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

[Clint_L]

I agree with Charlaquin that if it is okay for the DM to secretly fudge, why not for the players as well? Why can't they also secretly "curate" their experience?

I will suggest fudging if I think the situation calls for it. I have done so (rarely). Why not just have the discussion openly? It's a cooperative game. "Hey, this critical hit will insta-kill Allen in his first combat of his first game, and he just spent hours building a character and even made a picture of them. What say his character is just knocked unconscious instead?" Players all agree [that actually happened].

When I used to secretly fudge it was always to make the adventure go in a "better" direction than the dice indicated. Since I stopped doing that, and always roll openly when possible, I have found that the story is better. I'm no good at deception, and it stresses me out. So players were always suspicious of me when I fudged, and with open rules they know there's no thumb on the scale: each inflection point in the game is earned by their choices and rolls. The rolls are way more exciting, an event in themselves (I've noted that even some DMs who normally roll behind a screen state that they will sometimes roll openly for a "big" roll).

The biggest winner is...me. Because the story is less under my control, I get more outcomes that I never saw coming, and get to enjoy emergent story telling along with my players. And I don't have to engage in deceptive behaviour.

There's no one true way, but having done both, I am never going back to always rolling behind a screen. Open rolling is way more fun, for me.

 

[Deset Gled]

I agree with Charlaquin that if it is okay for the DM to secretly fudge, why not for the players as well? Why can't they also secretly "curate" their experience?

This is sophistry. The players cannot fudge for the same reason they cannot declare that they found an artifact in a random chest, or that the BBEG trips down the stairs and dies.

 

[Oofta]

If I was really concerned about the newbie player that just had their first character killed I'd explain a couple of things. First while death in my campaign is usually fairly rare it can happen. Second because this is your first character you should normally be dead here and because you're low level and don't have resources they typically can't come back. But because you're new we can make an exception. Do you want your character to die? Another option is to bring in your character's twin brother who just happens to have all your abilities. Still another option is to write up another character.

Personally I don't like fudging and while I may not always be as tactical or deadly as I could be, I've never really seen a need for it.

 

[Clint_L]

This is sophistry. The players cannot fudge for the same reason they cannot declare that they found an artifact in a random chest, or that the BBEG trips down the stairs and dies.

I do allow players to contribute to the narrative. Not to that degree, but then I wouldn't put in those details as DM, either. They would be dumb.

But fudging is different - it is altering the dice to produce a desired result. Typically, it's a pass/fail state.

 

[Scott Christian]

Sure. That's not what your first post said, however; it ascribed the GM as lying in both cases, which I think misrepresents one of the two cases in an important fashion.

Like a lot of things, context matters.

I agree. Context matters. And if the DM rolls behind a screen and isn't up front about the fact they are going to fudge rolls, then they are lying. And if they do tell players there will be times they fudge, then fudge (lie) about a die roll, the lie is built for the table's enjoyment. It's still a lie, just a socially acceptable one.

 

[Older Beholder]

Since we play on Discord and don't use on online dice roller, everyone in my group rolls in secret. Both DM and players. We're friends and trust each other.

In person I use a screen to hide my notes, so it's easier to roll behind that.
I also don't like that rolling things in front pf players gives away certain meta game knowledge.

Eg: rolling damage dice in front of players.
Telling a player the attack only grazed them for 2 damage is better (IMO) than the player seeing you roll 2D6 and get two 1's.

You can roll in the open and still fudge things as a DM.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree with Charlaquin that if it is okay for the DM to secretly fudge, why not for the players as well? Why can't they also secretly "curate" their experience?

I mean, that’s not exactly what I was saying. My point was more that it can be a useful exercise in challenging one’s own biases to question why one might feel that DMs fudging is ok but that players fudging is not (or vice versa). And that’s not to say there aren’t valid reasons to be ok with fudging on one side but not be ok with it on the other. But it’s useful to question the reason for such a disparity.

I will suggest fudging if I think the situation calls for it. I have done so (rarely). Why not just have the discussion openly? It's a cooperative game. "Hey, this critical hit will insta-kill Allen in his first combat of his first game, and he just spent hours building a character and even made a picture of them. What say his character is just knocked unconscious instead?" Players all agree [that actually happened].

When I used to secretly fudge it was always to make the adventure go in a "better" direction than the dice indicated. Since I stopped doing that, and always roll openly when possible, I have found that the story is better. I'm no good at deception, and it stresses me out. So players were always suspicious of me when I fudged, and with open rules they know there's no thumb on the scale: each inflection point in the game is earned by their choices and rolls. The rolls are way more exciting, an event in themselves (I've noted that even some DMs who normally roll behind a screen state that they will sometimes roll openly for a "big" roll).

The biggest winner is...me. Because the story is less under my control, I get more outcomes that I never saw coming, and get to enjoy emergent story telling along with my players. And I don't have to engage in deceptive behaviour.

There's no one true way, but having done both, I am never going back to always rolling behind a screen. Open rolling is way more fun, for me.

I agree, I think this is a solid policy.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree. Context matters. And if the DM rolls behind a screen and isn't up front about the fact they are going to fudge rolls, then they are lying. And if they do tell players there will be times they fudge, then fudge (lie) about a die roll, the lie is built for the table's enjoyment. It's still a lie, just a socially acceptable one.

I don't disagree there. The difference is in how the group views what he's doing; are they on board it? Not? Worse yet, are they under the impression the GM is not going to do that?

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't disagree there. The difference is in how the group views what he's doing; are they on board it? Not? Worse yet, are they under the impression the GM is not going to do that?

How the group views it is everything I guess. I think for most groups, however they decide, must work. And that is a good thing.

 

[Plaguescarred]

DM should roll in the open, or away from view, only if and when they want to. Personally;

When i play online, my rolls are usually public on Roll20 unless i specifically need to keep one secret to the players.

When i play in person, i usually roll at my seat behind a DM screen, unless i happen to be standing near the players table, which happens alot as i have a tendency to walk around as i DM, and roll wherever i am when the need arise.