Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Skyscraper" data-source="post: 9542608" data-attributes="member: 48518">This is not the point.I've been playing DnD (and other RPG's) for 45 years. It is only maybe 7 years ago that we started rolling in the open. Why? I assume mostly because rolling behind the screen is what we had learned from the original DnD design dating from the 70's-80's. It had always been done that way. We had pretty much the same thoughts as those that are mentioned in this thread in favor of rolling behind the screen, and against rolling in the open, when we discussed it beforehand, but we went ahead and did it anyway. And we never looked back. (I wonder how many behind-the screen proponents have played as DM and/or players in roll-in-the-open campaigns.)And with that, came the realization that (1) there is great fun in actually experiencing die rolls at the same time; and (2) our preconceived apprehensions were not supported by the experience of rolling in the open.There is no right or wrong. I think like there are different types of players described in the DnD core books (instigator, actor, ...), there are different types of people that look for different types of DM-ing. To me rolling behind the screen vs. in the open is mostly moving a dial between DM-empowerment where you let the GM tell you what happens; and random determination where you let the die tell you what happens (first anyway). In both cases the DM ends up narrating, but more emphasis on DM narration in roll behind the screen while in roll in the open the DM is faced with the result at the same time as the players. And neither is 100% one or the other, you're just moving more in one direction with each playstyle.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Skyscraper, post: 9542608, member: 48518"] This is not the point. I've been playing DnD (and other RPG's) for 45 years. It is only maybe 7 years ago that we started rolling in the open. Why? I assume mostly because rolling behind the screen is what we had learned from the original DnD design dating from the 70's-80's. It had always been done that way. We had pretty much the same thoughts as those that are mentioned in this thread in favor of rolling behind the screen, and against rolling in the open, when we discussed it beforehand, but we went ahead and did it anyway. And we never looked back. (I wonder how many behind-the screen proponents have played as DM and/or players in roll-in-the-open campaigns.) And with that, came the realization that (1) there is great fun in actually experiencing die rolls at the same time; and (2) our preconceived apprehensions were not supported by the experience of rolling in the open. There is no right or wrong. I think like there are different types of players described in the DnD core books (instigator, actor, ...), there are different types of people that look for different types of DM-ing. To me rolling behind the screen vs. in the open is mostly moving a dial between DM-empowerment where you let the GM tell you what happens; and random determination where you let the die tell you what happens (first anyway). In both cases the DM ends up narrating, but more emphasis on DM narration in roll behind the screen while in roll in the open the DM is faced with the result at the same time as the players. And neither is 100% one or the other, you're just moving more in one direction with each playstyle. [/QUOTE]

Verification