GM Screens: They're toxic. Yes or No?


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 264 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cold Beer wrote:
How do you reconcile the effects of Deities on happenstance in a game? For example, spells don't work as intended or attacks are not as effective as they should be due to divine influence? Could we hand-wave a fudge as Deus Ex Machina to get around your definition of "Pathfinder"?

You're seriously so addicted to altering all the dice rolls that you're willing to declare constant divine intervention in order to justify it? Have at it, then.

You won't find me playing in that game, but there are others in this thread who would love it.

What else could it be? If people are going to keep going "no true scotsman" in this argument, why not take an equally absurd stance?

But seriously...

If I DM, if I fudge in a game, it's for the betterment of the game. Hell, if one of my players is having a bad day in or out of the game, sure I'll lob a few at him to help him out. I'm not into the competitiveness of the game as some people are. If you don't like that, tough luck, you probably wouldn't be in my games anyway. That doesn't make it any less Pathfinder.

Badwrongfun, indeed.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cold Beer wrote:
When did I say I fudged rolls?
Cold Beer wrote:
Could we hand-wave a fudge as Deus Ex Machina to get around your definition of "Pathfinder"?

To pick nits, I said we, not I.

Liberty's Edge

Nowhere have I said that GM's-Happy-Fun-Game isn't fun, or that you should feel bad for enjoying it. If you're having a good time with it, I suggest you keep playing it at every opportunity. There's lots of good games in the world, and I enjoy most of them, including GHFG (with a good GM).

Why the hostility? If the gods are going to conspire to make me suck, I'll go find another table where the Gods hate me less.


Jeremiziah wrote:

Nowhere have I said that GM's-Happy-Fun-Game isn't fun, or that you should feel bad for enjoying it. If you're having a good time with it, I suggest you keep playing it at every opportunity. There's lots of good games in the world, and I enjoy most of them, including GHFG (with a good GM).

Why the hostility? If the gods are going to conspire to make me suck, I'll go find another table where the Gods hate me less.

Who's hostile?

You can call it Noodle Splat Ball if you want, but it's still Pathfinder.

Liberty's Edge

Okay. ;-)


Cold Beer wrote:

But seriously...

If I DM, if I fudge in a game, it's for the betterment of the game. Hell, if one of my players is having a bad day in or out of the game, sure I'll lob a few at him to help him out.

There are times when the dice turn against the players. It is only fun for folks' PCs to *almost die* and then pull through.

While the threat of death and loss need to be real, random, unlucky deaths suck the fun out of games. Shading the game in favor of the players to offset pure bad luck seems like the lesser evil.

I just suffered my first PC death for this group this past session.

The party won in the end, but it was a tough battle.

In service,

Rich

Zhalindor.com


The answer to the OP's question of "GM Screens: They're toxic. Yes or No?" is yes and no.

The answer varies from GMs to GMs and players to players. Everyone has a style and a preference, so their is no right or wrong answer here.

For example,
I let the players roll next to all skills and save except for the odd surprise I have planned or odd skill situation, but let the dice fall as they are.
Most of the rolls for NPCs, I do behind the screen with a few in player view when things get climatic. Now I will fudge A roll if the party is having a really bad day, and have a jinx like condition where nothing goes right. Now I do allow A re-roll if a player has had nothing but bad luck like; rolling three 1's in a row, or not rolling anything over 6 before the bonuses (note both of these have occurred at least twice in my games)

I do keep a lot of notes and NPC data blocks on hand so the screen is helpful in keeping it out of player minds, as curiosity is always there even if it is subconscious.

But is my style the End all, be all answer. The answer is no it's not. Again everyone has a preference and a style they enjoy.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Forgive me for I have not read every post in the thread. Azure_Zero makes a good point about it depending on the DM. But someone once said something to the order of, "The purpose of the DM's dice roll is to hear the sound they make on the gaming table." That someone was Gary Gygax, RIP.

The DM is Producer and Director. The Players are Actors. A good DM will make the game play out like the best movies. He will create drama, humor, suspense or whatever is needed to make the time enjoyable for all. Sometimes that means ignoring the rolls of the dice. Seldom is a TPK fun for the party. A good DM will do the things necessary to prevent this event. Likewise, encounter after encounter that are "cake walks" are not fun either, so a DM may need to enhance the challenge from time to time. This should all be done judiciously and when appropriate, and not necessarily as a regular event.

Bottom-line it is all about fun. If you have a good DM, and you are having fun, then that is all that should really matter.

Later,

Mazra

Dark Archive

As a DM, I view the rules as a set of common guidelines but not set in stone, as in a wargame.

Thus, I feel no hesitancy about altering a rule, providing that I have informed the player before the changed rule would come up in game (so no penalizing a player on the spot).

Again, I have no problems with doing so.

Sometimes I'll alter a rule to fit into the style of the campaign (as an example, in my current Kingmaker game, all of the PCs go the Leadership feat for free - this let them have some NPCs of their own to play with but I don't feel guilty when they aren't there to bail the PCs out of every tight spot). Sometimes it's to try something out (you'd be amazed how different the game is without Attacks of Opportunity) or to introduce an alternate rule (such as Action Points).

I find blind obedience to the rules as if they were holy writ to be offensive. After all, as it was pointed out above, humans make mistakes and since humans made the rules to begin with...

Let's be honest, we all know where this is heading (and I wish I had TOZ's wisdom) - before calling everyone poopy heads, it'll revisit the old "balance of power" edition wars from when 3e first came out.

Search for them if you're unfamiliar with the concept, but the basic consensus was:

1e - DM rulez, players drooolz. "You activate the trap and die. No save possible."

2e - DM's job is to keep the players from wrecking his story.

3e - Players and the DM are equals, although whomever at the table is a better rules lawyer is more equal than the others.

Which is of course, still as false now as it was then. Because people are still making the same fundamental mistakes of thinking the rules actually matter.

Which is as mistaken as thinking that hidden DM dice rolls or 99% fairness in rules application actually matter.


DrGames wrote:
While the threat of death and loss need to be real, random, unlucky deaths suck the fun out of games.

And not just when it's the PCs. I was DMing Maure Castle a few years ago and the players came up on the big bad Kerzit. He dropped in the first round due to a "1" rolled on a Fort save on massive damage. The look of abject disappointment around the table was quite something. It's the only time I wish I had fudged in favor of the bad guys. Very anti-climactic.

Greg


Cold Beer wrote:
If you don't like that, tough luck, you probably wouldn't be in my games anyway.

Yes, I already said so.

Cold Beer wrote:
That doesn't make it any less Pathfinder.

No disagreement with me -- I never said it did; that was from a different poster who isn't me.

Cold Beer wrote:
Badwrongfun, indeed.

Again, I'm the guy who said "Have at it -- a lot of people would like it! And then went on merely to say that I, personally (and some of my players) would not. If anyone is making general claims of Badwrongfun, please keep better track of who that might be.

Dark Archive

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Again, I'm the guy who said "Have at it -- a lot of people would like it! And then went on merely to say that I, personally (and some of my players) would not. If anyone is making general claims of Badwrongfun, please keep better track of who that might be.

Kirth, please correct me on this, but I think you've maintained that (essentially) people getting together to play should have some compatibility in style preference and if not, they should go their merry way. Call it a no-fault gaming divorce.

Personally, I think that'll lead to more happiness on all sides.

Which is the point.


enrious wrote:
Kirth, please correct me on this, but I think you've maintained that (essentially) people getting together to play should have some compatibility in style preference and if not, they should go their merry way. Call it a no-fault gaming divorce.

Yes; we've actually done that. Two players whom I respect as people and as players left the game due to differences in style preferences. No hard feelings at all on my part; indeed, I don't blame them, and would have done the same, had our positions been reversed. Incidentally, one of them (Silverhair) also happens to be, in my opinion, one of the best GMs I've ever encountered.

Differences in style are no reason to cap on anyone, but they also mean there's no reason to stay around. It's like wanting to play "Axis and Allies," and everyone else is playing "Monopoly." It's not that one game is better, or one is wrong, or whatever -- but they do end up being far different games, and not everyone likes one or the other, necessarily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Greg the GM tells his group, "I'll fudge the rolls when I think the game warrants it to make it more exciting and fun."

At some point, over three sessions the following happen:
Session A: Allen ends up in a bad situation, outnumbered by foes and Greg rolls the attacks and damage and sees Allen's character is going to be toast. Greg fudges the rolls so that Allen character is badly injured, but survives.
Session B: Brenda ends up in a bad situation, much like Allen's character was in but this time Greg doesn't roll nearly as well, and Brenda's character is badly injured but survives as well.
Session C: Clay ends up in a bad situation, much like the other players had done in the past. This time Greg rolls well and doesn't fudge the rolls. Clay's character dies.

What does this tell us about Greg's mindset? Remember that Greg said that he would fudge when it would make things more exciting. Greg decided that the death of Clay's character would make the game more exciting. Greg also decided that the death of both Allen's and Brenda's characters would not have made the game more exciting.

Now I know you think, but he didn't fudge Brenda's situation. That is right, he didn't. Remember he fudges to make this more exciting, thus her death was not going to be more exciting in his view. If it would have been, he would have fudged to make her character die. He didn't, thus he proved that the death of her character wouldn't have increased the excitement in his view. But the death of Clay's character would in his view.


pres man wrote:
Remember he fudges to make this more exciting, thus her death was not going to be more exciting in his view. If it would have been, he would have fudged to make her character die. He didn't, thus he proved that the death of her character wouldn't have increased the excitement in his view.

And, for people who agree that Greg is as good or better a judge of what's fun or exciting for them than they are, they should most definitely play in Greg's group, and they should probably stay away from mine.

Some other people will prefer my group instead.

They key is knowing which one, and being able to make an informed decision. A screen, in and of itself, is not a surefire indicator that you're playing with Greg, rather than Kirth, but it does create something of a feeling that that might be the case.


pres man wrote:
What does this tell us about Greg's mindset?

So now you wanna be my psychoanalyst?

pres man wrote:
Now I know you think, but he didn't fudge Brenda's situation. That is right, he didn't. Remember he fudges to make this more exciting, thus her death was not going to be more exciting in his view. If it would have been, he would have fudged to make her character die. He didn't, thus he proved that the death of her character wouldn't have increased the excitement in his view. But the death of Clay's character would in his view.

You have it backwards. It's not about whether a particular death would increase the excitement. It's whether a particular death would seriously hamper the excitement.

It's a subtle but important difference.

Greg


GregH wrote:


pres man wrote:
Now I know you think, but he didn't fudge Brenda's situation. That is right, he didn't. Remember he fudges to make this more exciting, thus her death was not going to be more exciting in his view. If it would have been, he would have fudged to make her character die. He didn't, thus he proved that the death of her character wouldn't have increased the excitement in his view. But the death of Clay's character would in his view.

You have it backwards. It's not about whether a particular death would increase the excitement. It's whether a particular death would seriously hamper the excitement.

It's a subtle but important difference.

Greg

And then my mindset as a player is why the GM hates me and didn't save my character like the other two.

I don't like GM fudging for or against me. The excitement to me is how the dice fall, not the results of any battle, and not when the GM decides how it is all going to happen.

To me it reduces the excitement if my actions and the dice rolls don't have the results they should, positive or negative.


GregH wrote:

You have it backwards. It's not about whether a particular death would increase the excitement. It's whether a particular death would seriously hamper the excitement.

It's a subtle but important difference.

Greg

There is a difference perhaps, but I don't think that viewing it as, "It is not that dying increased the fun, it is that having the character survive would have decreased it", is that much a better way of viewing.


Tangible Delusions wrote:
And then my mindset as a player is why the GM hates me and didn't save my character like the other two.

This is all predicated on the assumption that you know the DM is fudging. If you don't know then you will never think this.

Tangible Delusions wrote:
I don't like GM fudging for or against me. The excitement to me is how the dice fall, not the results of any battle, and not when the GM decides how it is all going to happen.

But the DM already decides so much of what is going to happen even before the dice are picked up. Whats behind the door? Only the DM knows. What if the DM changes the number of lizardmen in the next room prior to battle because your fighter just became unconscious? What if the DM decided (without rolling a single die) that there would be no wandering encounters on the way back from the dungeon because the cleric has been knocked unconscious and everyone else is down to single-digit hit points?

Is the DM fudging then? Should he throw those 3 trolls at you just because the dice said so?

Really? DMing is about making the game fun, not about being a slave to the dice.

Tangible Delusions wrote:
To me it reduces the excitement if my actions and the dice rolls don't have the results they should, positive or negative.

If you have absolutely no clue what is going on in the DMs mind, how can it possibly reduce your excitement?

Edit: misread your statement. At no point have I ever advocated that a player's dice rolls not have their intended results. I have only ever said that I fudge only the NPCs/Monster's dice rolls and only in the party's favour.

Greg


pres man wrote:
GregH wrote:

You have it backwards. It's not about whether a particular death would increase the excitement. It's whether a particular death would seriously hamper the excitement.

It's a subtle but important difference.

Greg

There is a difference perhaps, but I don't think that viewing it as, "It is not that dying increased the fun, it is that having the character survive would have decreased it", is that much a better way of viewing.

Y'know what? We're just going 'round and 'round in circles here.

As DM, I see it as my fundamental responsibility to ensure that everyone at the table has fun. Do I succeed every single game? No. Do I try? I like to think so. I happen to believe that fudging of dice rolls is a useful tool in the DMs arsenal (one of many) for trying to ensure that everyone has fun.

You don't.

Not much more to say.

Greg


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Kind of late to the party, but when I'm the GM I roll everything in front of my players. Win or lose they know everything's straight up.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I recall dropping the screen one night. My players asked me to put it back up afterwards. Something about things being too deadly.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I recall dropping the screen one night. My players asked me to put it back up afterwards. Something about things being too deadly.

That's 'cause you're playin' with SISSIES.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I believe it was actually during our 15-month deployment to Afghanistan. That poor wizard...


GregH wrote:


But the DM already decides so much of what is going to happen even before the dice are picked up. Whats behind the door? Only the DM knows. What if the DM changes the number of lizardmen in the next room prior to battle because your fighter just became unconscious? What if the DM decided (without rolling a single die) that there would be no wandering encounters on the way back from the dungeon because the cleric has been knocked unconscious and everyone else is down to single-digit hit points?

Is the DM fudging then? Should he throw those 3 trolls at you just because the dice said so?

Really? DMing is about making the game fun, not about being a slave to the dice.

If you have absolutely no clue what is going on in the DMs mind, how can it possibly reduce your excitement?

Edit: misread your statement. At no point have I ever advocated that a player's dice rolls not have their intended results. I have only ever said that I fudge only the NPCs/Monster's dice rolls and only in the party's favour.

Greg

I had responses but your post to pres man after mine summed it up pretty good. You feel fudging is OK to keep the game fun, and I feel cheated when the GM fudges rolls, even in my favor.

But ultimately if your group you GM for is fine with it than its no big deal really. Ultimately its about having fun and if that happens than you succeed!


DM screens are far from toxic. With enough seasoning, they are actually quite delicious.

For me, it's the combination of handy tables and having my own space on the table that's most important. We all need somewhere to put the information, and it's better that it's hidden when it's the DM's. Players can today read all the adventures they like, and I as a DM can't check that, but it will likely destroy much of their enjoyment of the game. So to avoid that, I hide it from them.

I also happen to be in the hidden-rolls-are-good camp, but that's not a discussion likely to bring enlightenment here, in my experience.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
Kind of late to the party, but when I'm the GM I roll everything in front of my players. Win or lose they know everything's straight up.

Really? When the crime lord makes his bluff check you roll in front of the players?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

You make Bluff checks everytime an NPC lies to the players?


I really hate fudging, but I understand that it has its place so at low levels I will "help" the players out. As the get more levels I start to pull the gloves off, and let the dice fall where they may. I still keep the GM screen. It allows me to roll dice for no reason. :) I also roll checks before I need them, and they have no idea if I am rolling for no reason or for a reason. If I roll the dice when the PC's enter room B they will probably know it is stealth check. If I roll the dice when they are being spoken too they might know it is a bluff check.

As for me remembering the numbers. I can remember quiet a few, and I wait until a good time to write something else down to also write those dice rolls down.

PS:Normally I roll my D20's for skill checks and saves at the house before the game even starts. :)


Mazra wrote:


Bottom-line it is all about fun. If you have a good DM, and you are having fun, then that is all that should really matter.

Mazra

QFT

Hey, I just noticed somethin'. Some groups play the game slightly different from others. Wow. Let's fight about it.

Or we could just accept that some groups play different from others. Nobody's imaginary fantasy world is any more valid than someone else's.


Josh M. wrote:
Mazra wrote:


Bottom-line it is all about fun. If you have a good DM, and you are having fun, then that is all that should really matter.

Mazra

QFT

Hey, I just noticed somethin'. Some groups play the game slightly different from others. Wow. Let's fight about it.

Or we could just accept that some groups play different from others. Nobody's imaginary fantasy world is any more valid than someone else's.

Fight is good. My GM has more dice than your GM. :)


wraithstrike wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Mazra wrote:


Bottom-line it is all about fun. If you have a good DM, and you are having fun, then that is all that should really matter.

Mazra

QFT

Hey, I just noticed somethin'. Some groups play the game slightly different from others. Wow. Let's fight about it.

Or we could just accept that some groups play different from others. Nobody's imaginary fantasy world is any more valid than someone else's.

Fight is good. My GM has more dice than your GM. :)

Oh yeah? My dice have more GM's than, oh wait...


TriOmegaZero wrote:
You make Bluff checks everytime an NPC lies to the players?

When he's using his bluff skill, yes.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
If anyone is making general claims of Badwrongfun, please keep better track of who that might be.

I think I know who I'm talking to.

I assumed you were defending Jeremiziah's stance; thanks for clearing that up. Sometimes intent in text can be unclear.

I was trying to say that in a game about imagination where one person is the clear arbiter of the rules and the laws of the universe, it's difficult to exclude a group of people for bending the rules a bit. Does that still mean we're addicted to fudging? No. Is it a bit of a hyperbolic argument to make? Yes, but it is still a valid point, I think.


DM Dan E wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You make Bluff checks everytime an NPC lies to the players?
When he's using his bluff skill, yes.

Oh, here's a good one. I do the same...

...but, I also have lots of "fake" rolls behind the screen to cloud the issue. I make it a point to roll a few red herring rolls occasionally to keep the players on their toes.

Me: Okay, which way do you guys go?
Player 1: North, toward the light...
Me: *rolls*
Player 2: Whoa, why did he just roll?
Player 1: Traps? Player 3, search for traps.
Player 3: *rolls* 23?
Me: You don't find any traps.
Player 1: Crap!

You can't do this continually (unless your running Call of Cthulu) or you end up with an extremely paranoid group on your hands.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
DM Dan E wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You make Bluff checks everytime an NPC lies to the players?
When he's using his bluff skill, yes.

I only roll when the players want to Sense Motive. Even if the NPC isn't bluffing.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
DM Dan E wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You make Bluff checks everytime an NPC lies to the players?
When he's using his bluff skill, yes.
I only roll when the players want to Sense Motive. Even if the NPC isn't bluffing.

This actually gets into a rules interpretation question. Let's say that the PCs want to sense motive. They roll 20, NPC rolls a 1. If the NPC was actually telling the truth, how do you adjudicate that? In the past I'd say that they have no reason to believe he was lying (because he wasn't) but then I use a screen and there is no way the players would know I rolled a 1. How do you adjudicate that if the rolls are in the open?

Greg

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Tell them he seems to be telling the truth, and make sure before hand that the players know Glibness gives a +20 to Bluff checks?

Or just not worry about it and let the players figure out if they should believe it or not. They don't know his Bluff score after all.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
GregH wrote:

This actually gets into a rules interpretation question. Let's say that the PCs want to sense motive. They roll 20, NPC rolls a 1. If the NPC was actually telling the truth, how do you adjudicate that? In the past I'd say that they have no reason to believe he was lying (because he wasn't) but then I use a screen and there is no way the players would know I rolled a 1. How do you adjudicate that if the rolls are in the open?

Greg

Tell them he seems to be telling the truth, and make sure before hand that the players know Glibness gives a +30 to Bluff checks.

Fair enough. Glibness is a feat? Its not in the d20 SRD. (Or is this a Pathfinder thing?)

Greg

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Spell. See edit above as well. I had to doublecheck the bonus, they toned it down from 3.5.


Cold Beer wrote:
DM Dan E wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You make Bluff checks everytime an NPC lies to the players?
When he's using his bluff skill, yes.

Oh, here's a good one. I do the same...

...but, I also have lots of "fake" rolls behind the screen to cloud the issue. I make it a point to roll a few red herring rolls occasionally to keep the players on their toes.

Me: Okay, which way do you guys go?
Player 1: North, toward the light...
Me: *rolls*
Player 2: Whoa, why did he just roll?
Player 1: Traps? Player 3, search for traps.
Player 3: *rolls* 23?
Me: You don't find any traps.
Player 1: Crap!

You can't do this continually (unless your running Call of Cthulu) or you end up with an extremely paranoid group on your hands.

You allow your players to roll for searching for traps? Wouldn't that give them a chance to have an idea if they succeed or not based on what the total was? Shouldn't it be rolled in secret so they don't know if they succeed and there wasn't a trap, failed and there was a trap, or failed and there wasn't a trap?

Liberty's Edge

GregH wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
DM Dan E wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You make Bluff checks everytime an NPC lies to the players?
When he's using his bluff skill, yes.
I only roll when the players want to Sense Motive. Even if the NPC isn't bluffing.

This actually gets into a rules interpretation question. Let's say that the PCs want to sense motive. They roll 20, NPC rolls a 1. If the NPC was actually telling the truth, how do you adjudicate that? In the past I'd say that they have no reason to believe he was lying (because he wasn't) but then I use a screen and there is no way the players would know I rolled a 1. How do you adjudicate that if the rolls are in the open?

Greg

I tell them that there's no chance that the NPC is lying. I don't understand what the problem is, here.

Unless the PC's know what the NPC's Bluff modifier is - something I don't broadcast - Sense Motive acts the same as it would with a screen.

Player 1: I want to Sense Motive. (rolls a 13) With my SM Modifier, that's an 18.

Me: (Rolls a 10 in the open) You believe that the ruffian is telling the truth.

How does that give the PC any more or less information than they'd have had with a screen? Is the ruffian lying with a modifier of 9 or higher? Or is he telling the truth, at which point his modifier doesn't really matter? My PC's don't know, because they're more interested in what I've told them than what I rolled. I've told them they think the guy is telling the truth, so they go forward under that assumption.


pres man wrote:
You allow your players to roll for searching for traps? Wouldn't that give them a chance to have an idea if they succeed or not based on what the total was? Shouldn't it be rolled in secret so they don't know if they succeed and there wasn't a trap, failed and there was a trap, or failed and there wasn't a trap?

I've done it both ways. I've also had them roll a few dozen times and have them give me a list of their rolls at the start of the session. I'd scratch off the rolls as they're made. It depends on the group.

Our current group is good about not meta-gaming low or high rolls for stuff like that. I find that letting them do the rolling is good for morale and keeps the load off me.


Jeremiziah wrote:
I don't understand what the problem is, here.

The problem is that I'm not used to running without a screen. So, being curious, I asked a question on how one would handle the situation. TOZ gave a good answer.

There's really no reason to be snippy about this. I may believe in using screens, but I am actually trying to see the other side of things.

Greg


The answer to the OP's question of "GM Screens: They're toxic. Yes or No?" is yes and no.

The answer varies from GMs to GMs and players to players. Everyone has a style and a preference, so their is no right or wrong answer here.

For example,
I let the players roll next to all skills and save except for the odd surprise I have planned or odd skill situation, but let the dice fall as they are.
Most of the rolls for NPCs, I do behind the screen with a few in player view when things get climatic. Now I will fudge A roll if the party is having a really bad day, and have a jinx like condition where nothing goes right. Now I do allow A re-roll if a player has had nothing but bad luck like; rolling three 1's in a row, or not rolling anything over 6 before the bonuses (note both of these have occurred at least twice in my games)

I do keep a lot of notes and NPC data blocks on hand so the screen is helpful in keeping it out of player minds, as curiosity is always there even if it is subconscious.

But is my style the End all, be all answer. The answer is no, it's not. Again everyone has a preference and a style they enjoy.

Liberty's Edge

GregH wrote:
There's really no reason to be snippy about this.

Sorry, the internet fails at conveying tone. I was not trying to be snippy. My apologies.


Honestly, as a DM, I don't personally care if the rolls are known or not 99% of the time, but when I care, I really do care, and the screen has enough other uses, with its charts and ability to hide notes, that I'd be more inclined than not to use it to roll behind since I'd have it there anyway for multiple other reasons, and it would give me a defined area to roll in instead of having to worry about looking all the way across the table to try to read a dice that felt like rolling a bit.

As for players rolling their own perception rolls, if they are the ones declaring the action, I usually let them roll, regardless of what the roll is for. Most people I play with are good about not metagaming, and if they know they did particularly well, or particularly bad, it gives them a chance for them to control the cinematics of the reaction, instead of me having to put words or actions onto their character. It also makes the players themselves feel more involved in the game, and thus, more likely to pay attention.


Jeremiziah wrote:
Sorry, the internet fails at conveying tone. I was not trying to be snippy. My apologies.

S'all right.

Greg


DM Dan E wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Kind of late to the party, but when I'm the GM I roll everything in front of my players. Win or lose they know everything's straight up.
Really? When the crime lord makes his bluff check you roll in front of the players?

The die's getting rolled at some point in the conversation, and yes, where they can see it, but I probably won't tell them what the roll was for.

Or he might just take 10 and call it a day.

In my current campaign it hasn't been all that relevant because the one NPC who did a lot of lying to the PCs had so much more Bluff than anyone in the party had Sense Motive that if he had rolled a 1 and the best of them had rolled a 20 he still would have beat them, so I didn't even bother with the roll.


Jeremiziah wrote:

I tell them that there's no chance that the NPC is lying. I don't understand what the problem is, here.

Unless the PC's know what the NPC's Bluff modifier is - something I don't broadcast - Sense Motive acts the same as it would with a screen.

Player 1: I want to Sense Motive. (rolls a 13) With my SM Modifier, that's an 18.

Me: (Rolls a 10 in the open) You believe that the ruffian is telling the truth.

It's probably just me, and living life with my own mother convinced that every word I speak is a lie - even when telling her things she would have punished me for if she believed me - but I never tell a player what they believe as far as sense motive goes.

I tell them what it seems the person speaking believes - such as "he doesn't seem to believe his own words," or "He seems to believe what he is telling you."

It's a subtle difference, but it allows room for the player to do like my mother does - see no sign of deception, and still think they are being lied to.

151 to 200 of 264 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / GM Screens: They're toxic. Yes or No? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.