D&D 5E To Screen or not to Screen

[guachi]

What I'd love is a side table I could put a screen on and paperclip stuff to. I had a simple card board box I used until it fell apart that was fantastic.

A screen in front of me obscures my view too much but one on the side puts information in an easily accessible location while concealing it from the players.

 

[SkidAce]

I'm imaging him walking around with a changing screen on wheels, like they have in some hospitals, except the inside is covered in charts.

Sadly, I am way to short for the images you propose. Me with a screen?

More like Kilroy....

 

[Caliburn101]

I think GM screens are important due to the need for privacy of reference materials and of course the need for the DM 'fudge factor'. I don't fudge very much at all, but I do once in a long while for reasons I can justify considering that my players always know that character death is a real threat, not a significantly improbable event.

However... I don't like 'portrait' orientation screens that cover the face. My table is always a method acting table, and I act out every NPC - from facial expressions to gesticulations and varied voices. You cannot do that with your chin cut off by the screen, so 'landscape' screens (like the official one) are the only ones I use.

 

[Aldarc]

Obviously there is no right or wrong way here. It's simply a matter of preference. Some people like having a screen for hiding material references or making dice fudges a little easier. For others, perhaps those who think too much about these sort of things, the GM Screen represents an item of philosophical game importance, whether as a symbolic hinderance or boon of GMing approaches. My answer: whatever works for your table. In my case, it's not the screen itself that I find useful, but the charts, tables, and references that often come with such GM kits.