What sort of DM screen do you prefer?

[was]

I like the shorter, but longer landscape version

 

[kenobi65]

I voted for the standard 11" screens, because frankly I've never heard of or seen any 8" tall panel screens. Anyone have a pic or demo of what that is like?

I don't have a picture, but imagine this:

- Take a standard 11" tall screen
- Cut the panels apart from each other
- Rotate each panel 90 degrees
- Tape them back together

 

[Woas]

I like the landscape ones. Most times I use my screen just for quick refrences and to hide dice rolls and perhaps minis for NPCs/monsters that I intend to use in the very near future. Maps, notes and other generally 'sensative' information is kept sort of behind/away from me on another smaller table or on the floor upside down.
So those extra 3 inches really just get in my way.

 

[Agamon]

I use a laptop as a DM screen. Though before I started using that (about the time of 3.5's release), it was a landscape screen.

 

[Alnag]

I believe that the age of DM screen is over. I am rolling everything in front of the players, I comment on the game, I give advices on e.g. combat options if appropriate. I don't believe in the dichotomy DM vs. players of which the DM screen is a symbol. I thing we all are players, I am just the one with more options given (and with more characters to play).

 

[Aus_Snow]

I believe that the age of DM screen is over.

The chances of that are more than 3:1 against, according to the poll attached to this thread (at the moment). . . for instance.

So, perhaps not, eh?

 

[WhatGravitas]

The landscape ones, because I like to see my players. And because landscape format naturally lends to a (IMHO) better layout of the tables - tall screens encourage the "block table"-format, wide screens encourage smaller, but more varied tables. And it is, at least for me, easier to scan my screen from left to right then from top to bottom... put it that way: Why are TV screens and monitors wider than tall?

 

[Alnag]

The chances of that are more than 3:1 against, according to the poll attached to this thread (at the moment). . . for instance.

So, perhaps not, eh?

I would argue, that this poll is not representative of the target population

Well anyway. I never understand the whole screen thing. When I was young, I used the book to cover the dungeon map, because I thought it is fun to explore it. And of course to cover the rolls. But I do not need the manufactured screen for that, do I?

Really, what are the tables good for? I never get this idea? The important numbers I know by heart, the unimportant I make up if needed. Which tables do you check on the screen actually?

Oh and one more... what is the whole thing about covering the rolls. I knew, I did it myself, but is it because of the surprise or so that you can forge the rolls or not reveal the monster stats or why? Is it because you want to save the players in case you roll to good, or rather make them hard time even if you roll bad. Or is it because you want to make the encounter really cool whatever you roll (and then why to even bother with rolling dice?)

So what is left? Maps probably. What would happen if players woud by accident see the game structure (be it dungeon of set of mystery clues - both could be made in form of map?)

Don't take me wrong. I ask because I am really curious...

 

[IronWolf]

The last time I DM'ed I used a screen. After having seen our current DM not use a screen it looks very liberating to me. I don't plan on using a screen again. Heck, mine would just get in the way more than it helped on most occasions. So I voted no screen for me.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Landscape type for me. I have always used a screen because i like having lots of the most commonly used rules right in front of me. WotC 3.5 screen is quite adequate for this (although I would have added more info on grappling).