Secrecy of Dice Rolls

[Contrast]

<disputing screens are an unacceptable solution>

In fairness, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I have never played in a location that would allow a DM to put up a screen that blocks all players view without blocking their view of either the other players or the table. In that situation, I personally would consider using a screen unacceptable.

You already have dice and rulebooks and note sheets everywhere while playing. Part of the reason I broadly consider secret rolling unnecessary is I've never felt the level of faff associated with the hiding the rolls justifies the benefit.

I started playing a game with a new DM a couple of months ago and he started using a screen. It was abandoned after a couple of sessions because it was getting in the way. He used it last session because he was sitting on the floor on the opposite side of the room from the rest of us which gave him extra space but from that distance I wouldn't have been able to see what he rolled anyway.

If a DM has to choose between being able to see and interact with their players and the gaming space or rolling secretly, I have no compunction in recommending they don't bother rolling secretly.

We've already discussed there are other ways to roll secretly without needing a screen with a pre-rolled sheet of dice or dice roller on your phone but those all involve some additional effort from the DM. I accept there are times you might want to do that but broadly I don't think its necessary unless you have players who can't help but act on out of character knowledge in character.

[orange74]

"Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't distort die rolls too often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it. Otherwise your players might think they don't face any real risks — or worse, that you're playing favorites."

[KorvinStarmast]

It's not about trust; it's about the stark, austere beauty of perfect transparency. ;)

I understand that. Completely.

Okay, maybe it's the thrill of walking the tight rope when you know there's no safety net.

And I understand that even more: failure is a possibility. I like that feature that the randomization of outcome implicit in die rolls adds. Some people don't.

These days, apart from the odd convention, I only play on Roll20. All rolls in the open, except for those information-sensitive rolls I mentioned earlier.

That's how we mostly do it these days.

Choosing to change the die roll, instead abiding by the result, makes you an untrustworthy person. It's that simple. If you tell me or show me you're an untrustworthy person, I will no longer trust you in the future. Yes, there's an issue in this case. It's that you're an untrustworthy DM.

I see, you have dug in your heals and you have an attitude about this. Fine. I've been around long enough to know that the dice are tools, and that the people are what matter in an RPG. I think you've been around this hobby almost as long as I have, and maybe you've had trust issues with DM's. That isn't the fault of the dice. As you are getting close to insulting me, personally, I think we'll stop here and agree to disagree.

Oh please. Those terms are ridiculous, and show a lack of understanding on how game actions and resolution work. /rolleyes

I was DM'ing before you knew what a D4 was, amigo. I was responding to the kind of absolutist BS that the internet is full of these days, and you might be surprised to how much I agree with the second paragraph of your post. That has nothing to do with whether or not a roll is open or behind a screen. And if you bother to read my other response to Fineous, you will find my point that we can all probably agree that any roll in the open should stand as rolled.

[DivisibleByZero]

In fairness, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I have never played in a location that would allow a DM to put up a screen that blocks all players view without blocking their view of either the other players or the table. In that situation, I personally would consider using a screen unacceptable.

That wasn't what we were debating. The spacial/visual limitations literally never came up.
If that's an issue for you, make and use the screen that I use. It's ridiculously awesome. Hides what I need hidden, while having the basics available for me to reference, without being too big and/or blocking my view in any way.

[KorvinStarmast]

"Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't distort die rolls too often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it. Otherwise your players might think they don't face any real risks — or worse, that you're playing favorites."

Is that a quote from the DMG?

[DivisibleByZero]

Is that a quote from the DMG?

That's exactly what it is.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's exactly what it is.

This is hilarious, in a few ways if we look at the above discussion.

A couple of weeks ago, we were in this big hairball of a battle with some stone giants (Roll20 was our venue). I got hit two turns in a row with both of the stone giant's attacks.
The first pair were a regular hit and a crit. (OUCH!)
The second pair were a regular hit and a crit. (OUCHIER!!)
Heh, I was at 0 HP. Lump of mangled metal and battered flesh and broken bones on the floor.
Luckily for the party, those fighting alongside me were able to hit the stone giant while he was tattooing my poor little head and finish him off.
So I was able to get up with a little help from my friends.

In support of Fineous' core point, if someone had fudged that second critical ... well, I'd have still dropped. (Man, stone giants hit pretty hard). But a fudge there would have left me standing, perhaps, and the outcome would have been different. Not sure how different, but different.

[Chugger]

In support of Fineous' core point, if someone had fudged that second critical ... well, I'd have still dropped. (Man, stone giants hit pretty hard). But a fudge there would have left me standing, perhaps, and the outcome would have been different. Not sure how different, but different.

This is only an example of where fudging is meaningless. You were in trouble. Your party was not in trouble. Of course fudging was not necessary here. Can't you see that?

Fudging is necessary if the DM made an encounter too hard for the group - and realizes it about 2 rounds into the fight - and has to do something about it. In the case of some mistakes, fudging won't even help. Then a DM has to reach into his/her extended bag o trix - like this silliness "as you hit this ogre he screams and falls to the ground - his tunic slips to reveal a fresh scar on his abdomen from which he was recovering - yes, this ogre entered the battle with only about 18 hit points." Or, as you attack this ogre over here, your sword goes through it - you realize it's an illusion. You hear giggling from the bushes over here. The party may never find out what cast that illusion - some sort of tiny prankster invis fey critter maybe. The point is that there are all sorts of ways to mitigate mistakes. And such things should not be engaged in all the time. They are "emergency measures" - not every fight or even every session measures. Any DM who has to fudge each fight is doing something wrong and really needs to learn a buncha things.

We need to make sure we understand that no one is saying DMs need to always make things too easy for the party and never let them wipe ever and ruin the game. If some of you are saying the other side is saying that, you're committing the strawman fallacy - a logical fallacy where you put a deliberately weak argument into the mouths of other people so you can say you beat them - but you didn't - you didn't beat their argument - you just beat the weakened effigy-argument you claimed was theirs. So let's not do that, please. (edit, or if I'm wrong and it's a misunderstanding of the other side's argument - then let's please all try to be on the same page here - no one from what I can tell is saying that fudging is desirable or "good" but rather is a "necessary evil" to remedy human error on the DMs part and yes, too much fudging ruins the game - just as never fudging ruins the game - a balance, as in most things, is necessary)

[DivisibleByZero]

In support of Fineous' core point,

Well, I don't disagree with Fin's core point, that point being that he doesn't like fudging. I'm not a huge fan of it either, generally speaking. But sometimes it has its place.
It's the claims of cheating that I take issue with. That, and the claims that everything should always be rolled in the open, which I vehemently disagree with.
The entire debate boils down to something subjective. But it isn't intrinsically cheating, no matter how much they may despise it.

[Finieous]

Fudging is necessary if the DM made an encounter too hard for the group - and realizes it about 2 rounds into the fight - and has to do something about it.

Oooh! Can we then agree, as a corollary, that fudging isn't necessary when the DM 1) doesn't design encounters "for the group," 2) doesn't design encounters that can only be resolved by combat, and 3) lets players decide for themselves what counts as "too hard"?

On Saturday, my party of 4th-level characters launched a frontal assault on a fortified manor and ended up fighting six worgs, three bugbears, and a hill giant. They could have looked around and found two different secret entrances. They could have beat feet when the first worg howled, raising the alarm. They're "not supposed" to fight six worgs, three bugbears and a hill giant at 4th level. But they chose to fight them anyway. This wasn't a "DM mistake." This was a player choice. Uh...this was "The Story" they decided to tell. It's not my job as DM to change it to something I like better.

Only one died, which was fairly surprising.

You get into so many differences in playstyle when you drill down on issues like this. The main takeaway should be that different playstyles and preferences are perfectly legit.

[mephnick]

Hot take: The idea that encounters should be "designed for the party" ruined D&D.

Thankfully I can just not do that. But still!

[DivisibleByZero]

Hot take: The idea that encounters should be "designed for the party" ruined D&D.

Thankfully I can just not do that. But still!

Hear Hear!

[Tanarii]

I see, you have dug in your heals and you have an attitude about this. Fine.

Yes. This is true.

As you are getting close to insulting me, personally, I think we'll stop here and agree to disagree.

Okay. This makes it hard for me to respond to your post, so I guess I'll have to leave it at: okay.

I was DM'ing before you knew what a D4 was, amigo.

Lol okay "pops". I'll drop the moralizing about fudging, if you drop the appeal to age / seniority. You're apparently aware I've been a DM for decades. I don't view seniority or quotes from founders as all that special. It gives us some unique view, they had some unique views, but a lot of those views are frankly outdated and problematic.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not a huge fan of it either, generally speaking. But sometimes it has its place. It's the claims of cheating that I take issue with.

it's the rare exception, yeah, and I concur with your second point.
Further Finn's scenario with the worgs and hill giants: "give 'em enough rope" is a great way to offer the players the freedom to live, and to die, by their own choices.

Lol okay "pops". I'll drop the moralizing about fudging, if you drop the appeal to age / seniority.

Experience, and I acknowledged that I know you've been at this gig for a while.

... a lot of those views are frankly outdated and problematic.

I guess there is no arguing about taste, we each have our own palate, but I'll suggest to you that the OSR movement (good, bad, and indifferent) was a response to the game losing something in translation. (And as for DM versus Group tables, I've played at those. Some of the old school DM's had quite the adversarial bent, yeah). It can be fun, and it can also be too much aggravation to the point that one leaves the table.

Data point that may or may not interest you: the rules lawyer / RAW crowd drove my son from the game when he was in college. He joined a few different D&D groups, having played a bit in high school and having been introduced to it in junior high by me. He found that he couldn't put up with the absolutists, the arguing, and the way the game bogged down. He preferred the style that both I and his uncle ran: because it was fun, not fury, that we focused on. And he mentioned that we rolled the dice a lot less, and the games went both smoother and faster. (He joined us for about a year on Roll20 when I got back into the game, but by that time he was playing some competitive on line computer games and the virtual table top experience was for him far less satisfying than the real table top. So we lost one more player. )

[Psikerlord]

For the longest time, I've been accustomed as a DM to roll everything behind the screen. I rarely fudge die rolls, but I do like to have the option to do so if need be. However, a player has pointed out that a number of features, such as the defensive use of the Valor Bard's Combat Inspiration or Lore Bard's Cutting Words, seem to be worded in such a way that assumes that the players can see the attack rolls of the enemy. I also recently played a game with a DM who did almost all of his rolling out in the open, and found I rather appreciated it. Therefore, I intend to make a change, and will start rolling more things out in the open, if not everything. I'm certain that I will start rolling monster attacks in the open, for mechanical reasons stated above, but what about other things? Anybody have criteria based on which they roll openly or in secret? Are there other features, rules, or spells you can think of which seem to assume that the players can see the DM roll?

I recommend all combat dice in the open (ie players know there is no fudging going on during combat... well, at least not dice based!), other dice judgment call. That has worked well for me over many years.

[Tanarii]

Data point that may or may not interest you: the rules lawyer / RAW crowd drove my son from the game when he was in college. He joined a few different D&D groups, having played a bit in high school and having been introduced to it in junior high by me. He found that he couldn't put up with the absolutists, the arguing, and the way the game bogged down. He preferred the style that both I and his uncle ran: because it was fun, not fury, that we focused on. And he mentioned that we rolled the dice a lot less, and the games went both smoother and faster. (He joined us for about a year on Roll20 when I got back into the game, but by that time he was playing some competitive on line computer games and the virtual table top experience was for him far less satisfying than the real table top. So we lost one more player. )

Guess what? I can't stand playing with rules lawyer DMs or players, and make every effort not to be one myself. I love 5e precisely because it's philosophy is rulings not rules.

But for that to work, everyone at the table has to actually be trustworthy. And the DM has to understand how adjudication is supposed to work, not take an attitude of 'dice are terribad' or 'roll everything!' And the players have to not try to game the rules, either in character design or during play.

[KorvinStarmast]

Guess what? I can't stand playing with rules lawyer DMs or players, and make every effort not to be one myself. I love 5e precisely because it's philosophy is rulings not rules. But for that to work, everyone at the table has to actually be trustworthy. And the DM has to understand how adjudication is supposed to work, not take an attitude of 'dice are terribad' or 'roll everything!' And the players have to not try to game the rules, either in character design or during play.

Yeah. All good points.

[Demonslayer666]

Hot take: The idea that encounters should be "designed for the party" ruined D&D.

Thankfully I can just not do that. But still!

How do you determine what the party faces?

[Hrugner]

How do you determine what the party faces?

As dictated by the story. Though it requires a table willing to avoid encounters that seem unwinnable, and to flee those that become unwinnable.

[mephnick]

How do you determine what the party faces?

Encounter table keyed to the region.

[Chugger]

All I can say is that I am so glad I'm not stuck playing with some of you as my DM. I'm gonna do things in the way that makes sense to me, period. And you all do what makes sense to you. Good luck (meant sincerely).

[Coffee_Dragon]

All I can say is that I am so glad I'm not stuck playing with some of you as my DM.

I imagine this as a shared thought balloon going up from 90% of posters on GitP.

[pwykersotz]

I imagine this as a shared thought balloon going up from 90% of posters on GitP.

And here I am thinking that I wish I could have more of you guys as my DM. I love different playstyles, and I'm rather sad I'll never get to play with Tanarii or KorvinStarmast or DivisibleByZero or any of the rest of you. That's the trouble with internet communities. Oh well.

[mephnick]

I imagine this as a shared thought balloon going up from 90% of posters on GitP.

You misquoted me, but I agree!

I think Tanarii is most likely to run a game I'm suited to, but some people here...wow.

[Demonslayer666]

Encounter table keyed to the region.

So the regions determine difficulty (CR)? Like going to the Caves of Chaos?

[Tanarii]

And here I am thinking that I wish I could have more of you guys as my DM. I love different playstyles, and I'm rather sad I'll never get to play with Tanarii or KorvinStarmast or DivisibleByZero or any of the rest of you. That's the trouble with internet communities. Oh well.

You misquoted me, but I agree!

I think Tanarii is most likely to run a game I'm suited to, but some people here...wow.

I generally assume that unreasonably stubborn & prone to emotional outburst posters who occasionally take absurd stances or positions ... which absolutely includes me ... are somewhat more reasonable when they're running a game.

I've had some players leave various of my games, but that's usually because I either didn't make clear before hand what kind of game it is, or they misunderstood, or didn't real a 2 page session 0 document, or the like. Ive left DM tables for the same reason.

I've had to uninvite a player a few times, but that's rare. More common is to have to play peacemaker between players, or suggest to two players they take it outside and come back once they're feeling reasonable, or suggest they figure out different sessions to attend until they're feeling reasonable.

I've never had a player change or lie about the results of dice that I know for sure. Once or twice i've had to ask a player to please roll in the open and leave the die there ... but that's a general rule anyway, to avoid such issues. I've seen other players most likely doing it, and I just avoid them if possible. I've had a few DMs that fudged rolls that I know of, but they've all been one shots and conventions, and it's only been because they were up front about it. I'll be honest ... I'm usually paying attention to the results, not what the DM is actually rolling.

[mephnick]

So the regions determine difficulty (CR)? Like going to the Caves of Chaos?

Pretty much. Like the Salt Marshes will be a range of level 5-7 or something, so I'll have encounters that range from hard for a level 5 group to hard for a level 7 group. Dotted in there I'll have caves/ruins that might spike to level 10 (with their own tables) as sites the party either stumbles across or gets a quest to enter. My encounter and resting rates are designed in a way that will generally conform to a proper adventuring day, however the rolls dictate everything; Stumble into a level 8 ruin at level 4 and roll a deadly level 8 encounter? Better think quick.

[Coffee_Dragon]

You misquoted me, but I agree!

Oops - apparently if you tag a post for a chain reply which you then abandon, the forum... remembers.

[Demonslayer666]

Pretty much. Like the Salt Marshes will be a range of level 5-7 or something, so I'll have encounters that range from hard for a level 5 group to hard for a level 7 group. Dotted in there I'll have caves/ruins that might spike to level 10 (with their own tables) as sites the party either stumbles across or gets a quest to enter. My encounter and resting rates are designed in a way that will generally conform to a proper adventuring day, however the rolls dictate everything; Stumble into a level 8 ruin at level 4 and roll a deadly level 8 encounter? Better think quick.

You are still gauging encounters based on the party. Kudos for going beyond deadly for their level though, I really like that you do that.

I have to constantly do that with my gaming group in order to moderately challenge them. They walk through deadly encounters without taking damage (slight exaggeration, but pretty close). I have to make encounters based on character capability and player ability. If I didn't, it would be a very boring game for them.

[KorvinStarmast]

And here I am thinking that I wish I could have more of you guys as my DM. I love different playstyles, and I'm rather sad I'll never get to play with Tanarii or KorvinStarmast or DivisibleByZero or any of the rest of you. That's the trouble with internet communities. Oh well.

Yeah, there are a lot of folks who play here who I'd love to play IRL with at the table. Oh well, at least we get to share our hobby in this way ...