Quote from: UmaSamaI agree, but, what happens if they do choose their battles wisely, and fight with outmost heroism, and resolve the plot marvelously, and yet they die.
Wouldn't you consider to give them a "second" chance, but only ONE second chance.

To me it depends on the campaign. In most games I play they'll be dead. Crap happens and all that. In some campaigns they'll be able to survive, either through a house rule of Fate Points like I use when playing Rolemaster or a system rule that mimics it (such as the Hand of God in Shadowrun).

But if it is a campaign where they can survive it, it will always be because of them, not a fudged die from behind a screen.

In my game its pretty clear: my players MUST roll openly and visibly, and I can roll however the fuck I want.

RPGPundit

Spoken like a true fascist.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn my game its pretty clear: my players MUST roll openly and visibly, and I can roll however the fuck I want.

RPGPundit

But I wanted to roll on my lap, in a chair far away from the rest of the group, somehow players that do this roll 20's quite often.:rolleyes:

Quote from: Sosthenes.

So, what's the your opinion on this matter?

I roll everything in the open - I never use GM screens. I sometimes hide my roll with my hand when checking something the player characters wouldn't know about - like noticing something without actively looking, or something happening entirely offscreen. Otherwise it's all open. I don't use systems where I have to fudge something.

-clash

Quote from: James McMurraySpoken like a true fascist.

Well, in one sense a gaming group is like a democracy and everyone is important so its really everyone's game and it takes all kinds to make a world so reach out and hug your brother and all that...

But in another, more accurate sense, I make the gaming group. If I, the GM, am not in it, then it does not exist.  So my word is law.
If you don't like that, you can go. As a player, the gaming group can survive the loss of any one of you; it can't survive the loss of the GM.

Over here, in the real world, the GM gets authority correspondent with that reality.  He also gets responsibilities correspondent to that authority.

RPGPundit

Pundit, don't you feel that fudging dice rolls is advancing your vision of the narrative over what the players choices and luck is creating?  To me, fudging dice rolls just seems like another type of railroading... and railroading is the mark of the swine.

Resist the temptation.

I'm about to run Stargate SG-1, based of the Spycraft 1.0 D20 system, one thing I noticed was players can use action die to activate NPC errors (when they roll a 1), but obviously in order to do so the GM must be making all their rolls in the open.

If I roll behind a screen it's only because it is easier than reaching over one.

Quote from: StuartPundit, don't you feel that fudging dice rolls is advancing your vision of the narrative over what the players choices and luck is creating?  To me, fudging dice rolls just seems like another type of railroading... and railroading is the mark of the swine.

Resist the temptation.

He didn't say he fudges - he said a GM can hide his rolls or not as he chooses. A very different statement, which I agree with. I just personally refer my rolls in the open as my choice.

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditBut in another, more accurate sense, I make the gaming group. If I, the GM, am not in it, then it does not exist.  So my word is law.
If you don't like that, you can go. As a player, the gaming group can survive the loss of any one of you; it can't survive the loss of the GM.

Sure it can. They can go play one of those newfangled GM-less games some of the kids these days seem to like so much. I know if the choice was between gaming with Pundit and GMless I'd think long and hard. Of course, that might not apply to your actual personality, whatever that may be.

I feel it's mostly a non-issue.  Yes, a player can observe the dice and conclude that a monster has a +7 to strike and a +8 to dodge.  It only becomes an issue when the GM is fudging shit.

"I rolled a total of 22!  You rolled a 11 on the die for the monster's dodge.  I know from watching your other rolls and what you said the totals were that the monster only has a +8 to dodge, for a total of 19.  So I should hit!  Why are you cheating me out of my hit?"

Plus, observing the dice rolls is one of the ways the players can properly judge their opponents.  It's one thing to say "you miss."  It's quite another for the player to see the die read 15 and the GM say the total is 27.  With the latter, the player can get an idea of the competency of the opponent in much the same way a real person at the scene could gauge the same thing by observing actions.

Quote from: GabrielPlus, observing the dice rolls is one of the ways the players can properly judge their opponents.  It's one thing to say "you miss."  It's quite another for the player to see the die read 15 and the GM say the total is 27.  With the latter, the player can get an idea of the competency of the opponent in much the same way a real person at the scene could gauge the same thing by observing actions.

That's true for combat, not true for stuff like perception skills, saving throws, susceptibility to a bribe etc. That's the hard part, IMHO.

I've used that technique too.  When you roll a '3' in the open and tell someone with a 50 AC that they were hit, that leaves an impression.

Seraph: "You do not truly know someone until you fight them."

Quote from: SosthenesThat's true for combat, not true for stuff like perception skills, saving throws, susceptibility to a bribe etc. That's the hard part, IMHO.

In that case, there's nothing saying you actually have to tell the total.  Just roll the dice, add it up in your head, and leave it without comment.

They'll fill in their own competency for the bad guys.

I will admit this is more problematic in games where competency at a task results in rolling more and/or different types of dice.