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

[Shadowdweller00]

I like games where all the rolls are performed by the players. I think Numenera works like that.

I don't trust the players any more than I trust the DM. With good reason in my 30+ year gaming experience.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't want fudging, either as player or DM, but I still roll in secret as DM (with rare moment-of-climax exceptions) and sometimes roll in secret (other than to the DM) as a player.

Why?

Because I want to preserve a sense of mystery and uncertainty, however faint it might be.

To be clear, in my personal gaming mentality, there is nothing wrong with this.

What is wrong is trying to semantically parcel a different definition of fudging.

You don't fudge, even though you roll behind the screen. I am sure your players don't believe you're fudging either. That's how your table rolls, and I am sure it is fun and awesome. No doubt, almost all of us would have fun there too.

Where some wouldn't have fun is if you told us you are a straight shooter, even though you rolled behind screen, and then we detected the opposite.

 

[Scott Christian]

Sorry, but that example almost screams "in the player's self-interest" to me.

No more than the DM screaming it's in the interest of my story. I literally gave the counter-example of that; the DM rolling opposing skill checks for the gauntlet. If you are ok with one, you should be ok with the other.

I think you're underestimating the degree to which people don't plan for low-frequency events, but still don't like them.

What low frequency event? The event that you might go down in a game where three quarters of the creatures you encounter are blood thirsty monsters wanting to kill you? The event that, in a game where half the time you are spent fighting monsters to the death, you may die?

Don't be silly. A low frequency event in D&D is randomly rolling three 1s in a row on a death save - and - AND - not having one other PC try to help you with a potion, spell, medicine check, or Band-Aid. That is a low frequency event. And it never happens when a DM uses a bit of foresight and proper preparation.

 

[soviet]

I realize this thread is in the D&D section, but there's versions and levels of D&D where it might as well be because of the costs and potential difficulties of finding someone to fix it. Its not always a revolving door (and in other games, even less so).



I'm not going to go into my thing about how hard retreating is in many games, but I'm not sure "You guys have to flee because I screwed up my design" (and as such likely didn't telegraph how hard it'd be early) is a vast improvement. It still puts fixing my mistake at the foot of the players, and I don't find that a virtue.



The fact it isn't always going to go awry isn't a good reason to be blase about it as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think that 'all encounters are beatable' is a safe assumption in any edition of D&D, much less other games.

 

[Lanefan]

Okay, a goblin sees the heroes and then sneaks away to summon reinforcements. As soon as you roll to see how stealthy the goblin is, you're more or less telling the PCs that there's something there that concerns them.

Which is why you make a bunch of other meaningless rolls at various times during the session, it lets you disguise this one.

They know there's something to find, so they might as well find something. What's the point in telling PCs that there's something to find (by rolling behind the screen) if you're not going to let them find it? Why should a stealth check do the opposite of what it's supposed to do - let the PCs know that something is amiss?

Again, disguising the real roll among others is key here.

A good check on the part of the goblin might be a rustling that PCs heard as it was leaving. A poor check could be failing to use enough concealment and being spotted by a PC. If the goblin can leave without a trace, no roll is necessary, and should not be made.

I'f have thought the roll would be to determine whether or not the goblin did leave without a trace: that's what success on the roll would look like, with failure being the rustling leaves or blown cover or whatever.

 

[billd91]

Ok but… why should an DM overrule the dice after rolling if they weren’t sure before rolling? The act of rolling suddenly makes a DM sure of the outcome they don’t want? I’m not trying to be deliberately opaque here - I just wonder why a DM wouldn’t think about possible outcomes first then decide if a roll is appropriate. After a few seconds of consideration, if failure is not an option, just give the PCs the auto-success and move on.

Simple case would be any roll that has multiple possible levels of consequence, some of which I’m OK with, others I’m not. For example, attack rolls in 5e (or any RPG that can generate critical hits, impales, etc). I may be OK with hitting the PC, but maybe I don’t want to crit them. So I ignore the crit result and just treat it as a normal hit. That’s an example of a DM overruling the die after it’s rolled. They might not even have been thinking of the potential to crit (since they don’t come up that often) until all of a sudden, boom, there it is. So they decide after rolling.

 

[jasper]

No more than the DM screaming it's in the interest of my story. I literally gave the counter-example of that; the DM rolling opposing skill checks for the gauntlet. If you are ok with one, you should be ok with the other.

What low frequency event? The event that you might go down in a game where three quarters of the creatures you encounter are blood thirsty monsters wanting to kill you? The event that, in a game where half the time you are spent fighting monsters to the death, you may die?

Don't be silly. A low frequency event in D&D is randomly rolling three 1s in a row on a death save - and - AND - not having one other PC try to help you with a potion, spell, medicine check, or Band-Aid. That is a low frequency event. And it never happens when a DM uses a bit of foresight and proper preparation.

Well after the second 1 you is dead and I hope the group has revivify. And now other pc helping you means you have tick off the group or they were into the combat to remember you were on death saves.
But are you saying as DM I should set in and aid the fallen PC.?

 

[Thomas Shey]

What low frequency event? The event that you might go down in a game where three quarters of the creatures you encounter are blood thirsty monsters wanting to kill you? The event that, in a game where half the time you are spent fighting monsters to the death, you may die?

The event where you go down to it in sufficiently short order you can't do about it because of dice swings including crits. And yes, a lot of people expect some chance of death, but expect to be able to do something about it. They're not all playing RuneQuest or even Savage Worlds after all. And the fact they only happen when the GM isn't taking proper precautions is rather the point; sometimes they just don't, and figure it out when things start to go wrong.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think that 'all encounters are beatable' is a safe assumption in any edition of D&D, much less other games.

No, but if you don't see the difference between "the GM set the encounter up to not be beatable and signals this" and "the GM thought it was beatable and figures out it isn't mid-encounter", I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Clint_L]

And that is what I find weird. I trust my friends, they can roll behind a screen if they want and I have no issues with that.

People keep trying to make it about trust. I roll in the open because it’s way more exciting!