Meta gaming question ?

[Lance Tankmen]

Alright so first thread ever, I'm a fairly new DM just started about a month ago with 5E. And mostly playing as not much else on depolyment.

I roll in the open as I feel that keeps in balanced. As a DM should I/ do you tell them what the monsters bonus to hit is? They were fighting a troll and could not seem to grasp the 12 on a d20 getting past their AC of 18. So do I outright say they hit you with a 23 for the roll ? The main reason is the fighter has the shield spell and that adds +5 AC he holds off using it if it doesn't hit him which makes sense but should he know the total score or just have to pop it and hope ?

Thanks for any help

[Safety Sword]

I'm a big fan of keeping the math away from the players at the table.

I prefer to let them tell me what AC they hit with their roll and tell them if it's a hit or not (usually in some sort of descriptive way).

I never show my players my rolls and never tell them why I am rolling. I always know the ACs of the characters so I can figure out the hits and misses without needing to ask the players.

I do all of this to keep the immersion of the story at the table. The math is just a way to resolve the mechanics of the game and takes away from the role playing aspect.

[Drackolus]

Really, it depends on the table. I typically don't tell them what the total is. I think the "official" thijg might be that they cast shield and if it's not enough, tough luck. I personally tell them that shield won't block that attack and let them not waste the resources.

[Erys]

Alright so first thread ever, I'm a fairly new DM just started about a month ago with 5E. And mostly playing as not much else on depolyment.

I roll in the open as I feel that keeps in balanced. As a DM should I/ do you tell them what the monsters bonus to hit is? They were fighting a troll and could not seem to grasp the 12 on a d20 getting past their AC of 18. So do I outright say they hit you with a 23 for the roll ? The main reason is the fighter has the shield spell and that adds +5 AC he holds off using it if it doesn't hit him which makes sense but should he know the total score or just have to pop it and hope ?

Thanks for any help

I roll in the open, generally, but I personally don't reveal bonuses, AC, or any other monster traits. The AC is usually guessed after a few rounds though, as are some of the various traits as they are used.

I will usually be nice and let them know if using shield won't be effective by saying something flavorful like 'the swing was resoundingly fast and accurate, even as a reaction your shield spell would be too slow' or conversely I will say something like 'he barely hits you' when shield would be effective.

YMMV, in the end what works for me may not work for you.

[Lance Tankmen]

Thanks for the quick reply guys , yeah I really just try to be a good DM but I have my pet peeves and I'm sure I'm actually quite a harsh DM.

[Safety Sword]

No wonder Shield is regarded so highly if you only let players use it when it will block an attack.

Using the spell should be a gamble of a spell slot. It might make the difference or it might not.

It doesn't make sense to me to play it any other way.

Edit: The trigger for the spell is actually getting hit by an attack, by the way, so you are supposed to play it that way I would suggest.

[Erys]

No wonder Shield is regarded so highly if you only let players use it when it will block an attack.

Using the spell should be a gamble of a spell slot. It might make the difference or it might not.


To be fair, the spell is highly regarded because it last until your next turn; so it can be effective against many attacks.

This alone is enough justification to give zero hints on the attack that is prompting the potential use of Shield. I am still nice though, and usually give subtle hints to save their resources.

[Laserlight]

I generally run a round or two of combat and then tell them the monster ACs after that. For monster attacks, I'll call out the total unless it's particularly high--"Ragnar, the troll swings at you three times: 13, 17, and that one's a hit." It seems to work.

Yes, that means things like Inspiration dice and Shield are (generally) only used when there's a chance for them to be effective, but I feel the players generally should be effective.

[Arial Black]

For any situation where the PCs can see who they are fighting then I roll in the open.

If the baddy rolls a 2 and misses or rolls a 19 and hits, then this doesn't give much away.

If the baddy rolls a 2 and hits or rolls a 19 and misses, then this tells a lot!

After a few rounds of combat then the players can usually work out the attack bonus/AC, there or thereabouts.

The reason why this is a good thing is that it does a very good job of simulating a real life battle where combatants size each other up quite quickly, without necessarily being certain.

Also, 5E doesn't want you to waste resources. Several rules are written that way. For example, the 'parry' ability of some NPCs in the Monster Manual is written (I'm AFB right now) in the form of 'If an attack would hit...', meaning it would not trigger if the attack would miss.

[MrFahrenheit]

I don't roll in the open, but I will tell my players about unique and rare abilities a monster has, if it would otherwise seem like a BBEG has a ridiculous advantage (i.e., informing them of legendary actions...otherwise it seems like the bad guy gets up to four reactions per turn). That way, they know I'm still playing by the rules too.

[Thrudd]

Alright so first thread ever, I'm a fairly new DM just started about a month ago with 5E. And mostly playing as not much else on depolyment.

I roll in the open as I feel that keeps in balanced. As a DM should I/ do you tell them what the monsters bonus to hit is? They were fighting a troll and could not seem to grasp the 12 on a d20 getting past their AC of 18. So do I outright say they hit you with a 23 for the roll ? The main reason is the fighter has the shield spell and that adds +5 AC he holds off using it if it doesn't hit him which makes sense but should he know the total score or just have to pop it and hope ?

Thanks for any help

The players know they have a bonus to their attacks, don't they? If they know how combat works, it should not be hard to figure out what's going on with a monster's attacks.

That said, you should not tell them anything about the monster's stats or bonuses. You tell them if an attack hits and how much damage it does, they make their decisions based on that. The players should not know anything their characters would not know. Tell them that the monster looks bigger and stronger than any human man with huge sharp claws and teeth, not that it has a +7 bonus to hit.

The players aren't always supposed to know for sure if the spells or abilities they use will be effective, they are supposed to make guesses based on their observations. If you're playing a computer game RPG, like Final Fantasy, you don't know if your mage casting a protection spell will stop the monster from hitting you or how much damage it will prevent, you just know the monster looks big and strong and you're taking a precaution. This is the same thing.

What you should be doing is describing to the players what their characters are seeing and hearing and feeling. The players tell you what they want their characters to do in response to what you tell them. You tell them when to roll the dice, and then describe what happens. They can draw their own conclusions about the math based on how things go.

[Tanarii]

I don't let players what the exact result was that caused a hit/miss or save made/failed, or what an enemy AC is. but the rules for several abilities are triggered by the roll itself, before they know the resolution (ie if it was a hit or miss). The implication is they should know the result of the d20 roll before bonuses are added. Whether or not you choose to tell the value for resolution (ie the hit/miss/save result, or the AC) seems to be up to you as a DM.

Not revealing that info makes several features and spells (like Shield and Precision Attack) a little weaker. IMO they're already fairly powerful without that info.

If you need a 'secret check' for ability checks (ie players don't even know they are making a check), you use passive skill.

[Pex]

Players are going to know what AC a monster has. If they roll a 12 and miss but then a 13 and hit, they know the AC. With you rolling in the open, if you roll for the monster a 12 and miss but then a 13 and hit, the players know the monster's to hit modifier. It's not a bad thing for gaming that players know stuff.

For in the gameworld explanation, the players' characters are right there in the combat facing the monsters. They know their own capabilities and are directly witnessing the capabilities of the monsters they're fighting. The dice rolling and math of the game is the extrapolation of what is going on. That is how the players relate to game events. It is not forbidden knowledge. It is in character information the character is experiencing right then and there.

[pwykersotz]

I like to tell player's the target numbers that they have to reach. I also roll openly. I find that it counter-intuitively helps immersion, because the players can then visualize how heavily armored something is, how craggy the cliff is, etc. I don't tell them to-hit because it's a waste of time. I roll openly, roll a 9, and ask if a 22 hits their AC, and they can figure that out.

I don't go out of my way to show them the math of the game, just the stuff that's a direct interface between player and DM.

[Maxilian]

Alright so first thread ever, I'm a fairly new DM just started about a month ago with 5E. And mostly playing as not much else on depolyment.

I roll in the open as I feel that keeps in balanced. As a DM should I/ do you tell them what the monsters bonus to hit is? They were fighting a troll and could not seem to grasp the 12 on a d20 getting past their AC of 18. So do I outright say they hit you with a 23 for the roll ? The main reason is the fighter has the shield spell and that adds +5 AC he holds off using it if it doesn't hit him which makes sense but should he know the total score or just have to pop it and hope ?

Thanks for any help

Just pop it and hope, eventually as the fight continue, they will hit sometimes and miss sometimes, giving them an "idea" of the enemy AC and the hit of it.

AND IMHO, as a player and a DM, that's part of the fight, slowly knowing your enemy, may even become really important information in the future, if you feel that you may see more mobs like those

[Shining Wrath]

I roll for monsters behind the screen; it keeps the air of mystery. Also I occasionally homebrew a monster so not every troll is a bog-standard MM troll. Best to not make it too obvious that a troll is actually a freak: see this (http://www.dmsguild.com/product/192034/Troll-Freaks?term=troll+&test_epoch=0)on DMs Guild.

Having said that if your players can't do basic math it is not your problem. They should understand that some monsters do have high to-hit bonuses.

[Ruslan]

I would just roll behind the screen, and tell the players the troll hits AC 23. At this point, the player can either tell me it hits, misses, or use a Reaction such as Shield, and the game will proceed from there.

[GlenSmash!]

I roll in the open. I like when the whole table has to option to anticipate what a die role is going to be. But my players don't actually pay that much attention to the roll only whether I say it's a hit or miss.

[Segev]

I tend to roll in secret, but tell the players what the final result was. Sometimes, I roll in the open anyway, but I certainly don't make an effort to show it to everybody (unless it's a natural 20 or a natural 1). I have DMs that do it both ways, both now and historically. It's really a matter of taste.

I generally don't recommend rolling openly and telling them the final result, nor telling them the bonus, because I think a lot of players enjoy their part of the game being figuring out roughly what the bonus to hit or the target's AC is. But to each their own.

[Vogonjeltz]

Alright so first thread ever, I'm a fairly new DM just started about a month ago with 5E. And mostly playing as not much else on depolyment.

I roll in the open as I feel that keeps in balanced. As a DM should I/ do you tell them what the monsters bonus to hit is? They were fighting a troll and could not seem to grasp the 12 on a d20 getting past their AC of 18. So do I outright say they hit you with a 23 for the roll ? The main reason is the fighter has the shield spell and that adds +5 AC he holds off using it if it doesn't hit him which makes sense but should he know the total score or just have to pop it and hope ?

Thanks for any help

Ultimately it's up to you and your players to determine what works best/is most fun as a group.

My preference is to avoid meta-gaming and I don't mind a DM rolling secretly so we don't know how hard an enemy is hitting, but if everyone wants to happen in the open that's fine too.

I'd tell them the total (i.e. roll + modifiers) not the roll itself. There are a couple or four situations where players actually do need to know the enemy total for class features, so it's not unreasonable to roll in the open and have the players know the enemy roll and total.

That being said, there are some situations where I wouldn't advertise it (i.e. enemies who are hidden).

[Antilles123]

Alright so first thread ever, I'm a fairly new DM just started about a month ago with 5E. And mostly playing as not much else on depolyment.

I roll in the open as I feel that keeps in balanced. As a DM should I/ do you tell them what the monsters bonus to hit is? They were fighting a troll and could not seem to grasp the 12 on a d20 getting past their AC of 18. So do I outright say they hit you with a 23 for the roll ? The main reason is the fighter has the shield spell and that adds +5 AC he holds off using it if it doesn't hit him which makes sense but should he know the total score or just have to pop it and hope ?

Thanks for any help

My DM has no screen either and just rolls in front of us.
I quite like it - sure we can figure out what the attack bonus is of the creature, but who really cares?

Re: the Shield spell, generally DM just tells us the total score and we can use it if we want. It may not be RAW, but it doesn't bother us. Same thing happens with the bad guys so it's all good.

[rollingForInit]

It's worth noting that there are several abilities that require the DM to make rolls in the open. Some of the Bardic Inspiration allows a character to apply the bardic inspiration as a penalty on a die after seeing it, but before the DM declares whether it hit or not (that is, before applying the monster's bonuses). The Lucky feat works similarly. Might be other abilities too.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, that was going to be my question for those who roll in secret. How do you handle abilities that depend on rolling in the open? Do the players just have to ask you the result each time they think they might want to use their feature?

[BW022]

Rolling in the open isn't that bad for meta-gaming. I do it, my group does it, and most DMs I know do also.

1. In 5E, most creatures are pretty much in the +3 to +5 range in tier 1, +5 to +8 in tier 2, etc. Players generally know the rough pluses of creatures. A goblin is likely lower, an ogre higher, etc.

2. Players rarely meta-game in any meaningful way around this. Most players aren't remembering the exact pluses and honestly aren't taking any different actions based on the pluses. Whether a creature is +3 or +5 really isn't going to trigger someone to suddenly go defensive the next turn. Unless something is highly unusual, like a goblin being +9 or something, players aren't likely to do much. Nor can they necessarily deduce anything from this -- if one goblin is +3 to attacks and another is +4, he might be higher level, just a higher dexterity, maybe a spell up, maybe a +1 weapon, etc.

3. Most characters would probably have some idea of attack rolls and damage -- especially if unusual. If a goblin was +9 to attack, presumably they goblin would be displaying a lot of skill handling his spear.

4. With #3, if something was unusual... as a DM, I'd likely be describing that action anyway. (Roll 12 + 9) "The goblin leaps forward, knocks your weapon aside, spins around, and easily stabs you in the leg." Characters are highly likely to see the skill of these creatures in combat anyway. Any real twist is likely going to be declared to the PCs anyway.

5. Many creatures also tend to have multiple attacks, feats, class abilities, lots of hit points, etc. which betray their level/power anyway. If the goblin isn't dropped after three hits or the goblin makes multiple attacks, does sneak attack, casts a spell, etc. players can pretty much deduce things about him. Again, most of these would be described by me as a DM anyway.

6. With #4 and #5, over time, many of those descriptions of abilities will fall into generic terms. Most players (and likely their characters) would quickly deduce that they were just sneak attacked, that gnolls are using pact tactics to gain advantage, etc.

7. There are game mechanics which assume that players can see the DMs roll -- cutting words, shield, lucky, etc. Removing the ability to use these abilities as intended, typically has players meta-gaming by not selecting those abilities/classes. I'll also mention that as a bard/wizard... I often wasted cutting words and shield simply as it isn't possible to do the math 100% in most combats anyway.

8. Lots of other parts of the game put numbers in the open or aren't worth trying to hide. For example, players can typically deduce the AC of creatures through seeing their or each others rolls/numbers. If someone misses a goblin on a 19... they'll be asking what it is wearing and know that it has something up. If someone casts a bane spell on them and one PC saves on a 14 and another fails on a 12, again... they know the number accurately enough to base future actions on it. Hiding other players rolls from each other is pointless... someone would just yell "This goblin is hard to hit."

9. Giving access to rolls and numbers makes the game go faster. Hiding PC rolls from each other is likely a non-starter at any table. Thus, players can meta-game these easily. You typically aren't hiding monster damage rolls, so that pretty much only leaves attack roles, saving throws, etc. In my opinion, this isn't worth it at the table.

10. It is often important that players and characters are made aware of unusual things. If goblins are attacking them a +9, players might want to think about retreating. Hiding dice rolls often cause players to meta-game in other ways -- players assume that creatures are just lucky as their only measure of creatures at their player knowledge. This makes putting in encounters where characters are expected to loss, run, flee, etc. more difficult.

11. There are ways to avoid, or limit meta-gaming in this context. Having multiple goblins, some with high attacks and others normal, having lots of bless, protection from evil, cover, and other abilities happening that players simply can't be bothered with trying to remember every plus.

12. Even if players do meta-game in this way... it isn't likely to have massive effects. Avoiding an attack or being able to focus tactics on creatures sooner (as they typically would always get some idea of what is going on within a few rounds anyway) isn't really going to affect things much. 5E rules seem balanced in this way and you always have the option of increasing the difficulty of encounters if meta-gaming in this way starts having an actual affect.

13. It allows enemies, NPCs, and monsters to 'meta-game' or provides the same justifications for their actions. As a DM, you can see the player's rolls (and generally know their pluses anyway) so you also have the option of adjusting tactics for monsters in the same way. An enemy wizard with shield, wizards knowing which PC to attack with reflex save spells, etc. Again, you could say... "He looked at the way you attacked last time and it is obvious how you are swinging that sword that you are well trained and that attack was coming for his head.. Shield!"

14. It is typically more exciting that players see rolls. Players have some idea if they were lucky, unlucky, if something bad is about to happen, etc. Players are more focused and watching the DM roll.

15. Rolling in the open promotes fairness. Players see that you are being honest. There is a negative in that you can't cheat in their favor, but in most cases you can have the enemies flee, take prisoners, make suboptimal roles, offer terms, etc. in order to prevent due to you just rolling extremely well.

16. You can discourage meta-gaming in this way out of character -- give XP for players who don't do this, if it is a problem.

I've never seen attack rolls or saving throws being done openly as that big of an issue. In reality, combats are numerous and it isn't that bad if there is some meta-gaming beyond what one could reasonably justify through in-character knowledge.

There are some rolls which do lead to meta-gaming. These are typically outside of combat which have a much bigger affect on the game. If you ask the lead character for a perception check (he rolls a 5) and then everyone suddenly stops and looks for traps... that is a bigger issue. If you ask for an insight check and then players role-play as if the guide is leading them into an ambush... again more of an issue. Passive checks, having the players make 10 d20 rolls ahead of time, or rolling secretly might be an option in those cases. Finally... you always have the option of rolling 20 d20's in front of them and then using them for 'secret' checks in starting from the d20 item.

I would personally roll in the open and honestly evaluate whether it is a problem. IMO, rolling secretly is kind of time consuming with rather diminishing returns.

[RickAllison]

I would just roll behind the screen, and tell the players the troll hits AC 23. At this point, the player can either tell me it hits, misses, or use a Reaction such as Shield, and the game will proceed from there.

That's how the DM for a campaign I'm in runs it. Figures it works since the PCs can judge fairly well just how close to getting stabbed they were.

[Yabvi]

How I deal with shield is I ask said person if they want to do anything before the attack roll happens, and if they say they want to use shield then they can but they aren't allowed to use shield after the attack.

I usually roll in the open, I feel like it allows my players to see that I'm not fudging the dice.

[JackPhoenix]

I roll in the open, but don't tell the players what bonuses the enemy gets. Sure, they can watch the dice and notice how much the enemy rolled for hit/miss and discover the bonus for themselves, but that's a plus in my book: they have to pay attention. In some cases, they should be tell the AC outright from the enemy descrpition: I prefer to use humanoid enemies and they know (or could know, if they bothered to check the rules) what AC their armor gives.

From the description, it's harder to tell. I'm firmly in the "HP are not meat and the HP/AC mechanic is abstract" camp, so there are misses that physically connect the enemy for no damage, or hits that are still described as the enemy avoiding the attack but taking damage. I tell them the result of the hit, of course, but the descriptions are more cinematic.

[Tanarii]

That's how the DM for a campaign I'm in runs it. Figures it works since the PCs can judge fairly well just how close to getting stabbed they were.

So how does Bardic Inspiration's Cutting Word (and similarly worded abilities) work? That must be used after the roll is made, but before the roll result is announced. Does the Bard just need to guess if it's worth using their ability without any knowledge of the die roll being affected?

(I'm assuming just like any game, the DM gives the player sufficient time to announce use of the ability before giving the success/failure result. One reason I really dislike these abilities as a DM is they significantly slow down the game when they're in play, if used as written.)

[MBControl]

I think hiding your rolls is much more useful. As a DM you will need to "cheat" from time to time. Sometimes to help your Monsters if in order to make a fight more balanced, and sometimes to save your PC's from unfortunate runs of bad rolls.

As far as mechanics like shield, where they have to chose whether to use an ability, I would tell them the total roll after modifiers, and let them chose.

[Tanarii]

As a DM you will need to "cheat" from time to time. Sometimes to help your Monsters if in order to make a fight more balanced, and sometimes to save your PC's from unfortunate runs of bad rolls.
Really? As a player I'd be pissed off as hell if I found out the DM was using his hidden rolls to cheat to save me from the fair dice rolls. And there's no way I'd do that to players. That's betraying a basic underlying premise of the game: that nuetral dice determine the resolution of an action, when such resolution is needed.

Hidden rolls to not give away player meta game information is one thing. But denying me fair dice as a player, or denying it to my players as a DM, is seriously No Bueno, that would make me very :smallfurious:

[Grubble]

It's worth noting that there are several abilities that require the DM to make rolls in the open. Some of the Bardic Inspiration allows a character to apply the bardic inspiration as a penalty on a die after seeing it, but before the DM declares whether it hit or not (that is, before applying the monster's bonuses). The Lucky feat works similarly. Might be other abilities too.

Neither of those abilities require the DM to roll in the open. They both say "after the roll is made", there is nothing in the abilities' wording that says you get to see the roll.

I say this as a lore bard player. Can you "waste" the ability? Sure. That's just a risk you take.

When I DM a new group for the first time, I ask them if they'd prefer a screen or not. It's my personal preference to not use one, but all groups can be different. I also have everyone's ACs and tell them when my creature's attacks hit or miss, but I don't give the total. If they wish to chance a Shield, that's up to them.

[JackPhoenix]

Really? As a player I'd be pissed off as hell if I found out the DM was using his hidden rolls to cheat to save me from the fair dice rolls. And there's no way I'd do that to players. That's betraying a basic underlying premise of the game: that nuetral dice determine the resolution of an action, when such resolution is needed.

Hidden rolls to not give away player meta game information is one thing. But denying me fair dice as a player, or denying it to my players as a DM, is seriously No Bueno, that would make me very :smallfurious:

I agree with this sentiment. Being killed by a bunch of goblins suck, but seeing the goblins to start suddenly missing or rolling minimum damage on all attacks (with hidden dice) when the battle turns against the party (especially if the goblins are winning due to tactical mistakes on our side, but even if it's due to bad luck on our dice) sucks more, at least for me.

Now, I went easy on my players few times, but not by cheating on dice, but by changing the enemy tactics. Is the party fighting the kobold horde low on HP and spells? The kobolds don't know that, and they lost a lot of warriors already... perhaps if the characters slay one or two more...or even better, their chief..., the rest will run away or surrender. The ghoul downed the sorcerer? Sure, he could join the zombies in fighting the rest of the party, or make sure he's dead... but hey, he's got a meal, he's gonna drag his unconscious body to his lair to eat at his leisure, the zombies can deal with the rest. The party now has to deal with less foes, and have another goal: Save the sorcerer before the ghoul could eat him (and before he bleeds out). The paladin blocked the orc's killing blow aimed at the sorcerer (thanks to the Protection FS)? Sure, he could keep attacking the (low-HP, low-AC) spellcaster... or he could focus on a foe that angered him. The paladin being harder to hit and kill is surely just a coincidence. The cultists defeated the party? Yeah, they could've killed them...but why not capture the intruders alive to interrogate them how they found their secret lair and sacrifice them to their patron later? They surely won't be able to escape... (all examples from my game)

[Tanarii]

Neither of those abilities require the DM to roll in the open. They both say "after the roll is made", there is nothing in the abilities' wording that says you get to see the roll. "after the roll is made" is a meaningless phrase to include if rolls are hidden. Technically you can do it, but there was no point in them including it at all unless the intent was for the roll to be in the open. They could have just left it out and the ability would have worked exactly the same way, saving unnecessary text.


I say this as a lore bard player. Can you "waste" the ability? Sure. That's just a risk you take. Even if you see the roll, it's still a risk you take, unless you know he exact bonus to the roll, the exact target number, and the exact amount that will modify that roll.

Knowing what the roll was just gives a player somewhat more information to base their risk on. That said, I don't think it's RAW required to roll in the open, just RAI.

Edit: fix quotes

[Arial Black]

How I deal with shield is I ask said person if they want to do anything before the attack roll happens, and if they say they want to use shield then they can but they aren't allowed to use shield after the attack.

This is actually against the rules of the spell.

It is cast as a reaction, and it has a trigger for that reaction (ignoring the magic missile part for a moment): if an attack hits.

The player cannot make a decision to cast this spell before he knows whether or not the attack hit.

If the attack hits, then he has a choice of whether or not to cast the spell in order to change that hit into a miss.

We can disagree over whether or not we tell the player what AC the attack hits, but we cannot require him to make that decision before that attack is even rolled, unless we change the rules of the spell.

[R.Shackleford]

Really? As a player I'd be pissed off as hell if I found out the DM was using his hidden rolls to cheat to save me from the fair dice rolls. And there's no way I'd do that to players. That's betraying a basic underlying premise of the game: that nuetral dice determine the resolution of an action, when such resolution is needed.

Hidden rolls to not give away player meta game information is one thing. But denying me fair dice as a player, or denying it to my players as a DM, is seriously No Bueno, that would make me very :smallfurious:

Whoever said DM dice rolls were supposed to be fair?

Ever see a new player get completely killed due to a critical hit on their first game and they never came back since the game "wasn't fair"? I have, the dude was pretty cool and it would have been nice if the DM would have ruled it as a normal hit.

Ever see one player always getting hit, no matter what, whiles others don't? Is it fair that this player can't play the game because they think the DM hates them (even if the DM isn't doing anything differently between players)?

Ever see a game come to a halt because the players couldn't hit the AC 14 goblin? No fun at all. Better yet, ever see three rounds of battle go by without either side landing a solid blow on another creature? Boring.

A good DM knows how to fudge the dice in order to keep the game going.

When it comes to DM fudging, take Futurama into consideration...

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

[ko_sct]

In my games, i generally roll in the open.

The players usually have a good idea of their ennemie AC within 2-3 round and of their to-hit bonus within 3-4. I like it this way, and it make a lot of sense to get an idea of your enemy skills while fighting.

In one fight, I rolled an 11 on the first attack and announced an hit. The player then reminded me he had 20AC. I told him I knew that. Rolled really low on the dmg (near minimum I think) but the group still decided tactical retreat was a good idea. Smart move.

The one case when they dont see the roll, is when their enemy is hidden or hard to see. Inside a magical shadow ? yeah, you dont get to see how they roll, you only know how much dmg you receive and the general direction of the blow (and sometime, not even that0.

[Tanarii]

Whoever said DM dice rolls were supposed to be fair?Its the entire premise behind the idea of a die roll in the first place, as opposed to DM just narrating the game. It's what enabled player choices, and player skill, to have meaning. Without fair dice, you no longer have something that is a meaningful game or challenge. You only have cooperative wish fulfillment storytelling.


Ever see a new player get completely killed due to a critical hit on their first game and they never came back since the game "wasn't fair"? I have, the dude was pretty cool and it would have been nice if the DM would have ruled it as a normal hit.

Ever see one player always getting hit, no matter what, whiles others don't? Is it fair that this player can't play the game because they think the DM hates them (even if the DM isn't doing anything differently between players)?

Ever see a game come to a halt because the players couldn't hit the AC 14 goblin? No fun at all. Better yet, ever see three rounds of battle go by without either side landing a solid blow on another creature? Boring.Respectively: many times but they usually still come back; many times but a player making that assumption blaming the DM instead of luck of the draw is unreasonable; and so very many times, and it's just as much fun to die as it is to live, as long as you did your damned best to play well.


A good DM knows how to fudge the dice in order to keep the game going. Bull. A DM that fudges the dice in the players favor is robbing them of their successes. He makes it meaningless. Fudging dice in the players favor is like putting them up against an unbeatable foe or dropping a block on them and killing them, all without any warning. It makes player choices meaningless.


When it comes to DM fudging, take Futurama into consideration...

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."And when it finally does come to light, as dice fudging (by players or DMs) always does, you've taken everything they've worked for so far in that campaign and flushed it down the toilet. Rendered it meaningless. Because player skill doesn't matter any more.

[R.Shackleford]

Its the entire premise behind the idea of a die roll in the first place, as opposed to DM just narrating the game. It's what enabled player choices, and player skill, to have meaning. Without fair dice, you no longer have something that is a meaningful game or challenge. You only have cooperative wish fulfillment storytelling.

Respectively: many times but they usually still come back; many times but a player making that assumption blaming the DM instead of luck of the draw is unreasonable; and so very many times, and it's just as much fun to die as it is to live, as long as you did your damned best to play well.

Bull. A DM that fudges the dice in the players favor is robbing them of their successes. He makes it meaningless. Fudging dice in the players favor is like putting them up against an unbeatable foe or dropping a block on them and killing them, all without any warning. It makes player choices meaningless.

And when it finally does come to light, as dice fudging (by players or DMs) always does, you've taken everything they've worked for so far in that campaign and flushed it down the toilet. Rendered it meaningless. Because player skill doesn't matter any more.

I never said a DM fudged all the die in favor of the player. Sometimes what keeps the game going is fudging the die roll in favor of the NPCs. Die rolls are a tool for a DM to use and that's it, it's up to the DM to decide how to use that tool. Giving their rolls a bonus or a penalty is straight up the DM's job, the DM can do it anytime for players (in the form of adv/disadvantage) so why can't they do it for their own rolls? Seems a bit unfair of you :smallwink:.

But I'm done talking with you about this, you obviously have some emotional scars you need to work on and this isn't the place.

[rollingForInit]

How I deal with shield is I ask said person if they want to do anything before the attack roll happens, and if they say they want to use shield then they can but they aren't allowed to use shield after the attack.


But Shield triggers specifically when you are hit[/hit] by an attack. The attack must be made to know that. You don't have to decide before the DM rolls. In fact, going by the spell's description, you [i]can't do it before the attack is made.


Neither of those abilities require the DM to roll in the open. They both say "after the roll is made", there is nothing in the abilities' wording that says you get to see the roll.

I say this as a lore bard player. Can you "waste" the ability? Sure. That's just a risk you take.

But then the wording makes no sense? Why would you have the option of doing it after the attack roll, if you so wish, if you don't even know what the roll was? The feature would just say "You can subtract the number from the creature's roll before the DM determines whether the attack succeeds or fails." There's absolutely no reason for the player to have a choice if the choice doesn't matter.

College of Valor's Combat Inspiration even says so explicitly, so it makes sense that Cutting Words would work the same way:



Alternatively, when an attack roll is made against the creature, it can uise its reaction to roll the Bardic Inspiration die and add the number rolled to its AC against that attack, after seeing the roll but before knowing whether it hits or misses.


Emphasis is mine. Even if you'd rule that Cutting Words doesn't get to see the roll, Combat Inspiration explicitly allows the players to see them.

[rollingForInit]

Regarding fudging rolls:

I would fudge rolls as a DM if I knew for sure that doing so would lead to more fun for the group. Two examples:

First session. The players have spent quite a lot of time preparing their level 1 characters, building backstories, etc. During the first encounter with a couple of goblins, one goblin rolls high on the intiative, shoots at the Wizard, rolls a crit with max damge (14). The Wizard would insta-die. I'd either say the goblin didn't crit, or just lower the damage a bit so the Wizard is knocked unconscious. I cannot see any way that my players would find it fun to have their character that they've planned and started to like die instantly before they get to do anything. Some players might not care, but at least some of my players spend enough time actually making these characters that they'd just be disappointed. On the other hand, having a near death experience would probably be fun and dramatic.

Second one: I've spent some time designing some form of encounter that I know the players would love, where one or several of them would really get to shine and take advantage of their strengths. As it turns out, I miscalculated some part of them getting there. The players do something I didn't expect, which would end up with them not getting to the encounter I know they'd like. I might then fudge a roll just to get them there, if the alternative would just be them missing it altogether and continuing on without there being some other fancy scenario instead. Perhaps it would be better to just move the encounter and have it happen anyway, but if the choice would be between fudging a roll (which they'd never know and would be believable) and doing some other some other railroady stuff that I wouldn't be sure if I could pull off in a believable way on such sort notice, I'd rather fudge the roll. The end results would be the same, anyway.

[Safety Sword]

Really? As a player I'd be pissed off as hell if I found out the DM was using his hidden rolls to cheat to save me from the fair dice rolls. And there's no way I'd do that to players. That's betraying a basic underlying premise of the game: that nuetral dice determine the resolution of an action, when such resolution is needed.

Hidden rolls to not give away player meta game information is one thing. But denying me fair dice as a player, or denying it to my players as a DM, is seriously No Bueno, that would make me very :smallfurious:


The DM can't cheat
I do it often and my players would never know
I only ever fudge a roll to the benefit of the characters and only if it suits my campaign to do so


It's not fair to me if the dice make it "unfun" because I get on a roll and destroy the characters. Being a DM isn't about winning (quite the opposite in fact). The story always comes first. Sometimes I have to have a wry smile for the deities of statistics and probabilities and sacrifice a die in private to appease them.

[Tanarii]

The DM can't cheat
I do it often and my players would never know
I only ever fudge a roll to the benefit of the characters and only if it suits my campaign to do so

Yes they can, if you do it often enough it will come to light, and you just described a DM cheating.


It's not fair to me if the dice make it "unfun" because I get on a roll and destroy the characters. Being a DM isn't about winning (quite the opposite in fact). The story always comes first. Sometimes I have to have a wry smile for the deities of statistics and probabilities and sacrifice a die in private to appease them.You're making it "unfun" by being unfair and cheating the dice rolls, and taking away meaningful player choices as well as the ability to win the game fair and square. Both of which is what a game of D&D is about. You don't need D&D to tell a story, you can do that without any rules for adjudication.

The adjudication rules are there so the players can make meaningful choices within their structure, whatever that structure might be, and win the game within whatever parameters for winning those rules create. If you fudge dice rolls, you take that away from the players. Their struggle to survival (the most basic parameter for 'winning' in D&D) and grow and become more powerful becomes less meaningful if they're just being handed to it via DM fudging, as opposed to honest success within the structure of the rules.

[Safety Sword]

Yes they can, if you do it often enough it will come to light, and you just described a DM cheating.

You're making it "unfun" by being unfair and cheating the dice rolls, and taking away meaningful player choices as well as the ability to win the game fair and square. Both of which is what a game of D&D is about. You don't need D&D to tell a story, you can do that without any rules for adjudication.

The adjudication rules are there so the players can make meaningful choices within their structure, whatever that structure might be, and win the game within whatever parameters for winning those rules create. If you fudge dice rolls, you take that away from the players. Their struggle to survival (the most basic parameter for 'winning' in D&D) and grow and become more powerful becomes less meaningful if they're just being handed to it via DM fudging, as opposed to honest success within the structure of the rules.

The fact that you said "win" D&D makes me think we're never going to agree on this.

[Tanarii]

The fact that you said "win" D&D makes me think we're never going to agree on this.Probably. A common attitude from people willing to cheat at games instead of trying to win them fair and square is that the game isn't played to be 'won'. Of course, that makes me wonder why they're cheating in the first place? The clear answer is, because they don't want to risk, or can't stand the consequences, of losing.

[Safety Sword]

Probably. A common attitude from people willing to cheat at games instead of trying to win them fair and square is that the game isn't played to be 'won'. Of course, that makes me wonder why they're cheating in the first place? The clear answer is, because they don't want to risk, or can't stand the consequences, of losing.

My premise is that there is no "winning" except making a fun game that people want to get together to play.

Having to balance ridiculously impossible pre-written encounters on the fly not withstanding, sometimes the dice are real jerks and I feel that wiping an entire campaign into the rubbish bin through a run of the DM rolling two critical hits in a row shouldn't be a thing.

I win as a DM when the people who have put their time aside to play the game enjoy it. You might think it's "unfair" for me to not want to kill off characters every encounter, but it doesn't matter because if you're playing at my table you'd never know I sometimes don't kill your character outright. I want you to have fun and making a new character whilst everyone is being destroyed in the encounter you died in isn't fun. THAT is unfair.

It's not fun for players and it's not fun for me as DM...

[pwykersotz]

I agree with Tanarii for the most part.

If there's a wipe or some other problem, there are ways of dealing with that. You can resurrect them with a helpful NPC, have your enemies knock the party out instead of killing them, or just flip into narrative mode and tell them how a merchant finds them on the road on the brink of death or how an angel appears before them in their visions and heals them in exchange for a geas being placed upon them or something. Or, if none of those things fit the bill and you can't think of anything else, let the death stand. Use the opportunity to reinforce how your world works instead of just fudging to keep things going. Consequences for death and character loss should be one of those very early things you figure out when you DM.

However, I don't think the game should be fair. I think that it should be grotesquely unfair. Players outnumber the DM and PC classes are stacked with tons of goodies. Meanwhile, DM's get control over everything else. That's not fair at all. But it's all in the prearranged fabric of the game, so it's an accepted unfairness. But I just don't think that fudging dice facilitates anything useful. (I used to believe the opposite, but I've changed my style quite a bit in the last several years.)

Also, fun is not always the goal. Engagement is. That said, if lighthearted questing to save a kingdom from peril by dragon is what you want, that's cool, and you probably shouldn't allow a TPK to disrupt things. But I'd use a method other than fudging.

(Sorry for the ramble, I'm a little tired.)

[Safety Sword]

I agree with Tanarii for the most part.

If there's a wipe or some other problem, there are ways of dealing with that. You can resurrect them with a helpful NPC, have your enemies knock the party out instead of killing them, or just flip into narrative mode and tell them how a merchant finds them on the road on the brink of death or how an angel appears before them in their visions and heals them in exchange for a geas being placed upon them or something. Or, if none of those things fit the bill and you can't think of anything else, let the death stand. Use the opportunity to reinforce how your world works instead of just fudging to keep things going. Consequences for death and character loss should be one of those very early things you figure out when you DM.

However, I don't think the game should be fair. I think that it should be grotesquely unfair. Players outnumber the DM and PC classes are stacked with tons of goodies. Meanwhile, DM's get control over everything else. That's not fair at all. But it's all in the prearranged fabric of the game, so it's an accepted unfairness. But I just don't think that fudging dice facilitates anything useful. (I used to believe the opposite, but I've changed my style quite a bit in the last several years.)

Also, fun is not always the goal. Engagement is. That said, if lighthearted questing to save a kingdom from peril by dragon is what you want, that's cool, and you probably shouldn't allow a TPK to disrupt things. But I'd use a method other than fudging.

(Sorry for the ramble, I'm a little tired.)

I guess that's a difference in style. I prefer to not wipe the party and have to rely on contrived resurrections, instead allowing an opportunity for the PCs survive the battle in bad shape and force them to withdraw. It doesn't feel very heroic to be dragged (dead) to town on a cart and resurrected, in my mind.

As previously stated, it's not an obvious thing that I do so nobody feels "cheated" because they aren't aware of any change to what "was supposed" to happen. There are also limits to what I will do. It's a judgement call.

Also, if fun isn't always the goal, you should perhaps reevaluate. Suspense is fun, comedy is fun, role playing is fun, terror is fun, if that's what your players enjoy. The entire game should be fun for players and DMs.

I have 2 groups and everyone is having fun. So I am "winning".

[pwykersotz]

I guess that's a difference in style. I prefer to not wipe the party and have to rely on contrived resurrections, instead allowing an opportunity for the PCs survive the battle in bad shape and force them to withdraw. It doesn't feel very heroic to be dragged (dead) to town on a cart and resurrected, in my mind.

As previously stated, it's not an obvious thing that I do so nobody feels "cheated" because they aren't aware of any change to what "was supposed" to happen. There are also limits to what I will do. It's a judgement call.

Also, if fun isn't always the goal, you should perhaps reevaluate. Suspense is fun, comedy is fun, role playing is fun, terror is fun, if that's what your players enjoy. The entire game should be fun for players and DMs.

I have 2 groups and everyone is having fun. So I am "winning".

Eh, we're just using different definitions. I think we mean the same thing after your clarification. And yeah, just different styles as well. Also, it's worth pointing out that I don't strongly disagree with your method, it's just not what I use right now.

As far as being dragged dead to a town, the same level of discretion applies to that method as it does to your judgement of how to fudge the dice. It's an art, one that most people fail at from time to time, and one which takes practice to perfect. You can certainly take the wind out of some sails by doing it wrong. But if you fudge, players never know their actual limits and can get a false sense of security about how fights will turn out. While from the sound of it this hasn't happened with you, it can lead to a slippery slope as they lose their sense of caution and it becomes necessary to fudge more and more. Whereas if you contrive a method of them being allowed to continue, they know the score. And when you're good at it, it's just as seamless as what you describe, only without having to fudge at all.

[Safety Sword]

Eh, we're just using different definitions. I think we mean the same thing after your clarification. And yeah, just different styles as well. Also, it's worth pointing out that I don't strongly disagree with your method, it's just not what I use right now.

As far as being dragged dead to a town, the same level of discretion applies to that method as it does to your judgement of how to fudge the dice. It's an art, one that most people fail at from time to time, and one which takes practice to perfect. You can certainly take the wind out of some sails by doing it wrong. But if you fudge, players never know their actual limits and can get a false sense of security about how fights will turn out. While from the sound of it this hasn't happened with you, it can lead to a slippery slope as they lose their sense of caution and it becomes necessary to fudge more and more. Whereas if you contrive a method of them being allowed to continue, they know the score. And when you're good at it, it's just as seamless as what you describe, only without having to fudge at all.

Pretty much that.

Fudge is a sometimes food. And I know how to use it in my D&D recipe.

[MBControl]

Really? As a player I'd be pissed off as hell if I found out the DM was using his hidden rolls to cheat to save me from the fair dice rolls. And there's no way I'd do that to players. That's betraying a basic underlying premise of the game: that nuetral dice determine the resolution of an action, when such resolution is needed.

Hidden rolls to not give away player meta game information is one thing. But denying me fair dice as a player, or denying it to my players as a DM, is seriously No Bueno, that would make me very :smallfurious:

That's why I wouldn't tell you.

Besides, it's not the fair roles I'm worried about. But, sometimes, even rarely, a DM has to improvise for story purposes.

[BW022]

Really? As a player I'd be pissed off as hell if I found out the DM was using his hidden rolls to cheat to save me from the fair dice rolls. And there's no way I'd do that to players. That's betraying a basic underlying premise of the game: that nuetral dice determine the resolution of an action, when such resolution is needed.

Hidden rolls to not give away player meta game information is one thing. But denying me fair dice as a player, or denying it to my players as a DM, is seriously No Bueno, that would make me very :smallfurious:

During an RPGA game I rolled behind a screen. The party was getting slaughtered -- mainly from poor planning. I was rolling well and made the decision to fudge rolls in the parties favor to avoid slaughtering them. I fudge rolls for a couple of rounds until... one of the players then accused me of cheating (i.e. increasing the numbers to the they would get hit more often). So... I moved to rolling openly and proceeded to drop him and several other players -- before coming up with an in-game reason not to slaughter them.

Moral of the lesson... you don't do anyone any favors in favoring the players -- even if they don't realize it. If they do realize it... they have no idea how well/badly they have been doing or how many encounters they got by through fudging vs. their skill. Further, they don't learn from any encounters -- take precautions or make adjustments to tactics -- for future combats. Finally, it doesn't help the DM learn to adjust encounters, judge the true difficulty of encounters, etc. DM can easily get into the mindset they can put the PCs through anything and just adjust dice so that a 3rd-level party can defeat three hill giants.

[DwarvenGM]

Probably. A common attitude from people willing to cheat at games instead of trying to win them fair and square is that the game isn't played to be 'won'. Of course, that makes me wonder why they're cheating in the first place? The clear answer is, because they don't want to risk, or can't stand the consequences, of losing.

I'm very confused here. I was under the assumption there was no winning or losing in d&d only having a good time with your friends.

Not only do I fudge rolls but my players also know about it. I'm notorious for rolling well no matter what dice I use. I've rolled 3 20's in a single round against our wizard. I've also added or subtracted hp or AC from fights to make them more or less difficult as the need arises.

In the end I tell my players that their fun is my top priority. Their players will die but not because I rolled really well during an enemy ambush.

Of course I wouldn't do this if my players told me they disliked this. But my "cheating", as you call it, makes our game work for my group and we all have fun.

[Hrugner]

With shield, as has been said, you can only use it if you are hit by an attack, and the change in AC can cause it to miss. Hiding the hit/miss result isn't going to change the spell unless you as a DM have decided to make shield less powerful.

As to this side conversation about rolling in the open and cheating to win/lose; I roll in the open with the bonuses visible(on roll20), or with narrative saying how near a hit or miss it was. It makes no sense for the characters to be unaware of how close they were to hitting something or to being hit. I also don't fudge rolls, I don't really see the point. The players know when they're putting themselves a roll away from disaster and I don't make them roll for things that don't matter.