|
I have a line of index cards that keep track of initiative in front of me. I roll behind that, which means that if a player really wants to look at what I'm rolling, they can and I have no problem with that. If they don't want to look, then they just let the index cards block them.
Except for Bonekeep. When I ran Bonekeep, I bought one of the bigger Paizo d20s and rolled in the middle of the table. Go ahead. Do the math in your head. Be scared. It will make your death that much sweeter.
|
|
I use a screen. One thing I liked about D&D 4th ed. is the fact that their screen was landscape as opposed to portrait, so it was shorter and didn't obstruct view to the players as much. That said, I fidget. A lot. So I end up standing for most of the scenarios anyway. While I do roll behind the screen, the main purpose is to hide my miniatures and tokens to have them at hand when I need them while keeping them a surprise. Nothing like whipping out a couple water elementals when everyone's expecting human enemies. Also, it keeps my stat blocks obscured. I just roll behind it because it's inconvenient to roll over the screen.
|
I use the Pathfinder DM screen, just because it provides a lot of information so I'm not constantly checking the book, or my laptop. It allows me to view stuff not normally accessible, so to speak, and I appreciate that fact. Also, my players do not need to know every DC and roll I am making, and I don't approve of them gaining information based off of die rolls and simple math. It negates much of the fun, and I've had to start weaning them off of gathering information from me that I don't want them to know.
|
|
I hardly ever use a screen, but I've started using one because it's nice to clip images and artwork on the front of it for players to see (like pictures of NPCs and so on) - in that sense it can *help* with immersion.
As for hiding dice rolls, I've never really bothered with that, though I don't particularly make an effort to "roll in the open", either.
As a player, I'm not particularly impressed when a GM rolls in the open, either.
|
As a GM, I prefer making hidden rolls (I don't use a screen; I play online).
The reasons being, first, I know I can trust myself with how I roll.
Second, I want to be able to decide to fudge dice to save players if I roll a string of 20s through half the game and the game is really becoming less fun as a result. I don't actually recall a time in my history of running games when I've had to invoke that, but I want the option.
The players don't get to know if the bad guy is doing 2d6+6 or 1d4+2, but they know how much damage they receive. I play the bad guys in a way that they don't know whether the characters are doing 3d6 or 1d6 either.
|
|
The danger - and this is somewhat philosophical, I suppose - with "fudging" by the GM is that the game ceases to be "a game" and becomes "the GM's forced narrative"... which is never as fun as playing a game.
So I am strenuously opposed to GM "fudging" - if a GM feels inclined to do this, it's in his or her players' best interest to roll openly.
|
|
I used to use a screen but it prevents players from seeing the initiative order and thus being ready for their turns. I have found my players meta game less now that I gave up the screen. I count up the damage rather than count down the hp, and I don't particularly care if they see how much damage they have done (they used to add that up out loud any way). They have no new knowledge about how much damage something will take.
I don't find they are any more or less likely to peek at the scenario and "cheaters gonna cheat" in that case.
I roll Trap Finding, Disable Device, and when necessary, Disguise checks. Because the players shouldn't know if they automatically win on those.
"So you've found the trap."
"I wish to disarm it."
/gm roll
"You believe you've cut the right wires."
"I'll open the chest."
"The lid of the chest flies open and..." Drama and anticipation. Loot or death?
/edit: Did not realize this was an organized play question. Still, that's how I run games.
|
|
The thing about GMs fudging dice is that players will almost never ask for a GM to "go easy" when it comes to wanting it - it's almost considered blasphemy - and players who don't want fudging for all the reasons mentioned above will always be vocal if it's mentioned.
Having said that, I think I strike a pretty good balance - like I said, I don't recall ever having done it to date. Games that I've run have generally been on the easy side thanks to my bad luck rolling, rather than on the hard side due to my good luck rolling :)
End of the day, fun must outweigh challenge, regardless of your tastes. For some people those are the same thing, and for some people, it's not.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I generally use a screen, mainly because I caught a player once reading the scenario from my printed copy. In regards to open rolls, however...
I roll behind a screen in 1-5s or 1-7s.
I consider rolling behind a screen in 3-7s.
I never roll behind a screen in 5-9s or 7-11s - the rolls are public.
I roll all enemy saves in public. This led to a particularly amusing incident whereby I rolled a 2, the party Witch was rejoicing slumbering a creature...only to find that its Will save was higher than her DC.
I think that, when done, fudging should still be close. Shave off an HP or 2 of damage here or there. Sometimes, it's impossible to save players from themselves, but give some new players some slack. Always remember there is a human element to this game.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
PFCBG: I recently came across a screen that I'm really enjoying - it's made up of 6 4X6 panels. It works really well, and it's low enough that I can easily chat with my players without it being a hindrance. I mainly want the psychological aspect of there being a divider between my area and the players' area, and showing that they shouldn't look at my stuff.
|
|
PFCBG: I recently came across a screen that I'm really enjoying - it's made up of 6 4X6 panels. It works really well, and it's low enough that I can easily chat with my players without it being a hindrance. I mainly want the psychological aspect of there being a divider between my area and the players' area, and showing that they shouldn't look at my stuff.
I don't think I could get in the habit of using a screen at this point, 'm already so used to not using one that it wouldn't feel natural.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
I use a screen and a 3-ring easel binder in which I place the scenario. I typically roll behind the screen because it just more convenient for me to do so.
However, whenever I score a threat, I always move the screen to show the players. Any threat and/or crit that comes up, they get to see. I roll enough of them that showing them is the easiest way to demonstrate it's true.
|
|
I roll Trap Finding, Disable Device, and when necessary, Disguise checks. Because the players shouldn't know if they automatically win on those.
"So you've found the trap."
"I wish to disarm it."
/gm roll
"You believe you've cut the right wires."
"I'll open the chest."
"The lid of the chest flies open and..." Drama and anticipation. Loot or death?
/edit: Did not realize this was an organized play question. Still, that's how I run games.
I do about the same narrative even with the player's rolling.
Player: Rolls an 18 while disabling a trap.
Me: You believe you've cut the right wires... the dot dot dot is the key part! :-)
Player: Rolls a 20 on their perception.
Me: You don't believe the door to be trapped...
I also have the players pre-roll several perceptions and sense motives before the game starts and have them record them on the cards I use to keep track of initiative. I usually decide before looking at them which of the scores to keep (usually the second or third and almost never the first because players tend to record their best roll first...). Then in certain situations I'll let the players roll for their sense motive or perception but will secretly use the roll from their card. It adds a bit of mystery w/o me being the one who's rolling the dice.
Player: Rolls a 20 on their perception for a total score of 32.
Me: You don't believe the chest is trapped. It even looks like it's unlocked.
Player: Sweet! I open it up, what's inside?
Me: Boom!
Player: WTF? A 32 didn't detect that?
Me: Well a 32 would have, however I was using your second perception roll that you made before the game which was only a 19.
Player: Nuts.
In this situation, if the player had rolled a really low number, they would have reacted more cautiously and either searched again or had someone else search for them. Occasionally you get the good player who can resist the urge to metagame the roll and act the same as if they had taken a 10 or rolled a 20.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I used to roll in the open, but then I ran a couple of scenarios (in a row, I think) where I really needed to protect some information. Quite unexpectedly, I discovered that I liked the screen's effect on my space management at the table, so now I use it pretty consistently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
for all those who don't use GM screens... don't you find the players always trying to look at your notes/ module, since its out in the open?
|
|
for all those who don't use GM screens... don't you find the players always trying to look at your notes/ module, since its out in the open?
I was worried about this but no, not really. I just don't leave the page I am looking at sitting out in the open, but cover it with another page if I am not looking up a stat. I also keep all my minis in a small box and bring them out as I need them.
The honest truth is that it was a bigger problem when I had a screen. Players just need to go for that "forbidden fruit" for some reason with the peek behind the screen when they get up etc.
I also figure "cheaters gonna cheat".
|
|
A GM who wants to cheat on the monsters' behalf will want a screen... but so will a GM who wants to cheat on the players' behalf.
So if your GM uses a screen, the question is--is he trying to kill you, or trying to save you?
All GM's who want to cheat (for or against the players, regardless) will want to use a screen, however not all GM's who use a screen will want to cheat.
|
As a player I like being able to see GM rules, not really as a matter of openness or accountability, but to me it's more exciting to see the roll and either celebrate a low roll or dread a threat/crit. In the home game I run I used to hide rolls, but I prefer to let the PC's see now and know that whatever happens it's the dice deciding and not me trying to pamper/punish them.
|
|
I use a (official paizo) GM screen, though I also stand for virtually all of the session in order to make sure I have the player's attention and also to accentuate roleplay
I roll behind the screen, keep my notes/prep stuff/pawns/minis there and utilize many of the helpful charts/tables that are on it
I generally prefer the screen as well for hiding the occasional fudged roll in favor of the players, though I do not think if you asked any of my players they would know that I occasionally do so
EDIT: Just realized this was specifically for PFS, in which case everything above still pretty much applies, but my pro-player fudging becomes virtually non-existent
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've recently changed how I roll my dice, having always used a full screen in the past. I like having a screen to hide minis and notes, as well as to hang pictures from - though I don't like if it's too high as it does overly separate me from the players.
So what I've done is make my own screen from 2 landscape pieces of cardstock, which I've decorated with maps of Golarion on the outside and a few charts on the inside. I set this up just off-center to my left. Then I can easily do most of my rolls in the open, but if I need to make a hidden roll I can use the screen.
After hiding all my rolls for the better part of 30+ years, I find I really like rolling out in the open, at least for attacks and saves. I notice the players being more engaged with my end of the combat as well, eagerly watching to see how the die falls. It makes for a more engaging and exciting combat.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A GM who wants to cheat on the monsters' behalf will want a screen... but so will a GM who wants to cheat on the players' behalf.
So if your GM uses a screen, the question is--is he trying to kill you, or trying to save you?
I find this to be offensive, really. I don't cheat. I like to have the screen for a number of reasons:
1. It helps me control the real estate I have available to me at the table.2. I like to keep die rolls secret because it keeps people guessing.
3. I want to the keep the scenario and papers hidden from the very few players who have prying eyes.
But, please - don't suggest that those of us who use screens want to cheat.
I can say i almost always use a screen... has nothing to do with "Gm's wanting to cheat" but I usually have alot of stuff behind the screen.
Modules, notes, notes that are "constantly getting updated round by round " etc.. and players WILL cheat and look at anything.
I've read almost all the books for D&D... so I know it doesn't take much to put 2+2 together.
I always use a screen. I think it adds a measure of secrecy to the game. Also it hides any notes I might be taking and keeps the players honest so they do not feel the need to peek. If I ever feel the need to fudge a roll behind my screens it is always in the favor of the players.