And in my experience of playing and running games for over 30 years, and of having been in society games, friend and family games, roleplaying club games both military and civilian, in multiple countries where ever I was posted, I know from first hand personal experience of hundreds of games of all varieties from D&D, to GURPS, to Role Master, to Pathfinder, to Pendragon, to Space Master, to Star Wars, to Star Trek, to World of Darkness and many others - I know that DM's have rolled (HAVE rolled not ALWAYS rolled) behind the DM screen. You seem to consistantly refuse to accept that people other than you have played rpg's for as long or longer than you, and have experienced these things. You aren't the daddy of rpg's so stop acting like you are, you are acting like you are the only one that knows how the game has been played in the past. In fact, despite you acknowledging the fact that even Gygax himself recommended it, I challenge you to prove your assumption that DM's have never rolled dice behind a dm screen. Which you can't, because I persnally have and still do in some games, have played in games where it happened and watch streamed games where the DM uses the Roll20 whisper function to hide rolls from players. Literally have a look around YouTube and you will see it happen. One example is Seb DM on YouTube. You will see it happen with your very own eyes. And guess what - his players have fun too.
To paraphrase "I think you want this to be true (I don't know why), but it simply is not."
You shouldn't know what the DM rolled before deciding on whether you use the shield spell. The dm simply tells you it hit, and you decide to use it or not. Sure it is nice to know what the margin was so that you don't waste a spell slot, but that's just the dm being nice. There is literally no requirement for it. People have simply become to molly coddled these days and expect that everything will be fed to them on a spoon.
Man, you're entitled to your opinion, but you keep using words like shouldn't, as if people are not allowed to do things differently than you. Let people play as they want man. And let's go back to OP post:
In the End the DM has been open to my criticism about this, but I just wanted to share this out in the world to see if anyone has ever experienced bizarre house rules like this.
The guy wanted to share something that for him was bizarre and ask for people's experience with different house rules - I know you will say that this is not a house rule, but in 5E, players not rolling IS a house rule, as stated in the PHB:
[...]These ability scores, and the ability modifiers derived from them, are the basis for almost every d20 roll that a player makes[...].
[...]Ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws are the three main kinds of d20 rolls, forming the core of the rules of the game.[...]
So chill out and stop trying to tell people how they should feel about and how to play THEIR game...
Just in case you hadn't noticed, I'm not telling you or anyone how to play. I'm telling you how some people have played in the past and how some people still play. I don't care how you play in your games. Like I said many times, there are lots of different playstyles. Some mesh well, some take a bit of work to mesh and some will never mesh. Find a group that has a similar playstyle as you and go have fun. If your playstyle and the DM / group playstyle is making you happy great, if not leave and find another group. Life doesn't need to be complicated.
And in my experience of playing and running games for over 30 years, and of having been in society games, friend and family games, roleplaying club games both military and civilian, in multiple countries where ever I was posted, I know from first hand personal experience of hundreds of games of all varieties from D&D, to GURPS, to Role Master, to Pathfinder, to Pendragon, to Space Master, to Star Wars, to Star Trek, to World of Darkness and many others - I know that DM's have rolled (HAVE rolled not ALWAYS rolled) behind the DM screen. You seem to consistantly refuse to accept that people other than you have played rpg's for as long or longer than you, and have experienced these things. You aren't the daddy of rpg's so stop acting like you are, you are acting like you are the only one that knows how the game has been played in the past. In fact, despite you acknowledging the fact that even Gygax himself recommended it, I challenge you to prove your assumption that DM's have never rolled dice behind a dm screen. Which you can't, because I persnally have and still do in some games, have played in games where it happened and watch streamed games where the DM uses the Roll20 whisper function to hide rolls from players. Literally have a look around YouTube and you will see it happen. One example is Seb DM on YouTube. You will see it happen with your very own eyes. And guess what - his players have fun too.
To paraphrase "I think you want this to be true (I don't know why), but it simply is not."
I know most of the youtube channels you're talking about and even in your examples these DM's do not always roll dice behind the scene and none of them roll dice on behalf of the players. Again, I acknowledge that this is sometimes done for effect, a move silently with an unknown result, an insight check made without the player knowing they are making it. But you still have not provided a single example of any sort where a DM always rolls behind the screen and for the players, let alone "millions".
If you want me to provide an example.. search D&D live play on youtube, everything you find is my proof.
But please provide a link, I would be happy to check it out. I've never seen it, so I would be curious to.
EDIT: Lets make it fun, I will setup a poll here on the forums. Lets see how people do it.
I think either you are deliberately igoring what I am saying or are just deliberately being difficult. I gave you multiple examples. I even gave you the name of a youtube channel. Either way. I really don't care if you believe me or not. If you want to continue to believe that only your experiences are real, and nobody else's are valid thn you carry on. I'm not going to spoonfeed you. Either way I am done with this.
Just in case you hadn't noticed, I'm not telling you or anyone how to play. I'm telling you how some people have played in the past and how some people still play. I don't care how you play in your games. Like I said many times, there are lots of different playstyles. Some mesh well, some take a bit of work to mesh and some will never mesh. Find a group that has a similar playstyle as you and go have fun. If your playstyle and the DM / group playstyle is making you happy leave and find another group. Life doesn't need to be complicated.
Look at your posts man:
I'm guessing you are new to D&D, only played online and never in person with a DM that uses a DM screen so you never see their rolls? There is nothing wrong with a DM not showing rolls at all. In fact it is often done at tables where players abuse the fact that they know what was rolled. I hate it when players in games I run see that someone searched a room for treasure or clues or secret doors and say things like "oh he only rolled a 3 so I am going to check as well". That is why some rolls should be hidden, and some rolls are made by the DM on your behalf.
Your first post was questioning OP's experience for no reason, as if some who hasn't played with a practice that was standard more than 20 years ago made them "new" or "online" player. After that you establish that it is done in tables where players abuse rolls - which, if it's done in the OP's table, should he assume he is "abusing" rolls?. And by the end, you state that some rolls SHOULD be hidden.
You shouldn't know what the DM rolled before deciding on whether you use the shield spell. The dm simply tells you it hit, and you decide to use it or not. Sure it is nice to know what the margin was so that you don't waste a spell slot, but that's just the dm being nice. There is literally no requirement for it. People have simply become to molly coddled these days and expect that everything will be fed to them on a spoon.
Then, in another post, you start by saying that you SHOULDN'T know what the DM rolled, and finish by saying the "people" have become too molly coddled these days and expect that everything will be fed to them on spoon.
You really read this and don't think this is someone trying to say how people should play? Really? If I don't play like you, that makes me someone molly coddled, that expects to be spoon fed, and that is not pushing people from what they feel more comfortable playing?
I dont let my players (usually) see what they've rolled on insight checks ("I GOT A NAT 2O AND HE SEEMS SUS, CLEARLY WE SHOULD KILL HIM")
But to do that for every single roll, that makes life a lot less fun for the players.
If you dont like it, tell your DM and explain that it's messing up your characters power level and making playing the game a frustrating experience for you.
He may say no, but you'de probably be surprised how often just explaining the situation to the DM resolves it,
As a DM I tend to roll pretty well against players in combat, and folks started to say I was trying to kill them on purpose. So I decided to rolling in the open just to shut 'em up and show them that yes, I did just crit for 5 of the last 7 rolls. Them crits are all real and r20 can back me up.
If you're generally "rolling well", you really ought to float check your dice and if they're fine chrck your technique and consider getting a dice tower. Obviously, everyone has their streaks, but overall, you should be rolling average results, and it kind of defeats the point of having dice if you don't. If it's gotten to the point that they suspect you of "cheating", then either you have a biased set of dice, a biased throw, or they're paranoid.
I only play on roll20. Now my example in the post was hyperbole, but in general folks see me as being someone that rolls well when I DM.
I mostly run on a oneshot server, and thusly most everyone there has a powergamer or optimizer bent to them. And we know those folk prefer open rolls n such, cuz these guys' builds always get countered by a DM and so they want some sense of "fairness" at all times in the game. That's what I sense is the main, subconscious driver of this. This isn't to count just me being bad at encounter balance though, so keep that in mind lol.
With Shield the issue is that you get a +5 bonus to AC as a reaction to the die result, so when a hit is made, you need to know the result to know if casting shield will result in a miss or if it would still be a hit anyway, in which case you will decide whether or not to use it. A purely mechanical decision with no tension or drama (not a narrative decision) a pure calculation to manage a mechanical result.
From a design perspective, this creates a situation where players are pulled out of the narrative to work out math, which is bad design for a role-playing game which is why (going back to the topic at hand) DM's want to hide die rolls, to compensate for this emersion break.
Most well-designed spells and powers will have the player making decisions based on tactical or narrative decisions, not based on calculable properties. You cast a spell on a monster, but you don't know there will save. You move silently in an attempt to bypass the guards, but you don't know their perception DC. You attempt to disarm a trap, but you don't know the DC of the trap or what will happen if its triggered. Point is that you make decisions based on how good your character is at something.. aka I have a +10 Move Silently, I'm good at this, I think I can succeed. Not by doing the math (Guard DC is 14, I have a +8, I need a 6 or better, I like my odds I will do it).
Consider how you might act if you knew this information. If you are going to charm monster but you know the DC is 30 and the most you can get with your bonuses is 28, you won't make the attempt because you know you will fail right?
Good mechanics make it so that the player has to make decisions with minimal information.. it might work, might not.. there is some element of risk, which creates drama.
There are plenty of great spells and effects in the game that don't require manipulations like hiding dice in the game, these are good designs.. but equally, there are things like shields that are not.
This conversation again is largely about DM's going to unusual lengths to create drama as a result of poorly designed mechanics and/or correcting player behavior.. What Im saying is that this is a bad practice. Its far better to fix the mechanics so you don't have to do silly stuff like hiding all die rolls and rolling for your players behind the screen and other such overtop efforts to create drama in an RPG. The RPG rules should do this on their own and it is possible with good design. As for controlling player behavior, that is something you fix outside of the game, the game can't fix it for you and hiding rolls and rolling for players is a terrible way to attempt to fix this as it does not address the problem, it covers it up.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. This is where our mindsets involving the numbers diverge quite greatly, as the dichotomy presented here between "calculatable properties" and "tactical or narrative decisions" is not something that I agree with.
As both a DM and player, not once has thinking about the raw numbers created an "immersion break" for me or the other players/DMs at the tables I've played at.
For example, a game that I was a player in from 1-20 where the "old school" DM did not hide any rolls—even his own—was one of the most interesting and immersive games out of any that I have ever played. Seeing enemy rolls did not ruin the experience one bit for those in our party, because the DM was a good enough storyteller on his own to not need to rely on it, and he even used the visible rolls to his narrative advantage (that is to say, by reacting with the rest of the table to his own enemy's roll results and flourishing his descriptions depending on the numbers). There were plenty of times where huge amounts of tension, humor, and excitement were created due to, not in spite of, all numbers being out in the open. It was rather fun and felt like we were all playing together on a level playing field, because in all actuality, we really were. There was no room for fudging in any direction (aside from on DCs, which themselves are not rolls, but set values), for better or worse.
Point is that you make decisions based on how good your character is at something.. aka I have a +10 Move Silently, I'm good at this, I think I can succeed. Not by doing the math (Guard DC is 14, I have a +8, I need a 6 or better, I like my odds I will do it).
To the bolded: One could easily argue that a character well-versed in fighting in close martial combat, that utilizes occasional spells to buff or protect themselves, would be quite good at determining the proper times to utilize said spells. Just like a Wizard in the back knows that a Barbarian in the front lines has a 99.9% probability of eating the Wizard's Int-based Save spell that's about to get slung in that poor Barb's direction. Or that a Bard would know that the Sleep spell isn't going to work on a healthy adult Dragon. At that point the characters have grown enough in their knowledge of their own class skillset to properly utilize the kit they have. If one of these kits involves crunching some quick numbers and doing some quick math in combat, then so be it. For some, getting the opportunity to do those "calculations"—such as the ones being discussed for Shield, or like the earlier mentioned Great Weapon Master—are part of the enjoyment and fun of the game. It's why those kinds of builds exist.
As someone who plays EK quite often, what brings me additional "tension" is trying to determine if I should use Shield or not, which is a question that I ask myself even if I do know the enemy's roll. There are other factors other than "Does it hit? Yes. Can it be Shielded successfully? Yes," that goes into determining whether or not to use Shield. Even when knowing enemy attack (to-hit) rolls, there have been plenty of times where I have foregone using Shield because I know I need to save resources for what's coming next, and am willing to take the gamble that I can just tank the un-Shielded hit.
Alongside this, I roleplay accordingly because I also enjoy roleplaying through combat (though not everyone might, which is entirely fine). This also circles back to "how good the character is at something." Would my character Shield that hit? It might be surprising, but there have been plenty of instances where I've said the likes of: "He could easily Shield this, but Ragnvaldr's too wound up to think about it, and honestly he'll just eat the hit so he can clap back harder next turn and show the guy what a real hit is." Or, "He could easily Shield this, but Hrim would let it go through just to see how hard this thing can slap him and how scary it actually might be to fight." And then the DM rolls the damage, and I tank the hit... so someone else in my party doesn't have to be the guinea pig, and we learn a bit more about the power level of whatever it is we're messing with. My character is good at getting in the face of the enemy and eating the hits when he needs to, to protect the party. This thought process for me has never changed, even when knowing the exact To-Hit roll from the enemy. All that knowledge does is allow me as a player to more accurately determine how to utilize my few EK spell slots and make more informed combat choices. There are tons of times where tactical response time shines in combat, even with these opportunities for additional long-term strategic planning. It does not need to be either or.
Players (and DM's for that matter) play D&D and other TTRPGs for many different reasons, and what might pull one person "out of the immersion" is not going to necessarily be the same for the next person. With that in mind, saying that Shield is poorly designed simply due to the fact that its informed element is the To-Hit roll versus the target's AC, is not entirely true. Is Shield, as a spell, quite powerful? Certainly, +5 to AC for a full turn is quite strong. However, as stated previously, there are a plethora of ways that a DM can work around something like Shield. Hiding rolls, whilst sure I suppose that works, is not the ideal solution—it is simply a band-aid for a lack of creative thinking on the part of the DM, in my honest opinion. I've been shut down more times than I can count in well-coordinated difficult combat encounters, and having Shield in my spell list isn't going to do me any good if I'm Paralyzed. :-)
Overall, we agree that DMs hiding all rolls—especially in OP's case, hiding the player's own rolls from themselves—is not the solution to some of the greater issues present in 5e. And I am in full agreement with both yourself and Plaguescarred: "Weird rule to have, to me rolling dice is part of the fun of playing D&D. Seems like there is trust issues." At the end of the day, OP's case really does seem to boil down to basic trust issues on the DM's part.
Seeing the die rolls gives us an understanding of the situation, and can enhance the narrative in tremendous ways. For instance, the room search referenced earlier. I watch Sally search the room (she rolls a 3). I see that she did a poor, cursory check, and barely tried. This frustrates me, as she is normally such a fastidious searcher. She must still be tired from that last fight, so I can either upbraid her to try harder, or I can lend a hand and make a more thorough search of the room. If the die roll is hidden, we get, "Nothing to see her, move on."
I don't look at it like that - oh, she rolled a 3 so we must convince her to do better or lend a hand. To me a poor roll MIGHT mean you did a bad job but how would another player in character know that?
In pretty much every game I've been in, when it comes to something like ransacking searching a room, everyone with relevant skills will roll anyway. Typically, the only times I see one player rolling for a skill check is if they have the only character with the relevant skill.
So seeing one player roll a 3 won't have much effect because if someone else had that skill they'd already be rolling it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Seeing the die rolls gives us an understanding of the situation, and can enhance the narrative in tremendous ways. For instance, the room search referenced earlier. I watch Sally search the room (she rolls a 3). I see that she did a poor, cursory check, and barely tried. This frustrates me, as she is normally such a fastidious searcher. She must still be tired from that last fight, so I can either upbraid her to try harder, or I can lend a hand and make a more thorough search of the room. If the die roll is hidden, we get, "Nothing to see her, move on."
I don't look at it like that - oh, she rolled a 3 so we must convince her to do better or lend a hand. To me a poor roll MIGHT mean you did a bad job but how would another player in character know that?
My intent was that the die rolls can drive narrative and interaction at the table. I like to approach the game from an interactive level, so my perspective is how the rolls inform what I see.
You might roll poorly, and that makes my snort and think I know better. So I roll as well, roll poorly, shrug and admit you were right. We have conflict and resolution in one quick interaction.
Now, if another player and I get a minute of in character banter about a roll, that's a good thing. Contrasting this is all die rolls are hidden to prevent my fun (that was purposefully provocative), then all of the narrative needs to drive from the DM. Open rolls let us work around the DM, closed rolls forces every interaction to go through the DM, and burdens them even more.
With Shield the issue is that you get a +5 bonus to AC as a reaction to the die result, so when a hit is made, you need to know the result to know if casting shield will result in a miss or if it would still be a hit anyway, in which case you will decide whether or not to use it. A purely mechanical decision with no tension or drama (not a narrative decision) a pure calculation to manage a mechanical result.
From a design perspective, this creates a situation where players are pulled out of the narrative to work out math, which is bad design for a role-playing game which is why (going back to the topic at hand) DM's want to hide die rolls, to compensate for this emersion break.
This is somewhat subjective though, because the mechanics and calculations are not completely divorced from the action - rather they are a shorthand for it. That's the whole point of them.
Someone earlier suggested that every attack should be narrated in a way that described the degree of accuracy. Well that's just creating extra work for yourself because the numbers already do that. They're not just random numbers with no meaning, they're describing the action to a precision that the DM couldn't match without doubling the time it takes to run a combat encounter.
Consider that the DM does not have some magical monopoly over narrating what's happening - you can read dice and understand what they mean in your own head. You can picture what an attack of 18 versus an AC of 16 might look like, or what an attack of 5 versus AC 15 might look like. And if you do that, you can deal with the numbers without breaking immersion.
The numbers are just another source of information about what's happening, no different or less relevant than any of the other words the DM is telling you. You can learn to translate them to images in exactly the same way you can learn to translate a secondary language into your primary language. And a DM trying to run the game without giving their players this information is just making everyone's job harder.
When we interact with the world, the world gives us feedback. That's just how living things function. If I flub a joke, I am immediately aware of it. If I try to balance on a beam and fall off, I have an idea whether I was doing my best at the time or if some momentary factor threw me off.
You've never told a joke and then afterwards been told that someone found it offensive and you never realised it? You've never hidden something and thought it was well hidden only to have someone find it within a few minutes? You are either a lot more skilled than pretty much everyone I know, or you've duped yourself into thinking you are. Sometimes we get immediate feedback on how we've done, other times we don't. Sometimes we know that we aren't doing our best. Sometimes the first we know that we weren't being stealthy enough is when we feel the tap on the shoulder from the guard. Sometimes we even feel that we haven't done our best, but still manage to smash it out of the park. People aren't the greatest at self judging like that.
Have you noticed that your counter examples in this case as well as the stealth ones always involve an opposed party's point of view? That's because they are represented in the game by opposed checks.
If I hide something and someone else finds it, that doesn't mean I hid it poorly. It only means their perception check beat my check. If my reflection is caught in a mirror while I'm sneaking, that doesn't mean I snuck poorly, it just means someone else spotted me. I could have rolled an 18, but the guard rolled a 20. That is what a tap on the shoulder can look like, and it's all the more surprising for knowing the 18.
Opposed checks are the solution when you don't want success or failure to be obvious. That's why the two most important situations for this kind of thing - stealth and insight - are pretty much always presented as opposed checks. Players get to have ownership and awareness of their own actions without knowing if those actions are going to succeed. It is a middle ground that gives the players some info without giving everything away.
If I hide something and someone else finds it, that doesn't mean I hid it poorly. It only means their perception check beat my check. If my reflection is caught in a mirror while I'm sneaking, that doesn't mean I snuck poorly, it just means someone else spotted me. I could have rolled an 18, but the guard rolled a 20. That is what a tap on the shoulder can look like, and it's all the more surprising for knowing the 18.
Opposed checks are the solution when you don't want success or failure to be obvious. That's why the two most important situations for this kind of thing - stealth and insight - are pretty much always presented as opposed checks. Players get to have ownership and awareness of their own actions without knowing if those actions are going to succeed. It is a middle ground that gives the players some info without giving everything away.
Except when you do something like spotting a trap, you don't know if you are doing it well, you don't know that "Oh I rolled poorly" so I should have someone else look.
This is control freak story telling levels of interference. Hiding some suspense rolls like Death Saves or mental checks so players don't metagame their response when the DM tells players what they've discovered can contribute to immersion, but rolling everything is just as dumb as DMPCs, it robs agency and motivates fixing results when the DM is doing everything for everyone in secret. DMs should instruct players to respect the outcome of rolls and trust them to RP properly, it's not a baby game, and if the DM doesn't to actually play with the players, than they should RP alone.
Why even have the players roll at all? The DM can just tell you all a story and you can just listen.
Right!? I mean seriously if you can't see the roll and you don't know what the DM is rolling for, what the hell is the point of rolling? It makes absolutely no difference to the player. From their perspective, stuff just happens, nothing a DM does behind the screen with dice matters which actually results in the game not actually mattering. At that point, it's just theatre, free-form role-playing with no game.
Again.. not telling people how to run their games, but its an observable, objective fact that if you are rolling the dice behind the screen for your players, YOU (the DM) are playing a game, the players are not, they are just an audience of someone else doing it. You might as well stay home and watch it on Youtube.
Then players have no agency in your games? They don't get to build their own character? They don't get to make decisions on what to do in the world? They don't decide what their next turn will be spent doing? They don't get to decide what spell they cast or whether they should use a sword or a bow? They don't get to contribute to the narrative? Decide whether to try and resolve something peacefully or violently? If the only difference between a DM telling a story and playing a game of D&D in your games is who gets to roll the dice...that seems pretty bland. For our games, the rolling of the dice is a tool to help the story that is being told by both the DM and the players. With a few notable exceptions where the results.of the throw are particularly imprest, physically throwing the dice is way down the list of what's enjoyable. I would always have the players roll their own dice in the vast majority of cases, but I can't imagine a game where thenact of throwing a die or two takes such precedence over every other aspect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
This is a pre-existing game with players that are enjoying themselves.
The DM cares about our enjoyment and listens to criticisms.
We are using Foundry, which means that we have buttons to press to roll the required die.
Prior to this player joining, there were no problems with not being able to see the rolls for spells and abilities that required seeing the roll because we did not have any before then. (besides the Shield spell, but it did not get used on a Nat 20 until this recent session.
This thread was created right after the session before the issues that took place could be discussed further. The time zone gap between the DM and some of the players including me and the OP is five hours, which is why the DM was not able to discuss the problems (which are certainly valid) until the next day.
The DM hints at when we roll really well like a high perception roll or critical hit in the narrative.
I have talked to this player and we are in good terms. He said he will see how future sessions go.
I do not wish to participate in this thread further. I just thought I should attempt to clear things up.
Agency is a role-playing term, it's part of the narrative, it has nothing to do with the "game" portion of an RPG.
They don't get to build their own character?
Sure they do, but if they don't get to see or roll dice or know why they are being rolled, why bother with a character sheet. A background will do. "Im really strong and fast, I'm a warrior that wears heavy armor and a big sword.. yada yada". If the dice don't matter to the player, why would knowing what his AC is?
They don't get to make decisions on what to do in the world? They don't decide what their next turn will be spent doing?
Sure they do, making decisions again, is a narrative thing but when it is combat if they don't get to roll dice or see the results what is their experience. "I attack"... DM does something behind the screen "you miss"... eh ok, thanks I guess.
They don't get to decide what spell they cast or whether they should use a sword or a bow
Sure they do, but what difference does it make? I use a long sword or a short sword. --- DM rolls dice behind the screen... who knows what die he used, who knows what the result was...did he add my bonuses correctly? I have no idea. When you make the mechanics a mystery, the details don't matter...
I think you get the picture.
For our games, the rolling of the dice is a tool to help the story that is being told by both the DM and the players. With a few notable exceptions where the results.of the throw are particularly imprest, physically throwing the dice is way down the list of what's enjoyable. I would always have the players roll their own dice in the vast majority of cases, but I can't imagine a game where thenact of throwing a die or two takes such precedence over every other aspect.
You're trying to make this an all-or-nothing discussion, as if I'm suggesting that the narrative doesn't matter because I think rolling the dice does and I'm trying to explain to you that this has nothing to do with narrative, roleplaying or the story. It's a very simple thing. I'm saying rolling dice is part of the experience, it's a part of playing an RPG. Im also not saying rolling dice takes precedence. Again Im simply saying that rolling is a tangible, real part of the game because while RPG's are narrative, they are also tactical battle games. Fighting monsters is a core feature of the game, its what D&D does and if you're playing a game that features tactical battles and your not allowing players to roll their own dice, your cutting them out of a tangible, real part of the game, part of the fun.
The thing too that really strikes me is that in all the years I have played D&D, I have never known a player who didn't have his own lucky D20. Like.. I have played with people who don't take notes, who don't own a players handbook, who refused to role-play.. but a lucky d20... hell that is every player.
I mean seriously if you can't see the roll and you don't know what the DM is rolling for, what the hell is the point of rolling? It makes absolutely no difference to the player. From their perspective, stuff just happens, nothing a DM does behind the screen with dice matters which actually results in the game not actually mattering. At that point, it's just theatre, free-form role-playing with no game.
Again.. not telling people how to run their games, but its an observable, objective fact that if you are rolling the dice behind the screen for your players, YOU (the DM) are playing a game, the players are not, they are just an audience of someone else doing it. You might as well stay home and watch it on Youtube.
Here you are saying multiple times that if a player is not rolling the dice themselves, then they are being told a story. I'm not trying to reframe anything, I'm challenging what you've said because, as you've presented it, there is nothing that a player does that interacts with the game if they're not rolling the dice. I don't roll for the players or hide their results, but doing so is basically the same as having them play The Elder Scrolls (albeit a low tech version) than watching YT or a film. If in your games the only difference between playing and watching a recording of it (like say on YouTube) is throwing the dice and knowing the numerical result, then no, the player can't influence the narrative through their choices, because that is not reliant on dice. They can't be deciding what spells or actions to take, because that is not reliant on throwing the dice yourself. And so forth. Now, if your players do get to do those things, then it's not like watching it on YT at all, is it?
Why bother with a character sheet? Because the game, the engine, still has at least some.crunch to it. That's how the DM works. The players still have a way of understanding how things work. A longsword still has the same pros and cons versus a shortsword regardless of who throws the dice and who reads it.
Is rolling the dice a.part.of the experience? Sure. But it's not the central.thing you claimed it was when you claimed that if the DM rolls the dice, it's no difference to watching the YT video of it for players.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And in my experience of playing and running games for over 30 years, and of having been in society games, friend and family games, roleplaying club games both military and civilian, in multiple countries where ever I was posted, I know from first hand personal experience of hundreds of games of all varieties from D&D, to GURPS, to Role Master, to Pathfinder, to Pendragon, to Space Master, to Star Wars, to Star Trek, to World of Darkness and many others - I know that DM's have rolled (HAVE rolled not ALWAYS rolled) behind the DM screen. You seem to consistantly refuse to accept that people other than you have played rpg's for as long or longer than you, and have experienced these things. You aren't the daddy of rpg's so stop acting like you are, you are acting like you are the only one that knows how the game has been played in the past. In fact, despite you acknowledging the fact that even Gygax himself recommended it, I challenge you to prove your assumption that DM's have never rolled dice behind a dm screen. Which you can't, because I persnally have and still do in some games, have played in games where it happened and watch streamed games where the DM uses the Roll20 whisper function to hide rolls from players. Literally have a look around YouTube and you will see it happen. One example is Seb DM on YouTube. You will see it happen with your very own eyes. And guess what - his players have fun too.
To paraphrase "I think you want this to be true (I don't know why), but it simply is not."
Just in case you hadn't noticed, I'm not telling you or anyone how to play. I'm telling you how some people have played in the past and how some people still play. I don't care how you play in your games. Like I said many times, there are lots of different playstyles. Some mesh well, some take a bit of work to mesh and some will never mesh. Find a group that has a similar playstyle as you and go have fun. If your playstyle and the DM / group playstyle is making you happy great, if not leave and find another group. Life doesn't need to be complicated.
I think either you are deliberately igoring what I am saying or are just deliberately being difficult. I gave you multiple examples. I even gave you the name of a youtube channel. Either way. I really don't care if you believe me or not. If you want to continue to believe that only your experiences are real, and nobody else's are valid thn you carry on. I'm not going to spoonfeed you. Either way I am done with this.
Look at your posts man:
Your first post was questioning OP's experience for no reason, as if some who hasn't played with a practice that was standard more than 20 years ago made them "new" or "online" player. After that you establish that it is done in tables where players abuse rolls - which, if it's done in the OP's table, should he assume he is "abusing" rolls?. And by the end, you state that some rolls SHOULD be hidden.
Then, in another post, you start by saying that you SHOULDN'T know what the DM rolled, and finish by saying the "people" have become too molly coddled these days and expect that everything will be fed to them on spoon.
You really read this and don't think this is someone trying to say how people should play? Really? If I don't play like you, that makes me someone molly coddled, that expects to be spoon fed, and that is not pushing people from what they feel more comfortable playing?
[REDACTED]
I dont let my players (usually) see what they've rolled on insight checks ("I GOT A NAT 2O AND HE SEEMS SUS, CLEARLY WE SHOULD KILL HIM")
But to do that for every single roll, that makes life a lot less fun for the players.
If you dont like it, tell your DM and explain that it's messing up your characters power level and making playing the game a frustrating experience for you.
He may say no, but you'de probably be surprised how often just explaining the situation to the DM resolves it,
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I only play on roll20. Now my example in the post was hyperbole, but in general folks see me as being someone that rolls well when I DM.
I mostly run on a oneshot server, and thusly most everyone there has a powergamer or optimizer bent to them. And we know those folk prefer open rolls n such, cuz these guys' builds always get countered by a DM and so they want some sense of "fairness" at all times in the game. That's what I sense is the main, subconscious driver of this. This isn't to count just me being bad at encounter balance though, so keep that in mind lol.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. This is where our mindsets involving the numbers diverge quite greatly, as the dichotomy presented here between "calculatable properties" and "tactical or narrative decisions" is not something that I agree with.
As both a DM and player, not once has thinking about the raw numbers created an "immersion break" for me or the other players/DMs at the tables I've played at.
For example, a game that I was a player in from 1-20 where the "old school" DM did not hide any rolls—even his own—was one of the most interesting and immersive games out of any that I have ever played. Seeing enemy rolls did not ruin the experience one bit for those in our party, because the DM was a good enough storyteller on his own to not need to rely on it, and he even used the visible rolls to his narrative advantage (that is to say, by reacting with the rest of the table to his own enemy's roll results and flourishing his descriptions depending on the numbers). There were plenty of times where huge amounts of tension, humor, and excitement were created due to, not in spite of, all numbers being out in the open. It was rather fun and felt like we were all playing together on a level playing field, because in all actuality, we really were. There was no room for fudging in any direction (aside from on DCs, which themselves are not rolls, but set values), for better or worse.
To the bolded: One could easily argue that a character well-versed in fighting in close martial combat, that utilizes occasional spells to buff or protect themselves, would be quite good at determining the proper times to utilize said spells. Just like a Wizard in the back knows that a Barbarian in the front lines has a 99.9% probability of eating the Wizard's Int-based Save spell that's about to get slung in that poor Barb's direction. Or that a Bard would know that the Sleep spell isn't going to work on a healthy adult Dragon. At that point the characters have grown enough in their knowledge of their own class skillset to properly utilize the kit they have. If one of these kits involves crunching some quick numbers and doing some quick math in combat, then so be it. For some, getting the opportunity to do those "calculations"—such as the ones being discussed for Shield, or like the earlier mentioned Great Weapon Master—are part of the enjoyment and fun of the game. It's why those kinds of builds exist.
As someone who plays EK quite often, what brings me additional "tension" is trying to determine if I should use Shield or not, which is a question that I ask myself even if I do know the enemy's roll. There are other factors other than "Does it hit? Yes. Can it be Shielded successfully? Yes," that goes into determining whether or not to use Shield. Even when knowing enemy attack (to-hit) rolls, there have been plenty of times where I have foregone using Shield because I know I need to save resources for what's coming next, and am willing to take the gamble that I can just tank the un-Shielded hit.
Alongside this, I roleplay accordingly because I also enjoy roleplaying through combat (though not everyone might, which is entirely fine). This also circles back to "how good the character is at something." Would my character Shield that hit? It might be surprising, but there have been plenty of instances where I've said the likes of: "He could easily Shield this, but Ragnvaldr's too wound up to think about it, and honestly he'll just eat the hit so he can clap back harder next turn and show the guy what a real hit is." Or, "He could easily Shield this, but Hrim would let it go through just to see how hard this thing can slap him and how scary it actually might be to fight." And then the DM rolls the damage, and I tank the hit... so someone else in my party doesn't have to be the guinea pig, and we learn a bit more about the power level of whatever it is we're messing with. My character is good at getting in the face of the enemy and eating the hits when he needs to, to protect the party. This thought process for me has never changed, even when knowing the exact To-Hit roll from the enemy. All that knowledge does is allow me as a player to more accurately determine how to utilize my few EK spell slots and make more informed combat choices. There are tons of times where tactical response time shines in combat, even with these opportunities for additional long-term strategic planning. It does not need to be either or.
Players (and DM's for that matter) play D&D and other TTRPGs for many different reasons, and what might pull one person "out of the immersion" is not going to necessarily be the same for the next person. With that in mind, saying that Shield is poorly designed simply due to the fact that its informed element is the To-Hit roll versus the target's AC, is not entirely true. Is Shield, as a spell, quite powerful? Certainly, +5 to AC for a full turn is quite strong. However, as stated previously, there are a plethora of ways that a DM can work around something like Shield. Hiding rolls, whilst sure I suppose that works, is not the ideal solution—it is simply a band-aid for a lack of creative thinking on the part of the DM, in my honest opinion. I've been shut down more times than I can count in well-coordinated difficult combat encounters, and having Shield in my spell list isn't going to do me any good if I'm Paralyzed. :-)
Overall, we agree that DMs hiding all rolls—especially in OP's case, hiding the player's own rolls from themselves—is not the solution to some of the greater issues present in 5e. And I am in full agreement with both yourself and Plaguescarred: "Weird rule to have, to me rolling dice is part of the fun of playing D&D. Seems like there is trust issues." At the end of the day, OP's case really does seem to boil down to basic trust issues on the DM's part.
I don't look at it like that - oh, she rolled a 3 so we must convince her to do better or lend a hand. To me a poor roll MIGHT mean you did a bad job but how would another player in character know that?
In pretty much every game I've been in, when it comes to something like
ransackingsearching a room, everyone with relevant skills will roll anyway. Typically, the only times I see one player rolling for a skill check is if they have the only character with the relevant skill.So seeing one player roll a 3 won't have much effect because if someone else had that skill they'd already be rolling it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
My intent was that the die rolls can drive narrative and interaction at the table. I like to approach the game from an interactive level, so my perspective is how the rolls inform what I see.
You might roll poorly, and that makes my snort and think I know better. So I roll as well, roll poorly, shrug and admit you were right. We have conflict and resolution in one quick interaction.
Now, if another player and I get a minute of in character banter about a roll, that's a good thing. Contrasting this is all die rolls are hidden to prevent my fun (that was purposefully provocative), then all of the narrative needs to drive from the DM. Open rolls let us work around the DM, closed rolls forces every interaction to go through the DM, and burdens them even more.
This is somewhat subjective though, because the mechanics and calculations are not completely divorced from the action - rather they are a shorthand for it. That's the whole point of them.
Someone earlier suggested that every attack should be narrated in a way that described the degree of accuracy. Well that's just creating extra work for yourself because the numbers already do that. They're not just random numbers with no meaning, they're describing the action to a precision that the DM couldn't match without doubling the time it takes to run a combat encounter.
Consider that the DM does not have some magical monopoly over narrating what's happening - you can read dice and understand what they mean in your own head. You can picture what an attack of 18 versus an AC of 16 might look like, or what an attack of 5 versus AC 15 might look like. And if you do that, you can deal with the numbers without breaking immersion.
The numbers are just another source of information about what's happening, no different or less relevant than any of the other words the DM is telling you. You can learn to translate them to images in exactly the same way you can learn to translate a secondary language into your primary language. And a DM trying to run the game without giving their players this information is just making everyone's job harder.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Have you noticed that your counter examples in this case as well as the stealth ones always involve an opposed party's point of view? That's because they are represented in the game by opposed checks.
If I hide something and someone else finds it, that doesn't mean I hid it poorly. It only means their perception check beat my check. If my reflection is caught in a mirror while I'm sneaking, that doesn't mean I snuck poorly, it just means someone else spotted me. I could have rolled an 18, but the guard rolled a 20. That is what a tap on the shoulder can look like, and it's all the more surprising for knowing the 18.
Opposed checks are the solution when you don't want success or failure to be obvious. That's why the two most important situations for this kind of thing - stealth and insight - are pretty much always presented as opposed checks. Players get to have ownership and awareness of their own actions without knowing if those actions are going to succeed. It is a middle ground that gives the players some info without giving everything away.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Except when you do something like spotting a trap, you don't know if you are doing it well, you don't know that "Oh I rolled poorly" so I should have someone else look.
Why even have the players roll at all? The DM can just tell you all a story and you can just listen.
This is control freak story telling levels of interference. Hiding some suspense rolls like Death Saves or mental checks so players don't metagame their response when the DM tells players what they've discovered can contribute to immersion, but rolling everything is just as dumb as DMPCs, it robs agency and motivates fixing results when the DM is doing everything for everyone in secret. DMs should instruct players to respect the outcome of rolls and trust them to RP properly, it's not a baby game, and if the DM doesn't to actually play with the players, than they should RP alone.
Then players have no agency in your games? They don't get to build their own character? They don't get to make decisions on what to do in the world? They don't decide what their next turn will be spent doing? They don't get to decide what spell they cast or whether they should use a sword or a bow? They don't get to contribute to the narrative? Decide whether to try and resolve something peacefully or violently? If the only difference between a DM telling a story and playing a game of D&D in your games is who gets to roll the dice...that seems pretty bland. For our games, the rolling of the dice is a tool to help the story that is being told by both the DM and the players. With a few notable exceptions where the results.of the throw are particularly imprest, physically throwing the dice is way down the list of what's enjoyable. I would always have the players roll their own dice in the vast majority of cases, but I can't imagine a game where thenact of throwing a die or two takes such precedence over every other aspect.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Just to clear things up:
I do not wish to participate in this thread further. I just thought I should attempt to clear things up.
Let's revisit:
Here you are saying multiple times that if a player is not rolling the dice themselves, then they are being told a story. I'm not trying to reframe anything, I'm challenging what you've said because, as you've presented it, there is nothing that a player does that interacts with the game if they're not rolling the dice. I don't roll for the players or hide their results, but doing so is basically the same as having them play The Elder Scrolls (albeit a low tech version) than watching YT or a film. If in your games the only difference between playing and watching a recording of it (like say on YouTube) is throwing the dice and knowing the numerical result, then no, the player can't influence the narrative through their choices, because that is not reliant on dice. They can't be deciding what spells or actions to take, because that is not reliant on throwing the dice yourself. And so forth. Now, if your players do get to do those things, then it's not like watching it on YT at all, is it?
Why bother with a character sheet? Because the game, the engine, still has at least some.crunch to it. That's how the DM works. The players still have a way of understanding how things work. A longsword still has the same pros and cons versus a shortsword regardless of who throws the dice and who reads it.
Is rolling the dice a.part.of the experience? Sure. But it's not the central.thing you claimed it was when you claimed that if the DM rolls the dice, it's no difference to watching the YT video of it for players.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.