|
Stemming from a conversation in another thread, I had posted this:
I see an opportunity to push my "DM screens are toxic" agenda, here, so I will.
All rolls, from everyone, should just be made in the open. If the Wizards SoD's a BBEG in round one, so be it. That's why he chose to play a wizard, to do stuff like that.
The very presence of a DM screen on a table is like an open invitation for everyone to fudge the occasional roll. The rules should apply as evenly to the DM as they do to the players, and in cases where the DM is fiating something, he should make that clear.
These are my opinions. I'm certainly not blaming you for your friend's cheating. I have had friends that did this before, it's totally lame.
Hama replied that he disagreed:
I have to respectfully disagree. DMs screen is very useful. Players have no business seing NPC stat blocks, and DMs rolls. That is why they chose that person to be GM.
I would like to hear more about why Hama feels the players have no business seeing the rolls - I agree that they have no business seeing the statblocks, but I use Combat Manager for those, so that's not a real concern for me. I don't think "they have no business" is really a reason, and would be curious to hear what the reason is.
I am curious to hear other's opinions on the matter as well. Engage. Please?
|
|
What rolls?
I find that, as a GM, if I just start making rolls for no reason (as far as the players know), they don't pay me much attention. If I roll Stealth for 6 Orcs, it's not like I sit there and tabulate bonuses and announce results. I just roll six dice really quickly. Nobody generally asks questions.
Does this not work for other people?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
What he means is, that players can extrapolate npc statistics from seeing the effects of dice rolls. If the dm rolls a 12, and hits the player with a 25 AC, then the players now know the enemy has at least a +13 attack bonus. This encourages a certain level of metagame thinking.
For instance, if a player notices that the enemy has a relatively low to hit, he might drop his sheild and 2 hand his weapon, or if he has a to hit so high it wont matter, a wizard might not bother to cast a defensive buff spell like shield. Or if a monster rolls a 5 and saves on a fort save, the player might not cast/use a fortitude based ability again.
The idea is the players should only know as much as their characters know, and certainly they dont know attack and save bonuses of the enemy, just how often they are or arent saving/hitting over the course of combat.
I have to agree with Hama, that hidden rolling is useful. Rolling openly introduces a metagame level to players, whereby they can assume opponents stats. Especially in a sandbox game, (*strawman alert*) in a SoD situation what if the Pc's are fighting something out of their league the dice shows a low roll (3 or something) and the GM declares that it has saved. The players now have to pretend that they do not know how powerful the creature is.
I see the benefit of open rolling, but still a gm screen is a useful tool.
I roll most of my rolls in the open--although I also keep a GM screen or laptop up for the information it provides--but I do find sometimes it's better to roll surreptitiously if you have players prone to metagaming. I have had players freak out because they saw me roll a handful of dice and see a "20" come up (when it might have been a 20 on a knowledge: history check for all they knew, as last moment I was trying to decide how much an NPC knew something). Of course, while in those cases, I sometimes just play out the players' worst fears rather than the innocuous thing I was planning ;) sometimes it's better if they're not trying to figure out what you're rolling--at best it at least prevents some distraction.
Now, that said, I think the underlying issue in this question is really about a contract of trust between the GM and players. If GM and players have a good relationship, it honestly shouldn't matter at all whether die rolls are hidden or not. If secrecy--which may be merely intended to keep up suspense or to avoid misleading players--is seen as "toxic" the real issue is that a player does not trust his or her GM probably for a number of reasons--reasons which should probably be addressed, as that general sense of paranoia cannot contribute positively to the game (or the GM is deserving his or her reputation, again for a number of reasons, not for the tools the GM is using).
The GM screen is a tool. Like many tools they can be used well and misused.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I choose to make rolls openly sometimes.
I don't think GM screens are "toxic". The GM has the power to set the challenge of the game. The only difference between choosing a higher or lower CR and fudging a die roll is timing (well, and consistency).
Different groups will have vastly different policies on the matter. You can't pronounce something "toxic" simply because it wouldn't work well for your style.
What about concealing maps and GM notes? What about the handy information on the backside of the screen?
If a GM wants to fudge rolls, he'll fudge rolls. No amount of die visibility is going to change that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, my players insisted that I roll their Fort saves in secret, concerning afflictions like poison or disease. Why? Because then its "Oh crap...was I poisoned?", instead of "Yep. I rolled a 18...pretty sure that beats a small monstrous spider's DC."
If you seriously don't trust your DM/GM...then why are you playing with them?
I see an opportunity to push my "DM screens are toxic" agenda, here, so I will.
(snip)
I am curious to hear other's opinions on the matter as well. Engage. Please?
Most of it boils down to whether fudging the dice is crime or a tool for the DM, and to whether allow the players to extrapolate stats from the dice values is unwanted metagaming or not.
But like Hama, I have other things behind the screen than a space to roll dice. Counters, maps, stablock etc.
In that regard, your laptop IS a DM screen. As long your are not projecting your screen on the wall for everyone to see, making it virtual doesn't make it less for-your-DM's-eyes only.
'findel
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are rolls that should be secret.
The first category are things the player's shouldn't know because their players don't. You are hiding from orcs. They make a Perception roll. The player shouldn't know how well the orcs roll, only how they react. This is true for all opposed rolls.
If a kobold sorcerer throws a fireball, there's no need for players to know if its 6d6, 8d6, or 10d6. They just need to know how much damage it does. If the little guy gets 30 points of damage on 6d6, the players shouldn't automatically know he got lucky.
Rolls that can give players wildly false information, such as Appraise, should be made in private. It's asking a player a lot to pretend not to know he botched a check that told him a tiny gem is worth 5,000 gp.
Player's don't need to know the threat range of foe's attacks. Let them wonder if the highwayman is just rolling well,l or has Improved Critical with his scimitar. That uncertainty is part of what makes the game challenging and different from other games, and it can force players to guess about their best course of action, which in my experience often leads to roleplaying.
I think it depends on the players and the DM. Some players will automatically go on high alert when they know they've botched a Perception roll, and this ruins immersion for some. Other players see value in separating character knowledge from player knowledge and probably don't need policing techniques from the DM such as hidden rolls. Pretty much everyone I play with also takes turns DM-ing, so our rolls are all above board.
I know some DM's will fudge rolls in favor of monsters or players if the result ruins the story. I know I've been guilty of that earlier on in my game-playing career. The group I play with now is more of a 'let the dice fall where they may' group. It all depends on what the group considers fun.
I had a 4e group for two years with a mix of 1st time players and vets, and two of the newcomers outright told me they would cry if their characters ever died. This resulted in a couple of cheesy (but planned) 'deus ex machina' scenarios where NPC's or a fortuitous calamity had to save the party when the base encounter I wrote up was too much for them. If I did that with my current Pathfinder group, I'd be lynched.
I find large GM screens to impair roleplaying somewhat, so I don't use them. Instead I use a reduced GM screen that is only 3 inches high. It doesn't conceal most of my rolls, but if I roll near the screen it does.
I feel that at least some rolls made by the GM should be done in secret, like Perception, Stealth, Sense Motive, and some knowledge checks.
Also, I find it's much too easy to "game" a GM that rolls completely out in the open. You can usually stat a creature on the first round by observing his roll and what he needed to hit. That in itself is distracting.
Secret rolls are required in some abilities, a few examples,
Trap Spotter (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate Perception skill check to notice the trap. This check should be made in secret by the GM
Linguistics (Int; Trained Only).......
.....Create or Detect Forgeries: Forgery requires writing materials appropriate to the document being forged. To forge a document on which the handwriting is not specific to a person, you need only to have seen a similar document before, and you gain a +8 bonus on your check. To forge a signature, you need an autograph of that person to copy, and you gain a +4 bonus on the check. To forge a longer document written in the hand of some particular person, a large sample of that person's handwriting is needed.The Linguistics check is made secretly, so that you're not sure how good your forgery is. As with Disguise, you don't make a check until someone examines the work. Your Linguistics check is opposed by the Linguistics check of the person who examines the document to verify its authenticity. The examiner gains modifiers if any of the conditions are listed on the table above.....
I positively, absolutely, cannot stand fudging of dice!
Why?
Because every single time I work my spellcasters to a high enough level that I get access to save or dies (or effective save or dies), or a good character build finally comes together the way I envision, suddenly the GM's dice start failing.
It's a FACT that many GMs will screw save or die spellcasters out of their spell if they think it doesn't help the scene.
SCREW THAT. I didn't put all that work into getting my character to where he is today just to have him not matter due to a GM wanting the story to go his way.
A good GM lets the dice land where they may, is extremely adaptable, AND keeps things fun and interesting for everyone, even if the BBEG goes down in round one.
I find large GM screens to impair roleplaying somewhat, so I don't use them.
I agree that large DM screen tend to isolate the DM from the rest of the players. In a game where everyone should be having fun together, I find this isolation undesirable. Same can be said with laptops. When all you see of the DM is a pair of eyes above the back of a (usually blank) LCD screen, I don't feel I'm playing with that person.
Personally, I use one or two CD cases with useful info on both sides as my screens.
'findel
|
|
Now, that said, I think the underlying issue in this question is really about a contract of trust between the GM and players. If GM and players have a good relationship, it honestly shouldn't matter at all whether die rolls are hidden or not. If secrecy--which may be merely intended to keep up suspense or to avoid misleading players--is seen as "toxic" the real issue is that a player does not trust his or her GM probably for a number of reasons--reasons which should probably be addressed, as that general sense of paranoia cannot contribute positively to the game (or the GM is deserving his or her reputation, again for a number of reasons, not for the tools the GM is using).
*nods*
I see what you're saying, and yeah, a few people have (rightly) seized on the word "toxic" and are sort of running with it. Maybe it wasn't the best word to use. "Detrimental to the game" is what I might have said, but it's not as flashy as "toxic".
I do have to disagree on one point, though. It's not that secrecy is toxic, it's that lack of trust in the other players to not metagame is toxic. In other words, what you said, only the opposite.
To me (for example), if players can't accept that their PC may have missed a Perception check and roleplay accordingly, they're in breach of the social contract inherant in an agreed-upon ruleset, and I don't have any problem with reminding them of that. I'd much rather trust them to not metagame than I would distrust that they will metagame, if you take my meaning.
But, lots of good points here, from people whose opinions I value highly. Good stuff, folks, thanks.
|
|
Secret rolls are required in some abilities, a few examples,Roll three dice whenever you need a roll kept secret. Don't say what it is for or which one counts. (Obviously, you decided that before you rolled.)
Even worse, have one NOT be a d20 and make them wonder what you're rolling THAT one for.
Also, this. I do this pretty frequently. The reason I don't use them (and disparage them at every opportunity) is precisely what Ravingdork said above about Saving Throws - I've seen that happen far, far too often, and I've vowed never to do it. My spellcaster players love me for it. Their abilities seems to land about as often as they expect them to, which they like.
I positively, absolutely, cannot stand fudging of dice!
In a game where players have to purchase every 5% increments (spells, feats, leveling-up, class features and abilities, etc), fudging the dice by "just a little +1 here and -2 there" can destroy all the players' efforts in collecting these small incremental bonuses (and by extension their strategies for success in defeating enemies etc). Destroying the players efforts to succeed is both disrespectful and definitely not fun.
That being said, fudging can be performed much more humanly and in respect of all.
'findel
|
Players get exactly as much information as they should be getting from the GM.
Well, unless the GM is a tightwad who hordes all the information for a big reveal that never comes because the players have no idea what is going on and thus can't care.
Are you sure you actually want the players to know what's going on? Or are you subconsciously playing poker with them -- keeping your cards hidden behind an implacable poker face reinforced with a GM's screen?
This should almost go without saying, but based on what I've seen it needs to be said: If you want your players to know something, you have to make sure that you actually tell it to them.
I think we often slip into the trap, while plotting out conspiracies and mysteries, of forgetting that the PCs are actually supposed to figure it out eventually. GMs often wonder why their players don't remember all the wonderful details they had worked out... when, in point of fact, the only way they could have learned those details was by secretly mastering the art of telepathy.
Hand-in-hand with this is a basic principle: Details which the PCs can never learn of or interact with aren't worth wasting time on.
There may occasionally be times when you need to work up some sort of background detail to make the foreground details hang together. But whenever you find yourself designing a detail like that, I'd like you to ask yourself a few questions: Is there any reason why the PCs shouldn't be able to learn this detail? And if they shouldn't learn it, why are you designing it? It can't be information necessary for the scenario to make sense (because if it was actually necessary, then the PCs should be learning it). And if it isn't necessary and no one will ever know about it, why are you spending time on it?
For example, I was recently re-reading the Darkness Revealed adventure trilogy for White Wolf's Trinity roleplaying game. I like the potential of these adventures a great deal, but large swaths of them are given over to describing the detailed activities and personal dramas of the NPCs. The PCs rarely have any way of learning about these dramas, which means that their experience while playing through this campaign is a little like the captain of the Titanic observing an iceberg -- he's only seeing the top 10% and the rest of it's a wreck.
The other example I always think of when talking about this wrong-headed design approach is the Ravenloft adventure Touch of Death. I found this module in the public library when I was twelve or thirteen years old. I remember reading through it and thinking that it had a pretty amazing story... and then I realized that there was absolutely no way that the PCs playing through the adventure would ever see it. The entire thing dealt with an immense and ancient power struggle between legendary NPCs. The PCs had no way of learning the history of the conflict or even, in many respects, knowing that there was a struggle going on. If you played the adventure as written, it would consist of the PCs stumbling from one incomprehensible sequence of events to another.
These are extreme examples, but they impart an important lesson: If the players never see it, then it might as well have never happened.
And look at it from the opposite point of view: If you've got this really interesting bit of history or lore or back story that you're developing... well, don't you want the players to see it? Wouldn't it be nice to share what you've created?
|
|
For instance, if a player notices that the enemy has a relatively low to hit, he might drop his sheild and 2 hand his weapon, or if he has a to hit so high it wont matter, a wizard might not bother to cast a defensive buff spell like shield. Or if a monster rolls a 5 and saves on a fort save, the player might not cast/use a fortitude based ability again.
The idea is the players should only know as much as their characters know, and certainly they dont know attack and save bonuses of the enemy, just how often they are or arent saving/hitting over the course of combat.
But the players are going to figure that stuff out anyway.
Unless all you are doing is saying 'okay, he misses you' or 'made his save', the players are going to pick up that that enemy is not very good at hitting, and that other one is really tough.
What's the difference between the player switching to two-handed from sword and board when they learn the enemies attack bonus, from switching when you describe the wild, misaimed swings the enemy makes? Functionally none. You just don't like the first one.
stuff about player figuring stats outBut the players are going to figure that stuff out anyway.
Unless all you are doing is saying 'okay, he misses you' or 'made his save', the players are going to pick up that that enemy is not very good at hitting, and that other one is really tough.
What's the difference between the player switching to two-handed from sword and board when they learn the enemies attack bonus, from switching when you describe the wild, misaimed swings the enemy makes? Functionally none. You just don't like the first one.
Hiding the rolls will at least eliminate the "guys, he got through my AC 26 with a 4!" or "its OK guys, he's only throwing 6 dice for his fireball" etc.
Then of course DMs like me hint those anyways from behind the screen, like "he managed to hit you with apparent ease" or "you've seen the worst of an otherwise unimpressive fireball". Yet I prefer that to the metagaming resulting from seeing the dice...
Yet I prefer that to the metagaming resulting from seeing the dice...It's still metagaming either way.
Off course it is, but I find it more elegant metagaming
eh, now I'm making less and less sense...
I guess I simply don't like these exclamations shouted around the table. This gives me an illusion of control over the narrative of the game and, and...
I'm actually fine either ways. It really depends with whom I play and what style of game I go for. But I do think there is a use for hiding rolls, whether it really is useful with that particular game and that particular group is situational for me. I certainly don't think they are toxic (unless they physically block the human interaction between players and DMs), but are superfluous in perfect conditions.
'findel
|
|
I have to admit, I'm encouraged that TOZ seems to be agreeing with me.
I was starting to think I was crazy for doing things the way I do it.
Still, I'm going one step beyond "you get the metagaming either way" into the territory of "you get the metagaming either way, and risk fostering distrust among your players, who might see withholding crucial information as a bad thing". I mean, there's already scads of information you know that the players don't, and want to. A lot of the game (the "role-playing" side) is focused on them coaxing that information out of you slowly. I just happen to think that spellcaster players deserve to see that their spell failed when it fails, and all players deserve to see why they're dead when they die.
Sure, as Owen and others pointed out upthread, there are rolls you don't want your players to see, but it's easy enough to (as TOZ suggested) roll multiple dice for those rolls, roll on a side table, or utilize any other number of ways to conceal those few rolls. I'm not against concealed rolls when appropriate so much as I am erecting a physical wall between yourself and the players that as much as screams, "It's me vs. you guys!", when the actual attitude I'd rather foster is "All of us are working together to have fun."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Already said, but +1 to using a screen. Almost all rolls have modifiers, and I don't want to give away info by rolling in front of them. They don't need to know how monster X made its save, or why it hits them so often while another one barely hits at all.
Players can't metagame that much if they don't see your rolls. If another GM does it another way, fine. If he's "out to get us," it becomes obvious in time, anyway.
I'm not against concealed rolls when appropriate so much as I am erecting a physical wall between yourself and the players that as much as screams, "It's me vs. you guys!", when the actual attitude I'd rather foster is "All of us are working together to have fun."
To be fair, I've seen the "It's me vs. you guys!" both with and without screens (the most extreme case without a screen - DM wanted to make sure we'd see how he'd beat us) and the friendly "we're all here to have fun together" with and without the screen.
Throwing several dice and pick one (or throwing extra d6 and not count them for damage) is simply another subterfuge to prevent the players from reading the numbers: it is no different in principles than hiding the roll. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that incurs as much 'cheating' as rolling behind the screen.
DM screen isn't toxic in itself, but certain practices that have noting to do with the DM screen are.
'findel
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Include me in the public rolling camp, for exactly the reasons already explained above. I usually bring a DM screen, but that's mostly to hide maps and such. Most of the time, I take it down halfway through the game because I get tired of standing up to see the battlemat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its got nothing to do with fudging.
There are simply times where having the players see the DMs roles is deterimental to the game because it provides the players with information that their characters don't.
Example
Sleazy PC sorcerer casts charm person on barmaid.
Barmaid is in reality a 12th level assassin sent to deal with said sleazy PC.
If all dice rolls are made in the open said player knows immediately something is up when said barmaid makes her will save despite rolling a 10.
Given making some rolls openly and some rolls not creates its own very similar problem best for the GM to make all rolls secretly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM screen isn't toxic in itself, but certain practices that have noting to do with the DM screen are.
I can certainly agree with that, and I have no problem using a screen or not, as long as it is what my players want.
Let me up the ante on this discussion.
I've run games where the entire dungeon was visible to the players. And I trusted them not to metagame their exploration of it.
*waits for heads to explode*
I personally make most rolls in full view of everyone. However, the rules heavily imply (if not outright state) that some rolls should be made in secret (searching for traps, for example, or sense motive). Nothing stopping you from rolling 'em in the open, but I don't think following the rules implies that the GM is out to screw anyone.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only play by the rules when the rules serve the story. A good, memorable story triumphs over all other traits of an RPG in my mind. If I throw in an encounter with relatively unimportant monsters, I'll let the dice fall as they may. Maybe the orc gets a lucky crit. Maybe the party vaporizes him before he gets to act. Either way, the players get to shed a little blood and enjoy some dice-rolling.
Now, when the time comes for a confrontation with a major story aspect (whether it be a villain or simply some manner of environmental/skill-based challenge), I will let the dice suggest a course of action, but I will by no means be totally constrained by them. If the PCs are navigating an underground tunnel and trigger a cave-in that deals damage to them, and I roll damage high enough to render the whole party unconscious and/or dying on a whim? No way. That's not happening. Ignoble death at the hands of a cave-in is not the end of a good story. So I fudge the damage enough to let a few of the tougher party members stay up. Now they, wounded and battered, must extract their fallen companions from the rubble and get them to safety.
Similarly, if a major villain is in danger of getting taken down by a single lucky x4 crit in the opening round? He's suddenly going to have far more HP and/or DR than I originally calculated to allow him to survive that blow and present a viable threat to the PCs. That said, the crit is certainly going to MATTER, as he'll be much easier to take on afterwards, but there's no tale to be told of the barbarian who walks in and turns the evil wizard to paste before he can even utter a word.
That, in short, is why I believe in GM screens. It's also why I don't run modules and adventure paths.. or use statblocks, really. I basically don't even play the game, now that I think about it. I tell a story and vaguely insert game mechanics around pivotal moments in the tale. :)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll see your raise, TOZ.
I'm starting to think that I want the players to have more DM information. I've taken a DM break, and have been on the other side of the screen for a while. It's been an interesting experience, in part because the DM is running an AP and I've played a portion of it and read/skimmed through most of the volume. I have vague ideas of how things go, what the enemies are etc.
There's another player who's co-DMing. He steps in whenever our newb DM can't make it, but tries to limit what he reads to the bare minimum necessary to fill in.
However, between the two of us, we generate a shit-ton of information about the game for the other players. The questions that normally get funneled through the DM that are needed for immersion, but kill momentum (e.g., what's the weather typically like, how far away is x, etc) are handled by us on the side.
Another time when it comes in handy is with Knowledge checks (particularly monsters). Again, instead of the DM telling me to tell the group about a monster, if I hit the roll, I can just tell them what I already know. If I miss the roll, I shrug my shoulders and have my character attack the troll without any handy fire or acid.
I'm not advocating for perfect player information by any means. But I do think it's possible that, with the right players, the level of player knowledge could be cranked up significantly in my campaigns and would likely make them more fun for everyone involved.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll raise you again, Sebastian.
Players should have more input in the game.
When they roll a fumble, the DM doesn't say what happens. The player describes how he fumbles.
I had a player in my first Shackled City game state 'I'm going to go see my underground contact Rourke'. Right out of the blue, first time mention ever. I had to roll with the punch and come up swinging.
Rourke went on to become a minor villain of the game, as the guildmaster of the Alleybashers.
The game was thoroughly enriched by the player stepping up and contributing to the game world. I'd like to see that happen more.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
When they roll a fumble, the DM doesn't say what happens. The player describes how he fumbles.
I had a player in my first Shackled City game state 'I'm going to go see my underground contact Rourke'. Right out of the blue, first time mention ever. I had to roll with the punch and come up swinging.
I love this kind of thing, but it's very difficult to handle elegantly. Most players are conditioned to avoid this kind of behavior by default and if you encourage it, they may end up taking it way too far. So you're stuck with the choice of not having player involvement, or having the players essentially run the game without you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to hear more about why Hama feels the players have no business seeing the rolls - I agree that they have no business seeing the statblocks, but I use Combat Manager for those, so that's not a real concern for me. I don't think "they have no business" is really a reason, and would be curious to hear what the reason is.
I am curious to hear other's opinions on the matter as well. Engage. Please?
My players are able to quickly do the math and almost immediately parse out the modifiers/stats of whatever they are going up against. Thus, all my rolls remain hidden.
|
|
Now, that said, I think the underlying issue in this question is really about a contract of trust between the GM and players. If GM and players have a good relationship, it honestly shouldn't matter at all whether die rolls are hidden or not. If secrecy--which may be merely intended to keep up suspense or to avoid misleading players--is seen as "toxic" the real issue is that a player does not trust his or her GM probably for a number of reasons--reasons which should probably be addressed, as that general sense of paranoia cannot contribute positively to the game (or the GM is deserving his or her reputation, again for a number of reasons, not for the tools the GM is using).*nods*
I see what you're saying, and yeah, a few people have (rightly) seized on the word "toxic" and are sort of running with it. Maybe it wasn't the best word to use. "Detrimental to the game" is what I might have said, but it's not as flashy as "toxic".
I do have to disagree on one point, though. It's not that secrecy is toxic, it's that lack of trust in the other players to not metagame is toxic. In other words, what you said, only the opposite.
To me (for example), if players can't accept that their PC may have missed a Perception check and roleplay accordingly, they're in breach of the social contract inherant in an agreed-upon ruleset, and I don't have any problem with reminding them of that. I'd much rather trust them to not metagame than I would distrust that they will metagame, if you take my meaning.
But, lots of good points here, from people whose opinions I value highly. Good stuff, folks, thanks.
I think of the GM screen like a deck of cards turned face down. It part of the game agreement that adds to the mystery and suspense not knowing what comes next, much like a face down card does.
Does a GM screen separate me from my players? Yes, yes it does, and it should, because we are different in the context of the game. You are not a player, and shouldn't mind being different. Its like being the boss and trying to be best friends with your employees, it doesn't work.
As far as fudging goes, you don't need a dice roll to fudge most times, its just the simplest method. You can always modify enemy HPs, spells remaining, to hit and saving thrown bonuses (within reason), etc. on the fly to get the results you want. So rolling dice in the open does not ensure there is total open gaming taking place, despite the fact the players might think it does.
|
with the right players
Isn't this the key to any of this, really? Surely there are some groups for which using a GM screen would be a disaster. Our group really, totally trusts our GM. We'd never assume she was cheating. On the other hand, we're much more likely to try to figure out what bonus she was adding. If we got a whole map of the dungeon, we'd have a hard time not metagaming. Now, our GM doesn't really need a screen since so many of our players don't have good enough eyesight to see her rolls anyway, but if she decided to use one, I don't think it would bother us. But having read some of the horror stories on these boards, there are people I wouldn't trust to use one.
You've got to determine the right flow of the game for your players.
The game was thoroughly enriched by the player stepping up and contributing to the game world. I'd like to see that happen more.
Couldn't agree more. One of our best moments came when a criminal had a PC hostage, and a different PC started his turn by saying, "I was in the prison with Horace Finn, and everyone knows he has horrible peripheral vision, so he won't see me come up beside him and throw this ash in his eyes..." How could the GM deny that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players should have more input in the game.
When they roll a fumble, the DM doesn't say what happens. The player describes how he fumbles.
I had a player in my first Shackled City game state 'I'm going to go see my underground contact Rourke'. Right out of the blue, first time mention ever. I had to roll with the punch and come up swinging.
That sort of player franchise is related to player trust in the "fairness" of the system. Both can be taught by the GM (or, conversely, both can be crippled by the wrong style of gamemastery).
To achieve this happy outcome, first reinforce the idea that players can and should give input into their game environment. When someone asks "is there a blacksmith in this town?" you don't roll dice, you tell them "Of course! Tell me what he's like!" Convey the idea that they can (and should) make up details of their environment, but you have veto power if their contributions would be problematic. Someone wants a tray of stout wooden tankards in the sleazy tavern (to throw during a brawl...)? No problem! They want a temple of Superheronicus in the Assassin's District: Not so much...
Obviously you don't do that if your players are killer munchkins, but even that sort of player can be brought to see reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the players are going to figure that stuff out anyway.For instance, if a player notices that the enemy has a relatively low to hit, he might drop his sheild and 2 hand his weapon, or if he has a to hit so high it wont matter, a wizard might not bother to cast a defensive buff spell like shield. Or if a monster rolls a 5 and saves on a fort save, the player might not cast/use a fortitude based ability again.
The idea is the players should only know as much as their characters know, and certainly they dont know attack and save bonuses of the enemy, just how often they are or arent saving/hitting over the course of combat.
Eventually, not immediately. There is a difference.
I don't find GM screens to be "toxic," whatever that means. I've been using them since 1st ed. AD&D. They're full of handy reference tables at a glance, block player sight of my notes, maps, and anything else I don't want my players to see (including my dice rolls). They also give me a good bounce surface for my dice, so they don't go rolling across the table.