The game master screen is an old tradition, often used so that the master's notes aren't visible to the players. Hidden dice rolls behind this screen are yet another tradition. Well, once you have a screen, rolling in the open could be a yoga excercise in itself, but there's usually a second motivation.
Whether fudging die rolls is acceptable has often been a matter of discussion, personally I don't think it should be neccesary.
But once you roll everything in the open, players will be able to judge the strengths of their opponents. How do you cope with this? Of course, true role-players won't mix character and player knowledge. But those "true" role-players are probably as common as true communists...
So, what's the your opinion on this matter?
I have never used a GM screen, all my rolls are in the open .
Although I don't bother to tell the players what I am rolling for sometimes :D
I roll in the open, but don't announce totals due to any modifiers. My players just know if the roll succeeds or fails.
I have no problem with the players being able to judge the relative strengths and abilities of their opponents in this way. When you're engaged in a contest of sorts with anyone, you will be able to get a rough idea of their abilities simply by observing what they do and how they do it. Players getting a read off the dice is just a way to simulate that, I suppose.
I roll almost everything in the open. The only things that are hidden are things like spot checks, but even for those I uusally ask the players to roll.
I don't have a problem with the players figuring out things about their opponent because I'm rolling in the open. While the character may not see that the NPC hit on a 5, he would definitely see that the NPC hit him almost without trying. The players calculating general to hit bonuses just gives them a stronger meaning for "you can tell by the way he's hitting you left and right that he's a really good swordsman."
I roll in the open; because I figure if I'm going to roll dice they ought to count for something, and it's more exciting if everybody sees it happen.
Apart from fudging, the other reason for keeping your rolls hidden is to play mind games on the players, and I don't like to do that no more.
All open all the time. I like to let the players see the die rolls, it's fun.
If I don't want death in a campaign I'll remove the possibility, perhaps by house ruling "death" into "incapacitation" or something similar. If I want to temper the randomness I'll use a game system that has Hero/Drama/Fate points or something of that nature.
True story:
When combat ensues, I fold the DM screen. The gals and guys get excited/worried when I do this. It has become a little bit of a ritual, akin to (and actually replacing) saying "roll for initiative".
I never used to roll dice in the open. My current group likes all dice rolls in the open. Guess, they want to see the pain coming :eek:
Regards,
David R
Quote from: James McMurrayWhile the character may not see that the NPC hit on a 5, he would definitely see that the NPC hit him almost without trying. The players calculating general to hit bonuses just gives them a stronger meaning for "you can tell by the way he's hitting you left and right that he's a really good swordsman."
I really have no big problems with stuff like AC or parry rolls or something like that.
Saving throws and similar mechanisms on the other hand...
Sometimes I've rolled dice in the open, sometimes behind a DM screen. It depends on my mood, and whether or not I want to make my players sweat. I'm fickle like that. :)
A great effect can be achieved by rolling almost all die rolls behind a screen and then, for a really critical roll, just whipping that bad boy out in the middle of the table.
Quote from: SosthenesI really have no big problems with stuff like AC or parry rolls or something like that.
Saving throws and similar mechanisms on the other hand...
If a group were to be really technical about OOC vs. IC knowledge, the players wouldn't know their own saving throws and ability scores. And it takes some luck to know exactly what the other person's bonuses are after more than a few rolls. It doesn't happen often enough to bother me.
Quote from: jrientsA great effect can be achieved by rolling almost all die rolls behind a screen and then, for a really critical roll, just whipping that bad boy out in the middle of the table.
I totally agree with this, the trick is to know "when" to roll in the open to make a dramatic effect.
I don't like GM screens in general. Although back when I had a laptop I used that, (mainly because it was convenient, as I put all my GM-notes in MSWord).
But everyone's dice rolls (not just the GMs) are always out in the open. We also play around the same table- another important factor in the dice rolling tradition: have a table. None of that lounging around on cushions crap.
Quote from: jrientsA great effect can be achieved by rolling almost all die rolls behind a screen and then, for a really critical roll, just whipping that bad boy out in the middle of the table.
That...doesn't sound good.
Quote from: Divine HammerThat...doesn't sound good.
Thank you! I was wondering if I was going to draw any comments like that.
Given that I do my victory dance whenever one of my players' characters bites the big one, there's no need for them to see the details.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalGiven that I do my victory dance whenever one of my players' characters bites the big one, there's no need for them to see the details.
I find that the look of doom on their face in anticipation of my impending victory dance is an excellent reason to roll in the open. ;)
I suppose if your players are capable of sorting IC and OOC information, then a screen isn't needed.
If not, like my old group, a screen can be a useful tool. It's also useful for when I don't want to be losing PCs in a tong term campaign.
Yea...I'm kinda the opposite of the 'Killer GM'.
Quote from: MegamanfanIf not, like my old group, a screen can be a useful tool. It's also useful for when I don't want to be losing PCs in a tong term campaign.
Totally, sometimes you feel like the Pc didn't deserve to die, so if you roll a critical hit that would take the pc to the afterlife behind a screen you can ignore the result, but if you do it in the open and the player sees the critical roll, then there's not much you can do.
QuoteTotally, sometimes you feel like the Pc didn't deserve to die, so if you roll a critical hit that would take the pc to the afterlife behind a screen you can ignore the result, but if you do it in the open and the player sees the critical roll, then there's not much you can do.
Playing soft on the players?
Takes away the suspense.
From this discussion on "railroading" (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=48889&postcount=136)
Quote from: StuartI also want to add -- this is why I don't think you should fudge dice rolls in an RPG. If the players will "survive", "defeat the monster", "find the secret door", and/or "get the treasure" based on a fudged dice roll... that's just another type of railroad.
If the player's decision doesn't matter -- don't ask them to make one.
If the player's dice roll doesn't matter -- don't ask them to make one.
If your (the GM's) dice roll doesn't matter -- don't make one.
If you're left without the player's making any decisions, and nobody rolling any dice (no element of chance), then it's not only a railroad... it's not even a game. It's the GM telling the players a story that they get to add a bit of improv dialogue to.
Disclaimer: I used to fudge dice rolls all the time when I was younger. Now I think that's not a good thing at all.
My players lack the math skills for rolling in the open to be a problem, barring one new player they're all arts grads.
Quote from: UmaSamaTotally, sometimes you feel like the Pc didn't deserve to die, so if you roll a critical hit that would take the pc to the afterlife behind a screen you can ignore the result, but if you do it in the open and the player sees the critical roll, then there's not much you can do.
Exactly, that's why I prefer to roll in the open, to remove the temptation of doing something in that situation.
PCs should survive because the player plays them smart, or because they get lucky, not because I'm a wuss.
The trick to not dying is to pick your battles. I like verisimilitude in games and this helps with that.
Quote from: BalbinusMy players lack the math skills for rolling in the open to be a problem, barring one new player they're all arts grads.
They can't handle addition and subtraction? This explains a lot about modern art...
I'm shamefully inconsistent in my rolling methods but it doesn't seem to matter as my players never really look at my dice when I roll anyway and I barely look at theirs.
Quote from: BalbinusExactly, that's why I prefer to roll in the open, to remove the temptation of doing something in that situation.
PCs should survive because the player plays them smart, or because they get lucky, not because I'm a wuss.
The trick to not dying is to pick your battles. I like verisimilitude in games and this helps with that.
That's an interesting way of looking at things. I shall consider this further.
I roll everything in the open. I don't like screens at all, I don't like having a barrier between me and the players. I'm of the opinion that if you're fudging rolls its because the system isn't working for you. It isn't giving what you think are good results, and you're patching that by taking the randomizer out. Now, if it only happens once in a blue moon you may not care, but if it's a common occurance maybe you need to change the rules to match your playstyle.
Myself, I like metagame mechanics. It gives the players a way to say that this is an important roll, or my PC shouldn't die here, or what have you. It takes the job of fudging away from the GM and gives it to the players, leaving the GM free to simply set up interesting situations and play them out. It also limits and quantifies it, making fudging just another game resource.
Quote from: SettembriniPlaying soft on the players?
Takes away the suspense.
Believe me, this rarely, if ever happens in one of my games, but I think that in some VERY special ocassions, I dunno maybe the player has been playing SO well that he earned a "second chance".
But again, it's very unlikely to happen.
Quote from: BalbinusPCs should survive because the player plays them smart, or because they get lucky, not because I'm a wuss.
I 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.
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.
I generally roll in the open, and forgo GM shields. I used to use a shield, but I just found that they got in the way - when I was sitting down during a game, it made it hard to see things on the table, and when I'm standing up and moving around and waving my arms, then the screen isn't very helpful either. :) Besides, with the new d20 rules, there's not a lot of charts to look up - it's all compare dieroll + bonuses vs difficulty.
I don't mind my players picking up on how powerful a monster is by how I roll. If I announce that the monster got a 25 on a blow, and one of the players notices I only rolled a 7, then that's the same as in character the warriors noticing that the monster's weak blows are landing like hammers, and produces the same effect - the players treat the encounter more seriously, knowing that they're against a powerful foe that could kill them.
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. :)
When I "fudge" die rolls, its almost always to save the PCs from death or some other unfortunate result that wouldn't really add anything to the game at the time of said roll. I believe its the GM's prerogative to do this.
RPGPundit
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.
No, not because that isn't a bad outcome, it plainly is. But because I see the overall benefit to our games of open rolling and letting the dice fall where they may as greater than the occasional benefit of intervening to make something work out right.
In other words, that outcome sucks, but overall having the occasional sucky outcome makes for generally better gaming because of the possibility of real failure existing. It makes things matter.
So for me, the occasional total party kill or total party clusterfuck is a price worth paying to make the players' choices really matter, because they know that generally their choices will really determine how things turn out.
Quote from: BalbinusSo for me, the occasional total party kill or total party clusterfuck is a price worth paying to make the players' choices really matter, because they know that generally their choices will really determine how things turn out.
Also, that knowledge makes players react differently to some in-game events (i.e., violence), that can be quite helpful to emulate some moods.
In my best MERP campaign ever, half of the party was wiped out in a fight with an evil mage in the Herûbar Gûlar in the first two combat rounds (the castle of the intro module on the corebook). They didn't nothing wrong. They were careful and tried to plan the attack to their best. They were not stupid. But fights are dangerous, impossible to predict and well, fucking dangerous. My players didn't complain, or felt aggravated. They didn't feel less heroic, on the contrary. They said "Man, we're fighting a really evil badass here!" Their final triumph was even more cherished to them.
A lot of people have mentioned that GM fudging may be a result of the system failing and though I was against this idea when I first heard it way back I'm coming round to it as the last two systems I've played, WFRP and Cinematic Unisystem, have reduced fudging to practically nothing* due to the addition of stuff like Drama/Fate points and interesting nonlethal injuries.
*I say 'practically' nothing because I'm sure I must have fudged at some point but I'm buggered if I can remember when.
Quote from: Garry GA lot of people have mentioned that GM fudging may be a result of the system failing and though I was against this idea when I first heard it way back I'm coming round to it as the last two systems I've played, WFRP and Cinematic Unisystem, have reduced fudging to practically nothing* due to the addition of stuff like Drama/Fate points and interesting nonlethal injuries.
*I say 'practically' nothing because I'm sure I must have fudged at some point but I'm buggered if I can remember when.
Yeah, it was Cinematic UNisystem that got this idea in my head. It puts the job of fudging in the player's hands, and really frees the GM. No, I'm not going to pretend that die roll was something else. That's *your* job. I'm just going to play my villians the best I can.
Interestingly, I was talking with one of my players who commented that she felt much more vulnerable in Buffy than in a game like D&D. Though you technically can't die in Buffy, it's a lot easier to get taken out. D&D tends to be built so that characters go through protracted fights - a single blow from an axe or sword can drop a white hat, and a good hit with one can take down a hero. Not to mention nasty possibilities like beheading or getting vamped.
This confirms my belief that character death is not at all required for the sense of danger, only the realistic threat of defeat.