| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Training bouts probably wouldn't use the combat rules IMO. That aside the problem is with the players acting like murderhobos with their characters - I wouldn't have a problem with observers realising that some NPC was under a haste effect (it should be visible in the way they move), I would have a problem with their deciding to murder a friendly NPC for a magic item. Try talking to them about that maybe?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM should always conceal rolls, pretty much for the reasons you cite.
Unless, in a specific case, it's more dramatic not to.
And, it's my opinion that a bad die roll should not get in the way of a good story...so I do occasionally ignore rolls in the name of making the experience more fun. (E.g. to avoid a meaningless PC death, like if Cultist #3 happens to roll max damage on a critical hit with a scythe.)
The rules of an RPG, including the dice rolls, are a framework for collective, cooperative storytelling. If the rules get in the way of telling a fun and exciting story, then they should be ignored.
This is why I don't GM PFS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of this information should have been freely available to these characters, and yet they changed the course of an entire questline because of it.
That seems like exactly the kind of information that should be available to characters. You fight someone and you get a feel for how skilled they are and whether they are moving unnaturally fast or not.
I prefer open-rolling by default. Players will usually assume you're fudging number if you roll in secret.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, as a player, I'm more suspicious of GMs who open-roll. It's been my experience that such GMs often prioritize the mechanics of the game over making sure everyone is having a fun time.
Player metagaming is my biggest pet peeve as a GM. I do not think I would enjoy GMing for the OP's group.
I agree it is not a problem with concealing dice rolls. I would expect characters to be able to tell if someone is under haste and if fighting him even in training gain a reasonable idea of his skill (unless he was making an effort to hide it).
I would however consider their decision to murder an ally just to get a magical item dubious unless it was entirely in character for them (The party of evil characters I am currently running for may well murder a former ally who had useful magical items and it would be a reasonable action, the previous good aligned party of the same players would never have done so). They should face whatever reasonable in game consequences of their actions are appropriate. No more help from allies, being arrested or whatever. Given the OP indicates this was not a sensible behavior from the group they would come to regret it as a natural consequence in a typical game I ran. However this may well be more a problem of playstyle if the group has not been together for long and if it is it should be resolved by talking
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, as a player, I'm more suspicious of GMs who open-roll. It's been my experience that such GMs often prioritize the mechanics of the game over making sure everyone is having a fun time.
Player metagaming is my biggest pet peeve as a GM. I do not think I would enjoy GMing for the OP's group.
Well, no-one would need to metagame at your table, because you fudge the dice. (Do PCs ever die in your campaign, and if so, when? When it's good drama? When it's on the basis of a failed save, since the players presumably roll those instead of you?)
I've played in games with more ruthless GMing, and that makes me metagame the numbers as best I can. My mental process goes something like, "This random encounter is beyond us at this level. The animal companion is going to die, but he's replaceable. If I withdraw now I can make it out... but if I debuff the enemy first we might be able to get the cleric out too. Now, the GM said the enemy was a fey, suggesting high Reflex and Will saves, but judging by the numbers so far he's reflavoring, using the stats for an ogre, and that means low Reflex save. So Grease to make him fall over has the best chance. But I might fail my concentration check. I'm at full HP, so if I intentionally provoke AoO with movement I'll survive on anything short of a crit, then I can cast it from 30 feet away with no failure chance, and that will mean the cleric can then move away without taking an AoO. Yes, that's my best chance of minimising casualties."
Whether that kind of thing is fun is a matter of taste.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My preference is to roll in view. This because when you roll that crit and a player character dies you can go through with it knowing you were honest and they accept it because they know it wasn't fudged.
However there are instances when I don't...
1. When it's a roll they shouldn't know the outcome of. Crucial stealth checks for instance,
2. In a survival horror style game where I want the players to feel like they are missing information. For instance it's all behind the screen in the curse of strahd game I'm running.
3. When blaggy metagamers use the dice to weasel information out that their characters wouldn't have, then go on to abuse that information.
You are well within your rights to say you'll be rolling behind he screen but be ready for the backlash. You maybe faced with the decision of dropping DMing as if they won't play, you've got no game. Ideally decisions like this would be made at the start.
One suggestion would be to start rolling a few dice in secret on the grounds that they don't know the outcome. Just three or four rolls per session. Once they're used to this, slowly increase it.
Just be aware that this is a marmite topic on here. People will either flame you For destroying player enjoyment or defend to the death your right to bear concealed dice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Open dice rolling is good for a certain kind of drama. When the enemy rolls a natural 20 on an attack, and then another natural 20 to confirm, that's usually more exciting than if the GM just rolls some dice and then says, "38 damage."
If I had this problem I would tell the players that I would roll openly, but only if they didnt use the information. From there they would have to choose to not see the information, or to see it and not use it.
You can also ask why they want the rolls to be open.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A blend of both works well. You really have to size up the mood and if meta knowledge would negatively impact the game, roll secretly. If there's a tense moment and everyone is holding their breath roll in front of them.
Sometimes roll dice just to make the player think.
"Why are you rolling?!"
"No reason" *smile smile*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
hidden rolls are the rule, and they give the DM greater latitude to manipulate the game as he sees fit
That is good so long as he follows rule 0 00 : " don't be a dick".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My preference is to roll in view. This because when you roll that crit and a player character dies you can go through with it knowing you were honest and they accept it because they know it wasn't fudged.
If you have to open roll so your players can trust you, there are bigger problems at your table than dice rolling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My preference is to roll in view. This because when you roll that crit and a player character dies you can go through with it knowing you were honest and they accept it because they know it wasn't fudged.If you have to open roll so your players can trust you, there are bigger problems at your table than dice rolling.
I often prefer the DM to roll hidden, so he can fudge in my favor when push comes to shove... I've seen character deaths come from open dice more often than from hidden.
I roll in the open most of the time.
I don't roll bluff checks in the open because when I say "he seems to be telling the truth" it pushes them to go by the result.
I also roll saves secretly because if they target an illusion with a spell and it fails I dont want them to know it was because it was an illusion.
PS:The official rules are probably for the spell to fail being cast against invalid targets like illusions, but that school has enough problems already. <----In before this turned into a rules debate
Generally, in the open. Unless I want to make them nervous. :-)
Not only do I roll mostly hidden, I roll a few dice here and there to keep them on their toes. My groups get complacent on occasion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I roll in the open as a GM because I want players to know that if I tell them my bad guy fumbled I'm not just taking it easy on them, and when I tell them my bad guys got a critical hit, I'm not just screwing with them. They know that the dice land where the dice land. I'll usually tell them the DC of a saving throw they need to make before they roll so they know I'm playing it straight, and I'll even tell them the modifier of my NPC's saving throw before I roll. There's a small risk of meta-gaming, but I far prefer the trust that transparency brings.
I often prefer the DM to roll hidden, so he can fudge in my favor when push comes to shove... I've seen character deaths come from open dice more often than from hidden.My preference is to roll in view. This because when you roll that crit and a player character dies you can go through with it knowing you were honest and they accept it because they know it wasn't fudged.If you have to open roll so your players can trust you, there are bigger problems at your table than dice rolling.
Generally speaking, I fudge in their favor. Though I have pushed a roll or two towards a baddie, it's only been to extend a combat by a round or so to make sure everyone gets something out of it. We play APs which tend to have filler fights that don't make it past the ranger's first attack.
As a result of this, I would much rather return to concealing my rolls, however I know this suggestion will be vehemently opposed by the players.
Remember that characters should have access to skills, knowledge, experience, and training that players do not.
A player who observes you roll a "2" on an attack roll and hit their PC has gained metaknowledge. But... in-character, what the PC has seen is an enemy who didn't have to try to succeed. The PC has observed that they are outclassed.
Same thing goes for observing that an enemy gets three attacks. Sure, that tells the player something about the enemy's BAB, but it also tells the character "wow, my foe is really fast, and really good".
Metaknowledge isn't always bad. Sometimes it's good.
Something PCs definitely shouldn't know how well they or the enemy are doing, at least in my opinion.
So I definitely agree some rolls should be hidden.
Obviously that's a far favourable situation, but given that metagaming is quite clearly occurring would you be inclined to stop rolling in the open?
I'd still roll in the open, but I'd try to put the kibosh on meta-gaming by strictly enforcing rules like "stay in character" "don't have conversations with each other unless it's in character and based on what your character would know", etc.
Hopefully your players will act in good faith and will understand why meta-gaming is a problem: because it both breaks immersion in the game-world and creates problems with encounter- and adventure- design.
Sometimes it is worth sitting down with the players before a session and talking it over, as they may come from a more board-game background where meta-gaming is perfectly normal and accepted. To a newcomer, the difference between playing a board game like "Wrath of Ashardalon" (where no one is "in character") and a Pathfinder combat encounter might be indistinguishable, even though that difference is actually quite important.
My preference is to roll in view. This because when you roll that crit and a player character dies you can go through with it knowing you were honest and they accept it because they know it wasn't fudged.If you have to open roll so your players can trust you, there are bigger problems at your table than dice rolling.
It's not that they don't trust me. However charater death is a big thing in our games. Personally I don't like killing characters. We limit res by mutual consent so death is more often than not death. I'm pretty good at balancing difficulty so if a character dies it is normally either from doing something stupid or bad luck. When it's bad luck I like to have that on the table.
I also am with Matthew Downie in thinking it's more exciting if the players can see the dice. Even when I do roll a crit behind the screen I normally wince and lift the screen without touching the dice. Last week an ogre randomly crit'd the dwarf fighter in 5e at level 1. Thank god for death saves!
I dislike players seeing the dice of a Channel energy or sneak attack for the reasons The CR155 gave above.
I usually roll hidden, but some rolls I'll make in the open if they are of greater importance, such as damage rolls when the character is at death's door or (my most recent example) when I was determining how long the stun from color spray on two members of the level 4 party would last. I also tell the players the adjusted result of the roll even when hidden, so they can get an idea of whether or not they are outclassed and due to a house rule I implemented that is similar to hero points which gives players the option to force a reroll -- as I don't fudge rolls in either direction, I use this system so the players can choose when to spend points to adjust bad rolls.
|
I do all of my dice rolling behind a screen, however if my players ask to see my dice roll (e.g. if a result seems too good to be true or an enemy is consistently hitting a highest AC player) then I'm happy to let them peer behind the screen to witness the results.
My hands are in clear view so they're always happy that there's no way for me to change a roll before one of the group can step across the room to check.
If you have to open roll so your players can trust you, there are bigger problems at your table than dice rolling.
Not only do I roll mostly hidden, I roll a few dice here and there to keep them on their toes. My groups get complacent on occasion.
Generally speaking, I fudge in their favor. Though I have pushed a roll or two towards a baddie, it's only been to extend a combat by a round or so to make sure everyone gets something out of it. We play APs which tend to have filler fights that don't make it past the ranger's first attack.
If your players trust you despite fudging and prank-rolling, you have some pretty trusting players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few times I've done rolls for things like Bluff and rolled the players' Sense Motives ahead of time for a session, anticipating social interactions. The reasoning there is that even if the players don't use the metagame information of "Crap! I rolled a 1 on my Sense Motive!" to figure out they're being lied to, it takes some of the oomph out of the reveal. It's like in cliched movies or TV when you *know* something is going to happen way ahead of time and have to sit through watching some idiot on screen not realize that.
So mostly hiding rolls is a storytelling tool that I use sparingly. I like rolling combat stuff out in the open, mostly because it lets me more effectively taunt my players when I roll high. I've found that my GM happy-prospector dance loses a little punch when no one sees the double 20s I just rolled.
I'm a terrible person. The. Worst.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your players don't trust you, you're doing it wrong.
I think this boils down to the "Narrative vs. Simulation" argument. I am unabashedly a narrativist, both in my GM and play style. Story always comes before rules at my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are hiding your rolls, you need to work out what to do with players who have abilities that modify your dice rolls, especially if those abilities are written with the assumption that they know what was rolled.
I almost always roll hidden unless it's a big dramatic moment and I want the players to see the fateful die. If you roll everything in the open, players are going to do stuff like "reverse engineer monster stats" which is kind of a waste of time and effort and not really what anybody ought to be doing.
As was mentioned before, rolling stuff like bluff checks for NPCs in the open is just a terrible idea and should almost never be done unless you want to create a situation where players know the NPC is lying but their characters do not.
The "how adversarial the relationship between the players and the GM are" appears to be a generational thing. At some point the culture of D20 games shifted towards "the players want the GM to simply be the referee rather than the storyteller" and are mistrustful of any sort of intervention on the part of the GM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have to open roll so your players can trust you, there are bigger problems at your table than dice rolling.Not only do I roll mostly hidden, I roll a few dice here and there to keep them on their toes. My groups get complacent on occasion.Generally speaking, I fudge in their favor. Though I have pushed a roll or two towards a baddie, it's only been to extend a combat by a round or so to make sure everyone gets something out of it. We play APs which tend to have filler fights that don't make it past the ranger's first attack.If your players trust you despite fudging and prank-rolling, you have some pretty trusting players.
Or yknow...good players rather than some knights of the dinner table us vs gm dynamic.
|
|
This is something I've never been clear on. Does Haste actually make a character appear *unnaturally* fast when an identical effect can occur by mundane means? The character was perfectly stationary for this combat, so the only indication of Haste was the increased attack speed, which can be easily replicated by simply being more skilled. Certainly if the character suddenly gets faster that's a tell, but the players have barely even seen this guy move. First time he got up off his chair was for the bout, and they've definitely never seen him fight. What in his motion would indicate that he's under Haste rather than, say, being a high level and having multiple instances of the Fleet feat?None of this information should have been freely available to these characters, and yet they changed the course of an entire questline because of it.That seems like exactly the kind of information that should be available to characters. You fight someone and you get a feel for how skilled they are and whether they are moving unnaturally fast or not.
I prefer open-rolling by default. Players will usually assume you're fudging number if you roll in secret.
Even if you would not be able to notice that a person was under the effect of a spell, activating a spell via an item would still have a visible manifestation of the spell occur, so unless the guy was out of sight, started his haste, and then came out and instantly began fighting the players would have known he was under the effect of a spell, and should have had the opportunity to spell craft it.
And even fighting someone, if they only have 1 weapon and seem to be making multiple skillful attacks and a single lesser quality attack that is not your normal fighting technique. And that is again the sort of information you might very well be able to pick up about your opponent during a fight (assuming it lasts moderately long enough)
As for not wanting your players metagaming there are other ways to discourage it when it seems to have characters go outside their normal behavior. For instance, unless they were already told they could have all the gear from the person they killed you could simply have the person they are working with require to have his boots (I'm going on the assumption the paladin had boots of speed) If they refuse to give them to him then he does not aid them/offer whatever service they were working with him on. Or you could have have a higher level member (or group) of the paladin's order show up to confiscate some of his belongings as they were only loaned to the paladin so were not his. Force the party to defeat a more powerful opponent to 'earn' the item that seems to clearly have been too high of a reward for killing someone that could be handled by 1 party member. Potentially even indicating that fighting these Paladins could have start impacting character alignments as they continue to fight these LG Paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the chaos of my gaming room, I have a clear squarish plastic bottle (once held onion flakes or such) with four color matched pairs of d6/d10, read for high-low and digits as d20s, always in a certain order. Other dice in that bottle, as well, for easy d8s and d12s. Even if a Metamancer did gaze into this Panoptikon, they might learn only little.
But, the bottle gets lost (see 'chaos', above), and I might beg dice or dice rolls from interested or disinterested parties. All dice rolls are, by long tradition, made into star-shaped candy boxes or pool racks, to avoid dice going off the table, to be lost forever ( ^,chaos ), or at least, kill the vibe. So those rolls are open.
The Metamancers are on the job then, you can bet, but that's part of their evening's sport, and I can't begrudge them what their rules knowledge, interest, and attention to the game can earn them, not when less learned, interested, and attentive examples are too close at hand.
But I have to say, I would have to call 'shenanigans' (yes, literally - we actually say, "Shenanigans", out loud) on anything like "Hey, the math shows he has cool gear, kill him so we can take it!". If my NPCs have cool gear, it's because they have history and a place in the game world. Plunder at your peril, and be aware, the world will become aware of you.
So... Metamancy, a problem? Not my biggest problem, no. Do I hide my rolls? No, not really, but it might work out that way, or not.
I would say, focus on the fun, and the color, and let the numbers entertain the numerate, and let fools fall by their own folly. Kill a dude for his haste amulet? Such a dude must have friends. And now your Metamancer has given you a seed for the next session.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
they changed the course of an entire questline because of it.
Please send your players my way, if you have no further use for them! I WANT players who act on information, seize initiative, set their own goals, and derail the story. I WANT players who don't follow the railroad. I WANT to constantly have to keep on my feet and keep my wits about me, not knowing what's coming next but knowing I'm going to have to make all the NPCs react appropriately to something I never saw coming.
When I want to control the storyline, I write short fiction. It's fun and satisfying and doesn't require anyone else to tag along for the ride, unless they decide to read it. But when I play a game, I want to play, not dictate. I want the other participants' input. I want to be surprised.
Yes, I always roll in the open. The baddies are built strictly by the rules, and I don't fudge the numbers or the dice. In fact, I use hero points, which effectively give the players, rather than me, a limited ability to fudge a roll. For the few rolls that need to be secret -- this comes up for Perception a lot -- I use passive checks, as if the PCs are always "Taking 10." Again, no hidden rolls.
---
Not everyone likes that, mind you. It's a personal preference, and I've had players leave the game because they were specifically looking for a more passive experience, one in which they could coast on the rails. There's nothing wrong with that, but it pays to be clear up front about what kind of experience people are looking for.
If you have to open roll so your players can trust you, there are bigger problems at your table than dice rolling.Not only do I roll mostly hidden, I roll a few dice here and there to keep them on their toes. My groups get complacent on occasion.Generally speaking, I fudge in their favor. Though I have pushed a roll or two towards a baddie, it's only been to extend a combat by a round or so to make sure everyone gets something out of it. We play APs which tend to have filler fights that don't make it past the ranger's first attack.If your players trust you despite fudging and prank-rolling, you have some pretty trusting players.
Come on, prank rolling is a classic trick. Right up there with "everyone make a perception check", then grinning while you say "you notice nothing".
|
|
In the chaos of my gaming room, I have a clear squarish plastic bottle (once held onion flakes or such) with four color matched pairs of d6/d10, read for high-low and digits as d20s, always in a certain order.
Are you saying you were using d10's (or some other combination of dice) to simulate d20 rolls? I'd like to know how you were doing that to have it accurate?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't be bullied by your players. It is your privilege to roll secretly or in the open as it pleases you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I GM entirely from my laptop so concealed rolls for me. I don't mind the players deducing things about their foes as the fight goes on. Makes sense that they start not knowing much and learning as the fight goes on. Fog of war I'd call it.
As a player, I don't mind either way, but I prefer hidden. I like that some rolls are mysterious and the outcome isn't instantaneously known.
|
If your players don't trust you, you're doing it wrong.
This statement right here is at the core of my philosophy when GMing. If do not have the trust of your players, how can you hope to run a worthwhile game? When a player starts to believe that there is a GM vs Player mentality, you've gone down the wrong path as a GM.
I roll most of my rolls behind a screen. The only rolls I do in from of the players are big impact rolls such as critical hit confirmations, live or die saving throws, etc.
I sometimes also roll opposed skill checks for the player behind the screen such as stealth, sense motive, and diplomacy as well as some saving throws (when hiding the results are important). I would roll more behind the screen, but it tends to slow the game down more than I would like having to search for player bonuses. But no matter what, if the player is taking an action, I try to describe his action in some way so that the player has some indicaton how he 'thinks' he may have done.
To the OP: You should decide what works for you. If you decide to use a screen, tell the players what you told us in that you want the game to be less about numbers and more about story. But then you also should also make a point of describing well. For example, with your stealthy fighter, I would have told you players in the second round of fighting that he was moving unusually fast.
Even when I do roll a crit behind the screen I normally wince and lift the screen without touching the dice. Last
Yeah, I mostly roll behind a screen but I definitely show the dice to the people sitting closest when I roll crits.