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

[jasper]

Scott Christian.....If you are ok with rolling behind a screen as DM, then you should also be ok with letting your players. .... Oh hell NO. I just forever banned a casual player after 8 years for cheating at die rolls. He would have went faster but I and most of the other casuals pity him. And in general, a person making the BOLD is thinking about cheating. But this does seem to be a Major issue which should be discussed in public instead of PRIVATEly.

I have seen and played with DM who were using a module which I knew well, and they ran it badly. So, with or without a screen, prep work means nothing occasionally.

Some of us grew up with the DM Screen always being up. It allows the DM to fudge, cheat, hide information (Until his bathroom break and we read his notes), etc. A screen has it uses.
...As DM, if you know your group, you can create these encounters to be fun, rewarding, challenging - and not deadly....
I am an Adventure League DM. So, it appears I need to know WELL all 121 subclasses, and 57 species well and how well the feats 88 interact. But I can't know the well because over half my players are dirty causals who don't update their sheets to five minutes before I get there.
I have ran 558 sessions with 156 deaths. 2 TPKs. 1 TPS (Total Party Surrender), and 1 near TPK which only resulted in 1 death due to some one rolling Nat 20 and that creating a healing chain.

It appears Scott is comfortable with mode of play of TV Show Captain Kirk, ATeam where no one dies. This is an acceptable play style.

 

[CleverNickName]

I roll in the open (we play over a VTT), but it's not really my place to say what other DMs "should" do.

 

[Scott Christian]

There's a matter of perspective that can come up on contradictory views when something quite this far reaching comes up.

I've made it clear--outright said it at least twice--that as a default (that is to say, without reference to a specific group of players who it may serve better for a number of reasons) rolling mostly in the open is, in my opinion, best practice.

Someone who does that routinely without such reference to specific groups can (not inaccurately) read that as what they're doing is "bad practice". And "bad" is a concept that feels intrinsically critical at least, and potentially insulting.

Its just that, well, any time you make any sort of general evaluation and say "I think X is a bad idea", people who routinely do X are potentially going to find it critical and insulting. I think there's a big difference between "I think you're doing a bad thing" and "I think you're a bad person" (because, after all, you can be doing it in good faith because you see it differently) but for those who are unable or unwilling to make that distinction, there's not much that can be done; I don't think completely avoiding being critical of other ways of doing things should be a requirement to have a civil discussion area.

I agree. But there is also this, which is sometimes true:

Sometimes take it as "They're telling me I play bad" because they feel a bit guilty. And guilt, as we know can come from a myriad of things. It might be their group just broke up and no one was really having any fun. Or they have never tried the other way. Or maybe there is potential consternation in the group already and this is "just another thing."

That might not be true for any of the discussions here. But to say rolling in the open is more honest is not an opinion. Neither is saying that a DM that preps encounters more thoroughly won't have as many swingy dice complications. The only opinion is that it is more suspenseful. I can see the argument for rolling behind the screen or in the open as valid for suspense building.

I have played both ways and stated my experiences with the styles.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think if you look closely at what has been said, you may find some of what I'm speaking about. I'm going to pick on you here, not because you are alone or especially bad. But because I don't want to ping a bunch of Enworlders for this. After all, they will see it if they want to engage with the thread again.

Insinuating that DMs who roll behind a screen don't prep seems to be a recurring theme of yours. If I said "cooks who don't add garlic often burn food," I'd be called out, and fairly so, as it's patently absurd. Yet, here we are. The same statement in D&D terms being repeated over and over again. All in spite of the statements being gross over-generalizations and demonstrably false. Feels like a way to make people feel inferior at the hobby, but maybe that's just me.

It's ok to call me out. But read what I wrote please. The DM that spends more time prepping their encounters will have less problems with swingy dice rolls - which is what this is all about. The fact that people try to semantically parsnip fudging dice rolls because of game mechanics is silly. If I spend 1 minute and roll an encounter on a random table and then throw up some impromptu terrain vs spending 30 minutes calculating how to challenge the players and make the fight interesting and balanced - 30 minutes wins everytime. (And to be clear, we're not talking about some seventeen-year-old that is DMing their first campaign. They're going to faulter like everyone else has.)

As for making people feel inferior, that is "their" feelings. And I would posit those feelings can come from many places - one might come from knowing if you spent more time creating balanced encounters you wouldn't have to fudge dice rolls.

And if you go back to my earlier post, I specifically stated that there are players and groups that are fine with them. It fits their table's playstyle. And that's cool. Nothing wrong with that. What I have consistently argued against is the fact that D&D needs fudging. It does not. There are way too many preventative measures (and mechanics) that negate the need for a DM to lie to their players about their dice rolls.

Or how about if we claim that rolling in secret means the DM should actively enable actual cheating. In essence ignoring the asymmetric design of the most popular systems. Claiming that if I roll behind the screen that means I should just allow my players to cheat. Even though, as a DM, I am allowed by rule, at least in modern D&D, to fudge the roll and the players are not. Maybe this is innocent, but it seems to me to be comparing my behavior to cheating - something that is very likely to be completely false.

Just so we are clear, my claim is not rolling behind the screen is bad or means you are fudging your rolls. My claim is D&D doesn't need to be fudged, especially if you spend time preparing encounters. That's the entire claim.

Maybe you mean that if I roll behind a screen I should be okay with playing with cheaters? Or, in a real malicious reading, that I deserve to play with cheaters. The best reading I can come up with is a childish "well if the players have to trust you, you have to trust them" followed by a tongue.

That is not what I mean at all. I wrote that DMs that need to fudge (and therefore always roll behind the screen instead of always out in the open) haven't done the prep work I have seen other DMs do. I laid out some numbers: 500 encounters with 4 DMs, and they always manage to get it right. (Three of them roll in the open.) Who Knows, maybe a fudging DM always has more suspenseful battles than the ones I have played in? That could be true, and it could be an argument for fudging. But it doesn't negate the fact that D&D does not need to be fudged.

This says nothing really of rolling behind a screen. Some DMs (and players) feel it builds suspense. That's valid.

 

[Scott Christian]

So maybe my statement was too specific. Focusing too much on those who cross the line. Those who said it out loud. Like on page 2 where one Enworlder just calls people who fudge cheaters - in spite of it being allowed by rule. Or just a page or two ago where a large swath of the community was called bad for their choice here. And those are just some easy examples.

To be clear, I don't think DMs that fudge are cheaters. But they do lie to their players. I think that is a fact. (And I don't mean lie as a sinful act. There are many games where you lie, and those can be very fun.)

Also, I don't think DMs that fudge are bad either. But, I think they need to approach the argument from a better stance. You can't blame swingy die rolls to "needing to fudge." Because that is not true if you spend time crafting your encounters.

 

[Scott Christian]

Scott Christian.....If you are ok with rolling behind a screen as DM, then you should also be ok with letting your players. .... Oh hell NO. I just forever banned a casual player after 8 years for cheating at die rolls. He would have went faster but I and most of the other casuals pity him. And in general, a person making the BOLD is thinking about cheating. But this does seem to be a Major issue which should be discussed in public instead of PRIVATEly.

I have seen and played with DM who were using a module which I knew well, and they ran it badly. So, with or without a screen, prep work means nothing occasionally.

Some of us grew up with the DM Screen always being up. It allows the DM to fudge, cheat, hide information (Until his bathroom break and we read his notes), etc. A screen has it uses.
...As DM, if you know your group, you can create these encounters to be fun, rewarding, challenging - and not deadly....
I am an Adventure League DM. So, it appears I need to know WELL all 121 subclasses, and 57 species well and how well the feats 88 interact. But I can't know the well because over half my players are dirty causals who don't update their sheets to five minutes before I get there.
I have ran 558 sessions with 156 deaths. 2 TPKs. 1 TPS (Total Party Surrender), and 1 near TPK which only resulted in 1 death due to some one rolling Nat 20 and that creating a healing chain.

It appears Scott is comfortable with mode of play of TV Show Captain Kirk, ATeam where no one dies. This is an acceptable play style.

Just to be clear, my bolded words were a statement that discussed how a character who fudges can do so for the same reason a DM who fudges. Therefore, if you, as DM need to fudge, it should be ok for your players to do so as well.

And I think a DM screen is fine. Like I said, I have played with DMs that use them, and ones that don't. They both are fine. What I disagree with is a DM saying D&D DMs need to fudge their dice rolls. They do not.

As for Adventurer's League, I would imagine you as DM know that there are a lot of new and young players that have their first experience with D&D on that night. Therefore, I would imagine you know they are not min-maxing. You know that the encounters should have a "way out." You know the encounters should be less deadly because new players. You know this, just like you know the encounters should be tailored to two-hour sessions.

I am guessing that with 156 deaths, how many of those were brought back? I mean, players can have access to revivify pretty early on in the game. Maybe a temple nearby that can resurrect? Maybe a god intervening allowing for advantage on death saves? Maybe another player that just walks over and puts a goodberry or healing potion in the PCs mouth? Maybe someone 60' away simply casting a healing word? Maybe a deal with the devil to get them back?

As for you knowing every class and sub-class and species abilities - you don't. But, with minimal experience you can predict how much damage a third level party can take. You can estimate pretty accurately the damage output of your encounter. Thanks to bounded accuracy, you can figure out the PCs "to hit" rate with minimal effort. You can also just look at the classes and probably guess their damage output. You can do all of this with minimal error.

PS - As for my playstyle, it is neither ATeam nor Captain Kirk. I prefer a grittier game. But I play D&D, and I understand that it is a group game. If my DMs enjoy the way they run it, and the other players do to, then I will get enjoyment out of everyone having fun.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

This says nothing really of rolling behind a screen. Some DMs (and players) feel it builds suspense. That's valid.

I appreciate your well written and respectful clarification. Thanks for taking the time to provide it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I roll in the open (we play over a VTT), but it's not really my place to say what other DMs "should" do.

If a new DM came to you and asked how they should handle it, what would you suggest and why?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree. But there is also this, which is sometimes true:

Sometimes take it as "They're telling me I play bad" because they feel a bit guilty.

I am unwilling to make assumptions about people's drives and motives in discussion until they make it overwhelmingly obvious.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be clear, I don't think DMs that fudge are cheaters. But they do lie to their players. I think that is a fact.

I'd say that depends on how broadly you use "lie". A lot of groups consider some degree of illusionism not only acceptable but expected. Fudging is an element of that. I think it overstates the situation when you have a procedure that is at least accepted and often approved by the player group. Its untruthful--but so are magic tricks.