"no Dm should ever roll secretly" to "Imma roll secretly"...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
As I said before in a different thread, DMs should not roll for PCs. Unless of course the player had to miss a session and none of the other players is asked to run the character for them, that’s different. But under normal circumstances players should always roll for PC actions.
So if a DM overestimates the strength of the party or underestimates that of the opponents he has chosen for them, the DM should just kill the party off?
What does that have to do with rolling behind a screen? It's entirely possible to fudge an encounter without fudging any die rolls.
This is why my DM stopped rolling in secret. He can fudge encounters in so many other ways that we never even notice. Then when we switched to roll20, we discovered, as KenMarable did, that it’s quite a lot more thrilling to see the crits come up on the screen rather than have them announced after a secret roll. I’m always a little suspicious when a DM crits behind the screen and I’d have called absolute BS if he’d have announced some of the crazy crit streaks we’ve watched happen before our very eyes LOL
I have my next session in a couple days. The group needs to find a secret door to proceed in this dungeon crawl (yes,. I am aware of the danger of putting such a thing behind a secret door). Now, the group may find a way that I have not thought of. That is entirely possible given all the casters in the group.
Do not roll for your players. Just use their passive skills - perception, investigation, and insight. That's what they are for. Even if they fail that and fail their rolls, it's ok. You can have a bad guy come out of the secret door after they leave the room trying to stab them in the back. Maybe an escaping prisoner comes through the secret door? If they use fire spells, the door can catch on fire. And of course you can just put in another passage or something that will lead to where you want them to go. You're the GM you're allowed to change the map.
-------------
Regarding rolls.
I roll everything in the open.
Yes sometimes the result is bad for the party and sometimes it's good for the party. But in every case they know I'm not making shit up.
I used a screen the first time I played but all it did was have me stand up, and sit down, and stand up, and sit down. I wanted to see what the party was doing and the screen blocked my line of sight. Never again.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I have my next session in a couple days. The group needs to find a secret door to proceed in this dungeon crawl (yes,. I am aware of the danger of putting such a thing behind a secret door). Now, the group may find a way that I have not thought of. That is entirely possible given all the casters in the group.
Every roll last session was in front of the players, as it was straight-foward combat for me as a DM. If put one char into death saves. If I rolled a crit along the way, that char may have died. So be it. That is how the dice roll, and no one can complain when the rolls can be seen.
But this upcoming session, if and when the players' PC's start making Perception for that secret door and/or Stealth rolls, I WILL be making those rolls for the players, and behind a screen. There is zero chance I am going to let the player that the PC rolled brilliantly or poorly. The PC does not know if it is Stealthy or not. And the players will pile on with Perception and Investigation rolls if they know a PC failed badly on a roll.
Passive perception, insight and investigation are specifically designed to deal with a DM’s “need” to roll anything for their players. The DM controls the entire world except the characters. What difference does it make if the players know the result of their stealth roll? They have no idea how perceptive the environment is. A 5 may be more than enough if the NPC they are sneaking around is deaf but could be catastrophic under other circumstances. Either way, they’ve committed to the sneaking and rolled the 5. It is the player’s job to roll for their character. It is your job as the DM to tell them the result of the roll.
As a player, no way am I agreeing to the DM rolling anything for my character. Especially when there are mechanics in place to ameliorate that “need”. Talk about robbing players of agency. Their luck has no effect on their character’s fate. Might as well play with yourself if you’re a DM making rolls for the characters >.>
The player does not have any say on how a DM runs a table. The player can exercise a veto in only one way, and that is walking away from the table. Tonight I played in a Pathfinder game, which is essentially irrelevant to the point. The DM made all my Perception and Stealth rolls. I lost zero "agency", whatever that means, with the DM doing so. My PC's actions were not hindered in the slightest. But with the DM making said rolls, it enhanced the game as I was never sure if I was stealthy or not, or if I had missed something or not via Perception.
I have to say that rolling for the players is a potentially contraversial one.
On the one hand, I can see how not knowing what you rolled would make for a better narrative.
On the other hand, I know that as a player I enjoy rolling dice. So if the DM takes that from me, I would need the benefits of the mystery to outweigh the reduction in clicky-clacky math-rock rolling!
A potential solution is a dice tower which the DM can see the result of, allowing the player to roll but only the DM to see.
We use Foundry and the DM almost always rolls hidden. Sometimes they will reveal a roll if that is fun (you can do this after the fact which is nice in the tool). The main reason we roll hidden has nothing to do with changing the rolls, its just a good way to not let the party know the power level of what they are fighting. "Wait, the DM rolled a 3, and that's a hit? Then its bonus must be at least ..."
I have my next session in a couple days. The group needs to find a secret door to proceed in this dungeon crawl (yes,. I am aware of the danger of putting such a thing behind a secret door). Now, the group may find a way that I have not thought of. That is entirely possible given all the casters in the group.
Every roll last session was in front of the players, as it was straight-foward combat for me as a DM. If put one char into death saves. If I rolled a crit along the way, that char may have died. So be it. That is how the dice roll, and no one can complain when the rolls can be seen.
But this upcoming session, if and when the players' PC's start making Perception for that secret door and/or Stealth rolls, I WILL be making those rolls for the players, and behind a screen. There is zero chance I am going to let the player that the PC rolled brilliantly or poorly. The PC does not know if it is Stealthy or not. And the players will pile on with Perception and Investigation rolls if they know a PC failed badly on a roll.
Passive perception, insight and investigation are specifically designed to deal with a DM’s “need” to roll anything for their players. The DM controls the entire world except the characters. What difference does it make if the players know the result of their stealth roll? They have no idea how perceptive the environment is. A 5 may be more than enough if the NPC they are sneaking around is deaf but could be catastrophic under other circumstances. Either way, they’ve committed to the sneaking and rolled the 5. It is the player’s job to roll for their character. It is your job as the DM to tell them the result of the roll.
As a player, no way am I agreeing to the DM rolling anything for my character. Especially when there are mechanics in place to ameliorate that “need”. Talk about robbing players of agency. Their luck has no effect on their character’s fate. Might as well play with yourself if you’re a DM making rolls for the characters >.>
The player does not have any say on how a DM runs a table. The player can exercise a veto in only one way, and that is walking away from the table. Tonight I played in a Pathfinder game, which is essentially irrelevant to the point. The DM made all my Perception and Stealth rolls. I lost zero "agency", whatever that means, with the DM doing so. My PC's actions were not hindered in the slightest. But with the DM making said rolls, it enhanced the game as I was never sure if I was stealthy or not, or if I had missed something or not via Perception.
That you played Pathfinder is absolutely relevant here. There are no mechanics for passive detection skills in Pathfinder. 5e came along after PF. The developers noted a gap in those rules and filled it. There is no need for the DM to roll the detection skills to keep the results secret in 5e like there was in Pathfinder.
I can’t help but notice that you completely failed to address in any way how a stealth roll is subjective based on the environment. Even when you know the result of your roll, you have no idea how well you can be detected. Rolling a 5 stealth and a 30 could have equal success depending on what is going on around you. Knowing your stealth is meaningless when you have no idea what the responding perception rolls are.
As far as the only option for a player who doesn’t like their DM rolling for them on top of all the other things they already control and robbing players of agency? Yes, I am 100% walking away from that. Perhaps you missed the part where I said you might as well play with yourself? FWIW, I’m 100% walking away from any game where the DM thinks the players have no say in how the game is run too. Yet somehow I’ve managed to have a game every weekend for the last 30 years. It’s almost as if players can roll for their characters and everything will be fine…
Honestly it is not something worth getting into an argument with my players over. If they felt as strongly as some do in this thread, I would just roll in the open. Thankfully, my players trust me with my rolls, but having the ability and time to interpret the rolls is actually really helpful for me. I took a page out of the book of one of the popular DM streamers who once recommended using the rolls to delay and process, which I find very useful when I need an extra second or two to put something together in my head.
Honestly it is not something worth getting into an argument with my players over. If they felt as strongly as some do in this thread, I would just roll in the open. Thankfully, my players trust me with my rolls, but having the ability and time to interpret the rolls is actually really helpful for me. I took a page out of the book of one of the popular DM streamers who once recommended using the rolls to delay and process, which I find very useful when I need an extra second or two to put something together in my head.
I frequently ask players for a roll whenever I need a Twix moment to gather my thoughts too!!
I have my next session in a couple days. The group needs to find a secret door to proceed in this dungeon crawl (yes,. I am aware of the danger of putting such a thing behind a secret door). Now, the group may find a way that I have not thought of. That is entirely possible given all the casters in the group.
Every roll last session was in front of the players, as it was straight-foward combat for me as a DM. If put one char into death saves. If I rolled a crit along the way, that char may have died. So be it. That is how the dice roll, and no one can complain when the rolls can be seen.
But this upcoming session, if and when the players' PC's start making Perception for that secret door and/or Stealth rolls, I WILL be making those rolls for the players, and behind a screen. There is zero chance I am going to let the player that the PC rolled brilliantly or poorly. The PC does not know if it is Stealthy or not. And the players will pile on with Perception and Investigation rolls if they know a PC failed badly on a roll.
Passive perception, insight and investigation are specifically designed to deal with a DM’s “need” to roll anything for their players. The DM controls the entire world except the characters. What difference does it make if the players know the result of their stealth roll? They have no idea how perceptive the environment is. A 5 may be more than enough if the NPC they are sneaking around is deaf but could be catastrophic under other circumstances. Either way, they’ve committed to the sneaking and rolled the 5. It is the player’s job to roll for their character. It is your job as the DM to tell them the result of the roll.
As a player, no way am I agreeing to the DM rolling anything for my character. Especially when there are mechanics in place to ameliorate that “need”. Talk about robbing players of agency. Their luck has no effect on their character’s fate. Might as well play with yourself if you’re a DM making rolls for the characters >.>
The player does not have any say on how a DM runs a table. The player can exercise a veto in only one way, and that is walking away from the table. Tonight I played in a Pathfinder game, which is essentially irrelevant to the point. The DM made all my Perception and Stealth rolls. I lost zero "agency", whatever that means, with the DM doing so. My PC's actions were not hindered in the slightest. But with the DM making said rolls, it enhanced the game as I was never sure if I was stealthy or not, or if I had missed something or not via Perception.
That you played Pathfinder is absolutely relevant here. There are no mechanics for passive detection skills in Pathfinder. 5e came along after PF. The developers noted a gap in those rules and filled it. There is no need for the DM to roll the detection skills to keep the results secret in 5e like there was in Pathfinder.
I can’t help but notice that you completely failed to address in any way how a stealth roll is subjective based on the environment. Even when you know the result of your roll, you have no idea how well you can be detected. Rolling a 5 stealth and a 30 could have equal success depending on what is going on around you. Knowing your stealth is meaningless when you have no idea what the responding perception rolls are.
As far as the only option for a player who doesn’t like their DM rolling for them on top of all the other things they already control and robbing players of agency? Yes, I am 100% walking away from that. Perhaps you missed the part where I said you might as well play with yourself? FWIW, I’m 100% walking away from any game where the DM thinks the players have no say in how the game is run too. Yet somehow I’ve managed to have a game every weekend for the last 30 years. It’s almost as if players can roll for their characters and everything will be fine…
I too run games. I too run games for years. And my players have no issues with me hiding the rolls I specified. As for Stealth, if a Rogue, or whatever, rolls a 27, they can be fairly certain they are fine. Conversely, if they roll a 12, after modifiers, that too will affect their game play. And yes, players will meta-game.
I have people walk away from my tables using the same "reasons" you are using. I shrug, and replace them with someone who gets it.
Honestly it is not something worth getting into an argument with my players over. If they felt as strongly as some do in this thread, I would just roll in the open. Thankfully, my players trust me with my rolls, but having the ability and time to interpret the rolls is actually really helpful for me. I took a page out of the book of one of the popular DM streamers who once recommended using the rolls to delay and process, which I find very useful when I need an extra second or two to put something together in my head.
Personally, if they're going to make a massive issue of it (some discussion is fine, but if it displaces quality gaming time, it's a problem), then I'd say that they either need to trust me, or it's not going to work. Sometimes I'm going to stack the deck against them (extremely hard encounters, etc) and they need to trust me that I'm not just being a jerk. For example, I might have enemies target one player...they need to realise that's a hook I'm handing them for them to investigate and find someone wants them dead, rather than me being a jerk DM. If they want to play, they have to trust me.
But yeah, it's nice having a few seconds to potentially introduce a new angle on things etc. It builds tensions rather than players forming their own "better" narratives.
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.
Good topic. I think that as a dm I'm going to start rolling public for combat only. That's where the rolls really matter. I've always heard from other DM's that they fudge the dice to save the group and that's just silly.
Let the dice in combat roll. They, the dice, rule the game. Have fun with the other stuff.
I play online these days and love to roll and players to roll dice at home if they want. It's an honor system. I've had cheaters in my games who got caught and removed.
So open roll during combat yes. I don't fudge rolls unless it's in the players favor for things like roll play because that's fun.
Example, player does an insight check to see if a npc is lying. They roll, I roll. Sometimes I'll surpass their roll but let them have the info. No harm there. Let them get that info sometimes.
Honestly it is not something worth getting into an argument with my players over. If they felt as strongly as some do in this thread, I would just roll in the open. Thankfully, my players trust me with my rolls, but having the ability and time to interpret the rolls is actually really helpful for me. I took a page out of the book of one of the popular DM streamers who once recommended using the rolls to delay and process, which I find very useful when I need an extra second or two to put something together in my head.
Personally, if they're going to make a massive issue of it (some discussion is fine, but if it displaces quality gaming time, it's a problem), then I'd say that they either need to trust me, or it's not going to work. Sometimes I'm going to stack the deck against them (extremely hard encounters, etc) and they need to trust me that I'm not just being a jerk. For example, I might have enemies target one player...they need to realise that's a hook I'm handing them for them to investigate and find someone wants them dead, rather than me being a jerk DM. If they want to play, they have to trust me.
But yeah, it's nice having a few seconds to potentially introduce a new angle on things etc. It builds tensions rather than players forming their own "better" narratives.
I am pretty much in agreement here - players should be trusting that their DM isn't trying to screw them. I am very fortunate to have players that do and there have been no issues at my table about me rolling behind the screen. However, were I to play at a table that has perhaps had some previous bad experiences with some mustache-twisting DMs which have left them with some trust issues, then I am willing to set aside my personal preferences for a bit to help them recover. I would much rather roll behind the screen for all the reasons I have listed before, but I understand that there are a lot of crap DMs out there that leave players with a view that DMs are kind of shitty people.
If I remember right, just a couple of weeks ago, some poster said that the only people who become DMs are powerhungry bullies (paraphrased because I can't remember the exact words). That opinion tells me a story of their experiences. Such people might ultimately not be a good fit at my table, but I would be willing to try to change their perspective and make D&D fun for them if I can. If rolling behind the screen is a hard line for them, they care about it far more than I do and I will try to make accommodations to build up that trust. That said, I fully agree that players should be willing to extend that trust in most cases because why would you sit at a table with a person you think is a total turd? I wouldn't.
Honestly it is not something worth getting into an argument with my players over. If they felt as strongly as some do in this thread, I would just roll in the open. Thankfully, my players trust me with my rolls, but having the ability and time to interpret the rolls is actually really helpful for me. I took a page out of the book of one of the popular DM streamers who once recommended using the rolls to delay and process, which I find very useful when I need an extra second or two to put something together in my head.
Personally, if they're going to make a massive issue of it (some discussion is fine, but if it displaces quality gaming time, it's a problem), then I'd say that they either need to trust me, or it's not going to work. Sometimes I'm going to stack the deck against them (extremely hard encounters, etc) and they need to trust me that I'm not just being a jerk. For example, I might have enemies target one player...they need to realise that's a hook I'm handing them for them to investigate and find someone wants them dead, rather than me being a jerk DM. If they want to play, they have to trust me.
But yeah, it's nice having a few seconds to potentially introduce a new angle on things etc. It builds tensions rather than players forming their own "better" narratives.
I am pretty much in agreement here - players should be trusting that their DM isn't trying to screw them. I am very fortunate to have players that do and there have been no issues at my table about me rolling behind the screen. However, were I to play at a table that has perhaps had some previous bad experiences with some mustache-twisting DMs which have left them with some trust issues, then I am willing to set aside my personal preferences for a bit to help them recover. I would much rather roll behind the screen for all the reasons I have listed before, but I understand that there are a lot of crap DMs out there that leave players with a view that DMs are kind of shitty people.
If I remember right, just a couple of weeks ago, some poster said that the only people who become DMs are powerhungry bullies (paraphrased because I can't remember the exact words). That opinion tells me a story of their experiences. Such people might ultimately not be a good fit at my table, but I would be willing to try to change their perspective and make D&D fun for them if I can. If rolling behind the screen is a hard line for them, they care about it far more than I do and I will try to make accommodations to build up that trust. That said, I fully agree that players should be willing to extend that trust in most cases because why would you sit at a table with a person you think is a total turd? I wouldn't.
Hmmm... that's an interesting point, one I could sympathise with. I think in that scenario, if they were being reasonable and open about it, I think I'd be willing to roll openly. However, I think it would be with the caveat that it's working towards hidden DM rolls. Do a few sessions with them open, then start rolling behind a screen once they've had a chance to come to trust me. I'd want that trust to be actively worked towards though, games don't last long without it.
Interesting thought, thanks.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"no Dm should ever roll secretly" to "Imma roll secretly"...
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
As I said before in a different thread, DMs should not roll for PCs. Unless of course the player had to miss a session and none of the other players is asked to run the character for them, that’s different. But under normal circumstances players should always roll for PC actions.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is why my DM stopped rolling in secret. He can fudge encounters in so many other ways that we never even notice. Then when we switched to roll20, we discovered, as KenMarable did, that it’s quite a lot more thrilling to see the crits come up on the screen rather than have them announced after a secret roll. I’m always a little suspicious when a DM crits behind the screen and I’d have called absolute BS if he’d have announced some of the crazy crit streaks we’ve watched happen before our very eyes LOL
Do not roll for your players. Just use their passive skills - perception, investigation, and insight. That's what they are for. Even if they fail that and fail their rolls, it's ok. You can have a bad guy come out of the secret door after they leave the room trying to stab them in the back. Maybe an escaping prisoner comes through the secret door? If they use fire spells, the door can catch on fire. And of course you can just put in another passage or something that will lead to where you want them to go. You're the GM you're allowed to change the map.
-------------
Regarding rolls.
I roll everything in the open.
Yes sometimes the result is bad for the party and sometimes it's good for the party. But in every case they know I'm not making shit up.
I used a screen the first time I played but all it did was have me stand up, and sit down, and stand up, and sit down. I wanted to see what the party was doing and the screen blocked my line of sight. Never again.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The player does not have any say on how a DM runs a table. The player can exercise a veto in only one way, and that is walking away from the table. Tonight I played in a Pathfinder game, which is essentially irrelevant to the point. The DM made all my Perception and Stealth rolls. I lost zero "agency", whatever that means, with the DM doing so. My PC's actions were not hindered in the slightest. But with the DM making said rolls, it enhanced the game as I was never sure if I was stealthy or not, or if I had missed something or not via Perception.
I have to say that rolling for the players is a potentially contraversial one.
On the one hand, I can see how not knowing what you rolled would make for a better narrative.
On the other hand, I know that as a player I enjoy rolling dice. So if the DM takes that from me, I would need the benefits of the mystery to outweigh the reduction in clicky-clacky math-rock rolling!
A potential solution is a dice tower which the DM can see the result of, allowing the player to roll but only the DM to see.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
We use Foundry and the DM almost always rolls hidden. Sometimes they will reveal a roll if that is fun (you can do this after the fact which is nice in the tool). The main reason we roll hidden has nothing to do with changing the rolls, its just a good way to not let the party know the power level of what they are fighting. "Wait, the DM rolled a 3, and that's a hit? Then its bonus must be at least ..."
That you played Pathfinder is absolutely relevant here. There are no mechanics for passive detection skills in Pathfinder. 5e came along after PF. The developers noted a gap in those rules and filled it. There is no need for the DM to roll the detection skills to keep the results secret in 5e like there was in Pathfinder.
I can’t help but notice that you completely failed to address in any way how a stealth roll is subjective based on the environment. Even when you know the result of your roll, you have no idea how well you can be detected. Rolling a 5 stealth and a 30 could have equal success depending on what is going on around you. Knowing your stealth is meaningless when you have no idea what the responding perception rolls are.
As far as the only option for a player who doesn’t like their DM rolling for them on top of all the other things they already control and robbing players of agency? Yes, I am 100% walking away from that. Perhaps you missed the part where I said you might as well play with yourself? FWIW, I’m 100% walking away from any game where the DM thinks the players have no say in how the game is run too. Yet somehow I’ve managed to have a game every weekend for the last 30 years. It’s almost as if players can roll for their characters and everything will be fine…
Honestly it is not something worth getting into an argument with my players over. If they felt as strongly as some do in this thread, I would just roll in the open. Thankfully, my players trust me with my rolls, but having the ability and time to interpret the rolls is actually really helpful for me. I took a page out of the book of one of the popular DM streamers who once recommended using the rolls to delay and process, which I find very useful when I need an extra second or two to put something together in my head.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I frequently ask players for a roll whenever I need a Twix moment to gather my thoughts too!!
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I too run games. I too run games for years. And my players have no issues with me hiding the rolls I specified. As for Stealth, if a Rogue, or whatever, rolls a 27, they can be fairly certain they are fine. Conversely, if they roll a 12, after modifiers, that too will affect their game play. And yes, players will meta-game.
I have people walk away from my tables using the same "reasons" you are using. I shrug, and replace them with someone who gets it.
Personally, if they're going to make a massive issue of it (some discussion is fine, but if it displaces quality gaming time, it's a problem), then I'd say that they either need to trust me, or it's not going to work. Sometimes I'm going to stack the deck against them (extremely hard encounters, etc) and they need to trust me that I'm not just being a jerk. For example, I might have enemies target one player...they need to realise that's a hook I'm handing them for them to investigate and find someone wants them dead, rather than me being a jerk DM. If they want to play, they have to trust me.
But yeah, it's nice having a few seconds to potentially introduce a new angle on things etc. It builds tensions rather than players forming their own "better" narratives.
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.
Good topic. I think that as a dm I'm going to start rolling public for combat only. That's where the rolls really matter. I've always heard from other DM's that they fudge the dice to save the group and that's just silly.
Let the dice in combat roll. They, the dice, rule the game. Have fun with the other stuff.
I play online these days and love to roll and players to roll dice at home if they want. It's an honor system. I've had cheaters in my games who got caught and removed.
So open roll during combat yes. I don't fudge rolls unless it's in the players favor for things like roll play because that's fun.
Example, player does an insight check to see if a npc is lying. They roll, I roll. Sometimes I'll surpass their roll but let them have the info. No harm there. Let them get that info sometimes.
I am pretty much in agreement here - players should be trusting that their DM isn't trying to screw them. I am very fortunate to have players that do and there have been no issues at my table about me rolling behind the screen. However, were I to play at a table that has perhaps had some previous bad experiences with some mustache-twisting DMs which have left them with some trust issues, then I am willing to set aside my personal preferences for a bit to help them recover. I would much rather roll behind the screen for all the reasons I have listed before, but I understand that there are a lot of crap DMs out there that leave players with a view that DMs are kind of shitty people.
If I remember right, just a couple of weeks ago, some poster said that the only people who become DMs are powerhungry bullies (paraphrased because I can't remember the exact words). That opinion tells me a story of their experiences. Such people might ultimately not be a good fit at my table, but I would be willing to try to change their perspective and make D&D fun for them if I can. If rolling behind the screen is a hard line for them, they care about it far more than I do and I will try to make accommodations to build up that trust. That said, I fully agree that players should be willing to extend that trust in most cases because why would you sit at a table with a person you think is a total turd? I wouldn't.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Hmmm... that's an interesting point, one I could sympathise with. I think in that scenario, if they were being reasonable and open about it, I think I'd be willing to roll openly. However, I think it would be with the caveat that it's working towards hidden DM rolls. Do a few sessions with them open, then start rolling behind a screen once they've had a chance to come to trust me. I'd want that trust to be actively worked towards though, games don't last long without it.
Interesting thought, thanks.
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.