he's doing things I think are bad ideas.

 

[cbwjm]

The problem is, all kinds of GMs think being dishonest with their die rolls is good GMing; not only do I not think that's generically true, I don't feel like its something they should be deciding because, again, I don't trust people's judgement unlimitedly even with the best of intentions.

Fundamentally, there's only a limited number of what I consider good reasons to conceal die rolls, and most rolls don't land in that, so if a GM insists on hiding them, I consider it fairly likely he's doing things I think are bad ideas.

Whereas I consider it as just them wanting to roll behind a screen. Maybe you've played with a bunch of randos over the years that have burnt you, but I tend to play with friends, and I tend to trust those friends. Hasn't steered me wrong so far.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I am stating that lying to players about rolls is...well, lying. Except I think the word BS is more accurate, since lying, though technically accurate, tends to connote ill intent, which I definitely do not think is the case with dice fudging. To the contrary, I think it comes from positive intent to "curate the experience."

I happen to disagree, strongly, with "curat[ing] the experience" through secret fudging of dice rolls. I think it is well-intentioned but disempowering to players, robbing them of consequences without telling them. I used to do it. I stopped, and feel that my games are much better for it: the stakes are real and, though I set up the situation, what happens next is truly in the hands of luck and the players.

Is adjusting monster HP on the fly also wrong? Should monster stat-blocks also be public? If we want real ability to verify DM behavior we should consider encounter design by committee as well.

Obviously no one is asking for the above. But I think it illustrates the issue. If a DM wishes to force an outcome, they have many tools to do so, fudging the dice is rarely the best of tool for that job.

Let say you removed all forms of adjustments the DM could do on the fly. What does that actually accomplish? Well it puts the outcome back on the encounter design. It is only when that encounter design fits a narrow balance window that the dice actually matter. A window that is a moving target based on player decision making. A window that the prepping DM is, at best, taking an educated guess at.

So I think when DM's decide how they want to approach this topic. They are only deciding where in the chain they express their control. Maybe instead of fudging dice, they adjust enemy hp or have reinforcements show up in the nick of time. Maybe they fly by the seat of their pants and rely solely on their encounter balance and design from their prep. At all of these points the DM is the dominate force in deciding the outcome. Be it in the moment or hours prior.

People are free to do as they wish. To play the game how they want. I could care less if a DM rolls in private or in public, because at the end of the day I, as a player, am at their mercy either way. And so I'd argue it's best for my mental health and enjoyment of the game that I trust that DM, regardless of where their dice land.