I have always GMd/played RPGs with no screen. My games had more table space, I was better able to manipulate the map, and my players were always confident that I wasn't fudging dice rolls.
However, every so often days like today come up. Casters cast, I roll saves 18 and nat20. Monsters get to attack, nat 20. Roll max damage x2.
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 prefer no screen however the random encounter tables are terrible on this site and I have to constantly consult them for random encounters in Tomb of Annihilation so I bought the GF9 screen and use that during our games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
I don't use a screen either when I run games live. I have my Chromebook to the side, and while players may not be able to see my rolls, that's only because they might not be close enough. If it's a dramatic enough roll, like in the OP's example, I laugh (good natured, not adversarial) and invite any doubters to come look. I think it encourages everyone to see that I'm exploring the story along with them rather than trying to "beat" them.
I like using a screen because if you need to manipulate the game anyway than you can. Remember you are the DM, of course I only do this within reason.
If my players are in combat and I keep botching attack rolls than my players wont feel the intensity of the combat so I improvise some rolls and will have it hit. Screens let you manipulate the game in a way that can make the campaign better without your players seeing. But like I said do this within reason... with great power comes great responsibility. You want your players to be challenged and have a good experience, they should feel invincible sometimes but should also have consequences to their actions and know that they can be dire. So yea... thats why I like a screen.
I like using a screen because if you need to manipulate the game anyway than you can.
I am of the belief that the only time the game needs to be 'manipulated' by the DM, is when the DM is at fault for something; like if I were to accidentally put the PC's up against a monster they have no chance of defeating in an environment they can't escape from and mid-way through the fight, I realise that and try to correct it somehow.
Other than that, I let the dice fall where they may, which includes doing 68 points of damage to a level 3 bard, in one attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
I like using a screen because if you need to manipulate the game anyway than you can.
I am of the belief that the only time the game needs to be 'manipulated' by the DM, is when the DM is at fault for something; like if I were to accidentally put the PC's up against a monster they have no chance of defeating in an environment they can't escape from and mid-way through the fight, I realise that and try to correct it somehow.
Other than that, I let the dice fall where they may, which includes doing 68 points of damage to a level 3 bard, in one attack.
I plan my encounters ahead of time to make sure they aren't in overkill situations. But if I botch atk rolls during and encounter and it's supposed to seem dangerous I'll auto hit (within reason) and the dice will obviously determine the dmg. But it's so that my players don't feel invincible, you want them to feel challenged so they can enjoy the rewards more.
But like I said, everything is done within reason, too much of something is bad. Whether that's manipulating dice rolls or your players not having any consequence.
I only use the screen the hide the truck load of notes. That way they can't see when I'm making stuff up, or when something is planned. It also keeps the appearance of a less cluttered table from their perspective. Especially if you got really curious players who constantly try to look at your stuff or get distracted easily. And post-its, taped notes on the screen is nice with management of space.
Rolls and such I do in the open.
Planning the difficulty of encounters depends how experienced the group is. With fairly new players I tend to start with reasonably lineair experiences. The encounters will be using the CR system and on the fly I might add or remove 1-2 opponents if need be. Once the players are more experienced I have no problem throwing unbalanced numbers at them. It is up to the players to explore, interrogate, investigate and be prepared. The players can then decide themselves how to approach a situation...whether they want to risk a frontal assault or try to black-ops it etc. At that stage I forego balance. Only balance I care about is that the % of hitting or getting hit stays within acceptable norm. Everything else doesn't matter anymore.
I use a screen to fudge rolls, along with keeping my plot papers hidden from player's view.
Though I never fudge higher, it's always a fudge if I roll a critical on a character where a critical would outright kill them, and instances like that.
The screen for me is a giant cork board. I have post-its, notes, initiative chart, and all manner of other things there. The screen, for me, is also a psychological tool.
I roll a die for no reason, the players pay attention. I take initiative, they worry about who's going first, them or the creatures. I roll damage, I add a few extra dice, they hear that and sweat thinking they're going to get hit with something big. They ask me for a saving throw and they don't hear anything...did he save? is he immune?
There's a little something to the mysticism of the GM screen, if you utilize it as such. I feel you take the "wonder" out of the game if there's no screen. Kinda like knowing how that magic trick works.
I don't roll behind a screen ever. Sure, it gives the players a bit more information, but it also means that when they get hit with natural 20s it feels real. That there's nothing they or I could do about it. I'd almost certainly fudge in the players' favor if I had a screen.
Ran a game tonight via voice chat only, with us all using our own dice. It was kinda like behind a screen, but only because that was the circumstances. (Usually we use Roll20 but opted for a change of pace this evening). It ended up feeling... the same.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have always GMd/played RPGs with no screen. My games had more table space, I was better able to manipulate the map, and my players were always confident that I wasn't fudging dice rolls.
However, every so often days like today come up. Casters cast, I roll saves 18 and nat20. Monsters get to attack, nat 20. Roll max damage x2.
"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
I prefer no screen however the random encounter tables are terrible on this site and I have to constantly consult them for random encounters in Tomb of Annihilation so I bought the GF9 screen and use that during our games.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
I don't use a screen either when I run games live. I have my Chromebook to the side, and while players may not be able to see my rolls, that's only because they might not be close enough. If it's a dramatic enough roll, like in the OP's example, I laugh (good natured, not adversarial) and invite any doubters to come look. I think it encourages everyone to see that I'm exploring the story along with them rather than trying to "beat" them.
I like using a screen because if you need to manipulate the game anyway than you can. Remember you are the DM, of course I only do this within reason.
If my players are in combat and I keep botching attack rolls than my players wont feel the intensity of the combat so I improvise some rolls and will have it hit. Screens let you manipulate the game in a way that can make the campaign better without your players seeing. But like I said do this within reason... with great power comes great responsibility. You want your players to be challenged and have a good experience, they should feel invincible sometimes but should also have consequences to their actions and know that they can be dire. So yea... thats why I like a screen.
I am of the belief that the only time the game needs to be 'manipulated' by the DM, is when the DM is at fault for something; like if I were to accidentally put the PC's up against a monster they have no chance of defeating in an environment they can't escape from and mid-way through the fight, I realise that and try to correct it somehow.
Other than that, I let the dice fall where they may, which includes doing 68 points of damage to a level 3 bard, in one attack.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
I only use the screen the hide the truck load of notes. That way they can't see when I'm making stuff up, or when something is planned. It also keeps the appearance of a less cluttered table from their perspective. Especially if you got really curious players who constantly try to look at your stuff or get distracted easily. And post-its, taped notes on the screen is nice with management of space.
Rolls and such I do in the open.
Planning the difficulty of encounters depends how experienced the group is. With fairly new players I tend to start with reasonably lineair experiences. The encounters will be using the CR system and on the fly I might add or remove 1-2 opponents if need be. Once the players are more experienced I have no problem throwing unbalanced numbers at them. It is up to the players to explore, interrogate, investigate and be prepared. The players can then decide themselves how to approach a situation...whether they want to risk a frontal assault or try to black-ops it etc. At that stage I forego balance. Only balance I care about is that the % of hitting or getting hit stays within acceptable norm. Everything else doesn't matter anymore.
I use a screen to fudge rolls, along with keeping my plot papers hidden from player's view.
Though I never fudge higher, it's always a fudge if I roll a critical on a character where a critical would outright kill them, and instances like that.
Published Subclasses
The screen for me is a giant cork board. I have post-its, notes, initiative chart, and all manner of other things there. The screen, for me, is also a psychological tool.
I roll a die for no reason, the players pay attention. I take initiative, they worry about who's going first, them or the creatures. I roll damage, I add a few extra dice, they hear that and sweat thinking they're going to get hit with something big. They ask me for a saving throw and they don't hear anything...did he save? is he immune?
There's a little something to the mysticism of the GM screen, if you utilize it as such. I feel you take the "wonder" out of the game if there's no screen. Kinda like knowing how that magic trick works.
I don't roll behind a screen ever. Sure, it gives the players a bit more information, but it also means that when they get hit with natural 20s it feels real. That there's nothing they or I could do about it. I'd almost certainly fudge in the players' favor if I had a screen.
Ran a game tonight via voice chat only, with us all using our own dice. It was kinda like behind a screen, but only because that was the circumstances. (Usually we use Roll20 but opted for a change of pace this evening). It ended up feeling... the same.