How much transparency is too much?

[Catullus64]

How much of what a DM does should be kept "behind the screen" as it were?

I play with a friend who, whenever there's some doubt about who an enemy will attack, puts it down to a die roll. I do the same thing sometimes, but I find that as a player, I'm actually bothered by it, particularly the fact that he will say out loud, "I'll roll a d6; on 1-2 he'll attack Peter, on 3-4 he'll attack Paul, and on 5-6 he'll attack Mary." He says he does this so that there's fairness, and that people know he's not playing favorites with who gets targeted. But I personally find it somewhat immersion breaking; my attention is being drawn to the fact that these aren't monsters, they're collections of numbers meant to represent a monster. They're not making decisions, but following a script, and I can get that from any number of video games.

There's also an issue of slowdown. It takes a lot longer to announce the roll, assign numbers to the roll, and read who gets targeted than it takes to just make a snap decision about who the monster is going to attack.

I guess I value decisiveness and immersion over fairness and transparency. I'm ok if the DM's judgements are secretive and somewhat arbitrary, so long as the focus is kept where it ought to be: on the world, the situations, and the characters. Interested to hear people weigh in on situations like this, where there's a conflict between perceived "fairness" and effective game running.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How much of what a DM does should be kept "behind the screen" as it were?

I play with a friend who, whenever there's some doubt about who an enemy will attack, puts it down to a die roll. I do the same thing sometimes, but I find that as a player, I'm actually bothered by it, particularly the fact that he will say out loud, "I'll roll a d6; on 1-2 he'll attack Peter, on 3-4 he'll attack Paul, and on 5-6 he'll attack Mary." He says he does this so that there's fairness, and that people know he's not playing favorites with who gets targeted. But I personally find it somewhat immersion breaking; my attention is being drawn to the fact that these aren't monsters, they're collections of numbers meant to represent a monster. They're not making decisions, but following a script, and I can get that from any number of video games.

There's also an issue of slowdown. It takes a lot longer to announce the roll, assign numbers to the roll, and read who gets targeted than it takes to just make a snap decision about who the monster is going to attack.

I guess I value decisiveness and immersion over fairness and transparency. I'm ok if the DM's judgements are secretive and somewhat arbitrary, so long as the focus is kept where it ought to be: on the world, the situations, and the characters. Interested to hear people weigh in on situations like this, where there's a conflict between perceived "fairness" and effective game running.

Depends. I often roll to see who they'd attack, but usually for attacks that are truly random or where the attacker has no reason to particularly target one person or another. But I don't often say that that's what I'm doing. And I reserve the right to override the die whenever it feels like I should.

I don't see the immersion breaking, but I can see the delay factor. As a player, I'd not care either way.

[Unoriginal]

Ultimately the answer to "how much transparency is too much?" is: "how much transparency do the DM and players at that specific table want, and do their expectations match?"

I personally would not want to play with that kind of dice-selected-targetting your friend favors, but some players may love it. What is important is that he plays with people who share his tastes in playstyle, and me with people who share mine.

As far as I'm concerned, an enemy should select targets based on what they perceive and know, as well as the enemy's personal mindset and other roleplaying traits (ex: "attack the weakest first because pragmatism" vs "attack a strong opponent to prove your worth" etc). Random selection only make sense if the enemy is crazed/confused by something or if somehow there is a situation where the enemy want to hit all the targets equally (ex: enemy is surrounded and all the PCs are covered by the Seeming spell, hiding who is who, and the enemy has no other objective that'd make them favor freeing one direction faster than the other).

Also IMO "the result has to be random to be fair" is pure nonsense. Randomness isn't fair, it's just a lack of choice. If you have the Cavalier Fighter heroically stand between the Demon Prince and the rest of their teammate to buy them time to retreat, is it fair to go "yeah, sorry the die says the Demon Prince attacks the Rogue three times".

[KorvinStarmast]

I guess I value decisiveness and immersion over fairness and transparency. I'm ok if the DM's judgements are secretive and somewhat arbitrary, so long as the focus is kept where it ought to be: on the world, the situations, and the characters. Interested to hear people weigh in on situations like this, where there's a conflict between perceived "fairness" and effective game running.
Have you ever had your players ask "why did they attack me?" I have.
That's why some DMs do this.
I usually do it 'behind the screen' if I feel I need the dice to decide for me, or in my head if the enemy has a coherent tactical plan - a squad of hobgoblins will, a pack of wolves may not, six drunken bandits may or may not - but sometimes I do roll out in the open.

I agree, it can slow down play which is why I don't usually do it.

[RogueJK]

My current DM does a combination.

Random dice rolls for targets are used for mindless/low INT creatures.

Slightly smarter enemies will often attack the easiest targets (based on distance/apparent toughness/etc.), or attempt to target whichever PC just hurt it the most.

Intelligent enemies will use PC-style tactics and strategies when determining the best target.

[Sillybird99]

Yeah, i've never been a fan of that tool. It should be obvious which party member a creature will attack based on the situation. Making it random removes consequence for players putting their characters in tacticly dangerous spots, making the game to forgiving to be taken seriously IMO. If a DM can't commit to punishing a PC for making such blunders, then making a roll is just being noncommittal. Attack a PC if it seems right. Attack a different one if you can't commit to a potentially dangerous action. Making die rolls for a creature's target slows things down and weakens the DM's position. Die rolls are already for attack and damage. Giving more control of your game over to fate isn't doing anyone any favors. The players signed up to play in a game run by a human, not dice.

There are some caveats to this position, such as first round in combat while the enemy is still sizing up the PCs or when a creature is confused or otherwise unable to act under it's on faculties. But even in these situations it is better if a DM just makes a call and deals with it. The players should believe in the world, the enemies, and the danger of adventuring. And most of all they should trust you. If a DM is worried about being perceived as playing favorites, that is a symptom of a bigger problem with the game.

[Dark.Revenant]

I use it for indirect fire; for example, if a bunch of archers are firing into the midst of combat at a group of PCs, I'll roll to find out how many attacks each of the PCs take.

[Demonslayer666]

Always rolling would get old, and waste a lot of time. I would recommend to him to attack the closest target rather than rolling every time, or if there are several to attack, to go after the one that did the most damage.

[Xervous]

I generally don’t roll for targeting. Each enemy has something that will determine who they favor, even if it’s as simple as closest target.

[Dork_Forge]

I do this, some groups or certain players have a tendency to not like being targeted if they perceive there to be another valid target. Rolling openly like this pre-empts this and puts it squarely down to their luck.

If the dice decide they can't blame you, which as a DM is a nice feeling.

That said, some things like killing off monsters that have a few hit points left, of bumping the hp of some on the fly to give a more satisfying encounter are things that should never be revealed, and can easily be seen by some as 'cheating.'

[Angelalex242]

Well. Some PCs want to 'draw aggro.'

Random rolls make that impossible.

[Unoriginal]

That said, some things like killing off monsters that have a few hit points left, of bumping the hp of some on the fly to give a more satisfying encounter are things that should never be revealed, and can easily be seen by some as 'cheating.'

IMO that kind of things shouldn't be done.

Not revealing it doesn't make it any better.

[Mandrake]

Have you ever had your players ask "why did they attack me?" I have.

I'm not saying this to counter your post -- I agree with it -- I just wanted to share that I use such questions to strengthen roleplay and/or tie it to their character's beliefs or ideals or whatever. I usually say something like:

"Character X stares at the enemy in disbelief as yet another volley of arrows is launched straight at their face, ignoring everyone else. (turn to player) You dodge this one, but you start wondering whether these monsters have something against you in particular."

"Character Y spends the short rest sulking because the rest of the party apprently positions so to save their own hide. (turn to player) It seems to you that the world is truly an unfair place, where those unfortunate or indisposed are always abandoned to their own devices."

Examples above, of course, are out of the context, so may not be effective. The point I'm trying to make is that it does not matter how I chose who to attack (even if it were at random, by the dice); what matters is how the players react to it and how I can react to that reaction to strengthen or build on the narrative or the story world. It embraces the questioning while maintaining immersion. As most everything, this is player/table dependent, so YMMV.

[dafrca]

How much of what a DM does should be kept "behind the screen" as it were?

I play with a friend who, whenever there's some doubt about who an enemy will attack, puts it down to a die roll. I do the same thing sometimes, but I find that as a player, I'm actually bothered by it, particularly the fact that he will say out loud, "I'll roll a d6; on 1-2 he'll attack Peter, on 3-4 he'll attack Paul, and on 5-6 he'll attack Mary." He says he does this so that there's fairness, and that people know he's not playing favorites with who gets targeted.

For me, this has a lot to do with trust between players and the GM. It sounds like he doe snot feel trusted and thus is trying to insure no questions can be raised on his fairness. As a player I am with you, I trust my GM and expect they will do what is best for the game and us, the people playing the game including them.

If it is a new group there may need to be some transparency to help build the trust, but for the most part I would rather, like you, allow the GM to just act and not worry about the fairness. :smallsmile:

[dafrca]

IMO that kind of things shouldn't be done.

Not revealing it doesn't make it any better.

If the GM does not tell you they did it, how would you ever know either way?

[Dork_Forge]

IMO that kind of things shouldn't be done.

Not revealing it doesn't make it any better.

That's fair, the players don't know that it's happening and I've never had any adverse reactions from it.

Arguably the closest thing to mismatched expectations in this regard I've had is when a party meta-guessed an encounter of Kobolds would be easy. What they didn't know was that they were almost all Dragonshields.

At the end of the day the role of the DM is to give the players an experience, whilst I can understand not liking things being fudged behind the screen, as long as it's for the right reasons and done well, no harm no foul.

But of course, DM styles differ.

[JonBeowulf]

If I ever feel randomness is the best course, I have a d20 dedicated to that purpose and I roll it along with the attack. I don't say why I did it (I'm sure my players have figured it out) or how I assign the number range to characters (I hope 'ascending alphabetic' wasn't hard to discern). It doesn't slow things down and it doesn't break immersion... well, any more than rolling dice already does.

[Unoriginal]

If the GM does not tell you they did it, how would you ever know either way?

1) Not telling the players doesn't mean that the players can't realize it. DMs who do that rarely do it only for one fight, and most DMs aren't impossible-to-read fortresses of mysteries. Pattern recognition can do wonder, too.

2) If you do X when you know people would object to it if it was found out, making X impossible to find out does not make it any less objectionable.

It's a question of respecting the people you play with. A DM should be mature enough to know lying to your players don't make the encounter more interesting, and that even if it did make it more interesting it still wouldn't be worth lying to your players.

[Pex]

The DM is not wrong to roll a die to determine who a monster attacks. PCs are on camera all the time. Everyone attacking the same PC every combat will kill the PC, including the tank in full armor. There are other factors a DM can use. The PC who is closest is a good reason to attack the PC. The PC who hurt the monster the most so it wants revenge is also a reason. However, without that casus belli the DM has to remain a neutral observer to monster actions. Rolling a die is the fair way to do it. D&D is first and foremost a game. It needs to be playable. It doesn't matter how much into the story you are. It is a game and is played like one. That takes precedent over immersion.

[Angelalex242]

To be fair, if the monster is focusing on the guy who WANTED to draw Aggro, the party likely has a plan in place for that, so let their plan unfold.

If that noble Paladin or Fighter is out there tanking, let the party's plan unfold like it's a proper MMO and see how good they are at healing/keeping him upright.

[truemane]

I've always done a combination. If it's 'obvious' who the monster 'should' attack, that's what they do. If there's any real doubt, I'll roll. My break point when it comes to making that decision is time/momentum. If it's instantly clear to me, I do that. If it's not, I roll a d4 or a d6 and go that many down the initiative order do that instead (or maybe three PC's are applicable targets and 3 aren't, so I'm d3'ing just them, or whatever). A suboptimal decision made quickly is better than a more optimal one after a pause. Dead air breaks immersion and I do my best to avoid it.

I don't generally announce which I'm doing ahead of time. If anyone asks, I would tell them more or less what I just said above. I don't think I've ever had anyone seriously question me about it.

But, when I DM live, it's almost exclusively one of two kinds of tables: a group of friends I've known a long time and DM'd for many many times OR a group of perfect strangers who have little to no role-playing experience. Both of those tables come pre-equipped with a great deal of grace and trust in my abilities and intentions.

But as for the transparency, I default to less transparency, unless someone asks. I try to get all the metagame stuff out of the way before the game starts. Things like how closely we'll hew to the rules, what to do if I get a rule wrong, how to handle out of character knowledge, conventions and assumptions of the module we're about to do. My view and practices on dice fudging and rail-roading.

But once the puppet show starts, I don't spend much time pointing at the strings.

[Composer99]

Speaking generally, it's going to vary player to player and table to table how much the players like knowing how the sausage is made, so to speak.

I prefer more transparency as DM, myself.


It should be obvious which party member a creature will attack based on the situation.

Speaking from experience, this often isn't the case. And in any event I'm not spending time deciding who any given Random Mook is targeting, so if a target isn't obvious after 2-3 seconds of looking at the map, I'm rolling.

[truemane]

[...]if a target isn't obvious after 2-3 seconds of looking at the map, I'm rolling.
Exactly. Although I roll if it's not obvious to me in the time it takes to look at the imitative order and announce who's attacking.

[Catullus64]

The DM is not wrong to roll a die to determine who a monster attacks. PCs are on camera all the time. Everyone attacking the same PC every combat will kill the PC, including the tank in full armor. There are other factors a DM can use. The PC who is closest is a good reason to attack the PC. The PC who hurt the monster the most so it wants revenge is also a reason. However, without that casus belli the DM has to remain a neutral observer to monster actions. Rolling a die is the fair way to do it. D&D is first and foremost a game. It needs to be playable. It doesn't matter how much into the story you are. It is a game and is played like one. That takes precedent over immersion.

Emphasis mine; that's one of those statements which can seem to the person who makes it like an impartial statement of obvious fact, but really contains a value judgement.

I don't want fairness in a game of D&D the same way I want it in other games, or at least I don't want to feel like I'm playing a "fair game." What I want is the experience of perilous adventure, of terrifying evils and death-defying escapes. I don't want to feel like these things are treating my adventurer fairly, which is what comes across anytime someone pulls back the curtain and shows me their strings. So clearly it's not a universal condition that "D&D is first and foremost a game."

[Unoriginal]

Arguably the closest thing to mismatched expectations in this regard I've had is when a party meta-guessed an encounter of Kobolds would be easy. What they didn't know was that they were almost all Dragonshields.

That's not the same thing as changing stats to make the encounter get to an outcome the DM prefers over what the original stats and dice would have resulted in.



At the end of the day the role of the DM is to give the players an experience

An experience, yes. Not the experience the DM has decided.

The DM decides the setup of all encounters, deciding the outcome once that it's been established it's up to the dice to decide it is just so incredibly against the point of the TTRPG-playing experience that I can't fathom doing it.



whilst I can understand not liking things being fudged behind the screen, as long as it's for the right reasons and done well, no harm no foul.

IMO there is no right reason to do it. And it it an harm and a foul.

I don't blame people for having different opinions on the subject, but I would quit playing with anyone who fudge, on the spot.


The DM is not wrong to roll a die to determine who a monster attacks. PCs are on camera all the time. Everyone attacking the same PC every combat will kill the PC, including the tank in full armor. There are other factors a DM can use. The PC who is closest is a good reason to attack the PC. The PC who hurt the monster the most so it wants revenge is also a reason. However, without that casus belli the DM has to remain a neutral observer to monster actions. Rolling a die is the fair way to do it. D&D is first and foremost a game. It needs to be playable. It doesn't matter how much into the story you are. It is a game and is played like one. That takes precedent over immersion.

There is no fairness in randomness. Fairness requires someone to make a decision, and leaving it to random chance is a lack of decision.

Like you said, there are plenty of factors a DM can use to decide which PC gets targeted. There are (some rare) situations where a monster truly has no reason to prefer one target over the others, but it certainly isn't fair to always have the random die decide the target like OP's DM is doing.


Emphasis mine; that's one of those statements which can seem to the person who makes it like an impartial statement of obvious fact, but really contains a value judgement.

I don't want fairness in a game of D&D the same way I want it in other games, or at least I don't want to feel like I'm playing a "fair game." What I want is the experience of perilous adventure, of terrifying evils and death-defying escapes. I don't want to feel like these things are treating my adventurer fairly, which is what comes across anytime someone pulls back the curtain and shows me their strings. So clearly it's not a universal condition that "D&D is first and foremost a game."

Yeah. The DM being fair is an out-of-universe thing. In-universe the drow slavers aren't going to *not* keep targeting the PC who's the most vulnerable unless something else becomes more urgent matter.

[PhoenixPhyre]

An experience, yes. Not the experience the DM has decided.

The DM decides the setup of all encounters, deciding the outcome once that it's been established it's up to the dice to decide it is just so incredibly against the point of the TTRPG-playing experience that I can't fathom doing it.


What about "this encounter has dragged on long enough and the outcome is a foregone conclusion; dragging it out is only going to be boring. That monster is at 2 HP and doesn't go again until after all the party, so I'm just going to say that that hit killed it."

[Doug Lampert]

Depends. I often roll to see who they'd attack, but usually for attacks that are truly random or where the attacker has no reason to particularly target one person or another. But I don't often say that that's what I'm doing. And I reserve the right to override the die whenever it feels like I should.

I don't see the immersion breaking, but I can see the delay factor. As a player, I'd not care either way.

I used random rolls for a fair number of monsters and foes on my current (ship) based campaign. And yes, I can always not roll if there's a reason to target one character in particular.

The first few big fights, the NPC ship's captain came up about 5x as often as you'd expect. I mean, on an early fight I rolled for 5 archers, and with well over 20 possible targets 3 of them went for the captain.

After this happened two or three times, and everyone was making jokes about it, I said, OK, Delaney is wearing gilded armor because she's the captain and needs to be recognizable, that's why everyone always targets her. (And from then on if I rolled I'd assign her extra numbers or simply have 2-3 foes shoot without rolling.) Then she "retired" to become queen of an island, and one of the PCs took over as captain, first time it's random chance who they target, almost everyone shoots at him (fortunately, he's also the tank).

We've now formalized it. If there's no reason to target anyone else, intelligent foes always recognize and disproportionately target the ship's captain.


IMO there is no right reason to do it. And it it an harm and a foul.

I don't blame people for having different opinions on the subject, but I would quit playing with anyone who fudge, on the spot.

Also, the world is full of GMs who are sure no one notices, and of players who have horror stories of GMs who were utterly obvious about it. Somewhere out there, there are a bunch of GMs who think they are unnoticeable and are dead wrong about this. How does any given GM that fudges know if he is one of the obvious ones?

And, no, the odds are that the player's will not tell you, not even if you ask them, because telling someone, "You are a failure as a storyteller and a horrible liar" is rude, even if they asked.

Finally, to agree with something else Unoriginal has touched on, IT IS NOT MY STORY! It is the PLAYER'S STORY. I do not get to decide, "this is a minor encounter that shouldn't kill anyone", whether it's major or minor is up to what the players do. Heck, whether there is a fight at all is usually up to the PCs and their actions, diplomacy is a thing, running away is an alternative. That PCs make choices and then deal with the consequences is fundamental to how I think a RPG should work.

I as GM do not get to decide, "they are killing this monster too easily", they DID THINGS to kill that monster quickly, not letting the PCs be awesome even when they have earned it is probably the worst thing a GM can do.

Randomness favors team monster, but preparation favors the prepared PC, letting things go as they go without fudging favors the prepared PC, which is fine. Letting the monsters win if the PCs have a series of horrible rolls makes for a fine gaming story, which is also fine (seriously, I've got a couple of players who still discuss the same fight that they lost to a minor group of foes under a different GM due to horrible dice over 30 YEARS ago, they think it was awesome and it meant that every time they WON in that campaign it was more awesome because they KNEW that the GM wasn't going to fudge to save them from an encounter where "they did everything right").

Roll in the open and let the dice fall.

[Doug Lampert]

What about "this encounter has dragged on long enough and the outcome is a foregone conclusion; dragging it out is only going to be boring. That monster is at 2 HP and doesn't go again until after all the party, so I'm just going to say that that hit killed it."

What? It's too hard to say, "You finish off the monsters next round, they're not going to accomplish anything more"?

I've been known to say, "Does anyone do anything stupid on this fight? No, then you kill them all, you recover arrows and continue on your way."

Alternately, an intelligent foe will SURRENDER when at 2 HP and obviously beaten, an animal will attempt to run away, those provide fine roleplay opportunities, why do you think you should deny your players those opportunities?

[EggKookoo]

I sometimes roll to see who the monster attacks. I always narrate it as the monster being indecisive, glancing at both potential targets, and then something like shrugging and going for one. Or something along those lines. So the die roll is modeling the "randomness" of the monster's actions.

[Dork_Forge]

That's not the same thing as changing stats to make the encounter get to an outcome the DM prefers over what the original stats and dice would have resulted in.

Let me clarify, I have never fudged to the point that an outcome has been changed.

It's about pacing and momentum, and it is at least partially incumbent on a DM to maintain those things.


An experience, yes. Not the experience the DM has decided.

The DM decides the setup of all encounters, deciding the outcome once that it's been established it's up to the dice to decide it is just so incredibly against the point of the TTRPG-playing experience that I can't fathom doing it.

So you're against an already long fight not dragging on another round for no real reason?

You're against the Paladin crit smite killing the dragon instead of being left at 3hp and being killed by a regular ol' attack?

The reasons for doing this are not limited to 'this fight is ending too quickly' and sometimes players can steamroll fights just fine. But as an experience that certainly feels bleh sometimes, especially if they were expecting a more epic fight.

Obviously everyone DMs differently, but I go on the reactions of my players and I've not had a bad fudge yet, and fudging is the minority of the encounters.


IMO there is no right reason to do it. And it it an harm and a foul.

Fair enough


I don't blame people for having different opinions on the subject, but I would quit playing with anyone who fudge, on the spot.

Assuming you actually knew it was happening, right?

And you feel so strongly about this that it would override any enjoyment the game or that person has been bringing you?


There is no fairness in randomness. Fairness requires someone to make a decision, and leaving it to random chance is a lack of decision.

Like you said, there are plenty of factors a DM can use to decide which PC gets targeted. There are (some rare) situations where a monster truly has no reason to prefer one target over the others, but it certainly isn't fair to always have the random die decide the target like OP's DM is doing.

But how is it unfair? If it's down to the die then there's no unconscious bias in that choice, if it truly would be random to that creature.






Also, the world is full of GMs who are sure no one notices, and of players who have horror stories of GMs who were utterly obvious about it. Somewhere out there, there are a bunch of GMs who think they are unnoticeable and are dead wrong about this. How does any given GM that fudges know if he is one of the obvious ones?

And, no, the odds are that the player's will not tell you, not even if you ask them, because telling someone, "You are a failure as a storyteller and a horrible liar" is rude, even if they asked.

That is 100% a group issue


Finally, to agree with something else Unoriginal has touched on, IT IS NOT MY STORY! It is the PLAYER'S STORY. I do not get to decide, "this is a minor encounter that shouldn't kill anyone", whether it's major or minor is up to what the players do. Heck, whether there is a fight at all is usually up to the PCs and their actions, diplomacy is a thing, running away is an alternative. That PCs make choices and then deal with the consequences is fundamental to how I think a RPG should work.

I as GM do not get to decide, "they are killing this monster too easily", they DID THINGS to kill that monster quickly, not letting the PCs be awesome even when they have earned it is probably the worst thing a GM can do.

Randomness favors team monster, but preparation favors the prepared PC, letting things go as they go without fudging favors the prepared PC, which is fine. Letting the monsters win if the PCs have a series of horrible rolls makes for a fine gaming story, which is also fine (seriously, I've got a couple of players who still discuss the same fight that they lost to a minor group of foes under a different GM due to horrible dice over 30 YEARS ago, they think it was awesome and it meant that every time they WON in that campaign it was more awesome because they KNEW that the GM wasn't going to fudge to save them from an encounter where "they did everything right").

Roll in the open and let the dice fall.

And you know what the DM is? A player.

The player with the most responsibility and the highest workload, because let's be blunt, DMing is work. So whilst I think you're going along the lines of the DM does not dictate the story like a novel, the story is 100% still for the DM too.

If the DM isn't having fun, shortly no one will be.

Also, I roll everything in the open, every single die, and I strongly dislike when DMs don't do this, which is not the same as extending a monster's life, or more often cutting it short, by a single round.

[Unoriginal]

So you're against an already long fight not dragging on another round for no real reason?

If the fight is already dragging, it's not one round that will make the difference, and that round can be made interesting.



You're against the Paladin crit smite killing the dragon instead of being left at 3hp and being killed by a regular ol' attack?

Yes.

A lot could happen with those 3hps. Maybe the PCs see the dragon still standing after that cataclysm and decide to make a run for it. Maybe the Druid uses their highest remaining spell slot to finish the dragon to make sure. Maybe the dragon has a Legendary Action that'd allow them to escape the perilous situation, or at least try.



The reasons for doing this are not limited to 'this fight is ending too quickly' and sometimes players can steamroll fights just fine. But as an experience that certainly feels bleh sometimes, especially if they were expecting a more epic fight.

As a DM, my take on that is "learn what went poorly this time and use the experience to better next time".




Assuming you actually knew it was happening, right?

Have to admit, it's not reassuring at all to be asked that when you say you would do X if people did Y thing you find objectionable.


"I would never hire anyone who stole money from their previous employers as a babysitter."

"Assuming you actually knew it was happening, right?"




And you feel so strongly about this that it would override any enjoyment the game or that person has been bringing you?

Yes, as it would break the trust I have with this person and cast doubt on anything that happened in the campaign.

How do I know I was actually unlucky when my PC tried to stop the Thieves' Guild leader from escaping, or if it was the DM who decided that my PC's attack shouldn't KO this NPC because they wanted a different outcome from this encounter?

How do I know that I actually beat the odds and had my PC survive the Pit Fiend's onslaughts long enough to allow the royal family to escape, or if the DM decided that my PC shouldn't lose that much HPs at this time because otherwise the encounter risked to end up with our group failing at protecting the royal family?



But how is it unfair? If it's down to the die then there's no unconscious bias in that choice, if it truly would be random to that creature.

As I said, if it's a situation where the creature would choose a random target, I think it's fair use a die to determine which person gets randomly selected.




And you know what the DM is? A player.

The player with the most responsibility and the highest workload, because let's be blunt, DMing is work.

The second part shows why the first part isn't true. The DM is the DM, not a player. The DM has much more work, much more responsibility, and much more power on what is happening than any player.



So whilst I think you're going along the lines of the DM does not dictate the story like a novel, the story is 100% still for the DM too.

If the DM isn't having fun, shortly no one will be.

Yes, the DM should have fun.

That doesn't mean the DM should control the story in situation where they have supposedly relinquished that power and allowed some randomness to decide things in order to make the situation more exciting.

As a DM, if I wanted to run a published adventure and it told me "this NPC must survive this fight, fudge things", I would disregard that. And likely choose a different adventure.

To be clear, I'm fine with a DM controlling something to maintain their enjoyment, as long as it's acknowledged as such. I'm not going to expect the DM to roll on random tables to know if the BBEG actually show up on time for the final battle.

I'd also be fine with a DM going "you know what, this isn't working, how about we say X happened instead?".

What I'm not fine is when the DM says they're leaving things up to the dice, and then decide to change things without saying so because the outcome doesn't fit what they want for x or y reasons but they want to keep the appearance of following the dice.



Also, I roll everything in the open, every single die, and I strongly dislike when DMs don't do this, which is not the same as extending a monster's life, or more often cutting it short, by a single round.

If you roll a die in the open, then change the outcome the roll would have based on something else which is not in the open ( like a monster's HPs, save mods, or the like), how is it any different to having the roll hidden and changing the outcome?

[truemane]

For me, fudging is like edge-case infidelity in a monogamous relationship: if you feel like you have to hide it, you probably shouldn't be doing it. If I were running a table that would be upset if they saw me fudging the dice, I wouldn't do it (the only exception being if I make a mistake of some kind that the players would suffer for). Some tables don't mind. Some tables want me (the DM) to tell them a satisfying story with the numbers as a guide. And some tables want a simulation where they get to assemble a story out of the numbers. Different kinds of tables, different kinds of fun.

Would you enjoy watching sports if the rules were fudged to make a more compelling narrative? If one team got an extra at bat in the 7th inning so they could tie it up and then the batting order gets changed in the 9th so the guy who missed his last five at bats can get a home run and win against their archrivals?

Maybe. Lots of people like sports movies, after all. And a sporting event in a movie is like a game with fudged dice. It mostly depends on which one you're in the mood for, and/or which one you expect when you sit down.

I have fun both ways, as a player and as a DM. But I would be upset if I came to a table to play baseball and wound up watching a baseball movie instead. And vice versa. And if I came to a table with a baseball game prepared and they wanted a movie, none of us would have a good time.

I've said it a million times: different people come to the game for different kinds of fun. The key skills are reading the room and being transparent about your preferences.

If you can be transparent AND not judgey about it, all the better. But in my experience precious few people can manage both without some training. I talked about what a Session 0 looks like for my novice-level games and got some flak for it. But this is the kind of thing I think it's important to teach people new to the hobby. "A lot of this stuff seems simple and intuitive and obvious. It isn't. A lot of people have made secret invisible decisions about how this stuff works (and how it's supposed to work), decisions so secret and so invisible that they don't even think they are decisions. They think the way it's just The Way It Is. And then when someone else's secret invisible decisions-that's-don't-seem-like-a-decisions conflicts, they fight and fight and fight like they're arguing over the best answer to 2 + 2 and they both thinkl their answer is 4 and the other guy's is purple."

I'm forever flabbergasted by the degree to which people automatically, instinctively, instantly, and irrevocably, slide their opinions into the file marked Fact and just cling to it in the face of mountains of objective evidence to the contrary.

It's weird. I thought it was weird in the mid-80's when I first started writing my own adventures and the older and more varied and more discussed and dissected and discussed and analyzed the hobby gets, the weirder it gets.


Also, I roll everything in the open, every single die, and I strongly dislike when DMs don't do this, which is not the same as extending a monster's life, or more often cutting it short, by a single round.
Do the hardcore version of this and have the players roll ALL the dice. Instead of you rolling an attack, assume the attack roll is 10, add modifiers, and have the players roll their AC against it. And then they can roll their own damage too. Same for saves.

Player has 14 AC and +7 to attack. Monster has 12 AC and +5 to attack.

So on the player's turn, they roll and add 17, compare it to 12. When the monster attacks, the player rolls, adds 4 and compares to 15.

The math stay the same. The GM cannot unfairly influence the outcome.

[Unoriginal]

For me, fudging is like edge-case cheating in a monogamous relationship: if you feel like you have to hide it, you probably shouldn't be doing it. If I were running a table that would be upset if they saw me fudging the dice, I wouldn't do it (the only exception being if I make a mistake of some kind that the players would suffer for). Some tables don't mind. Some tables want the story to guide the numbers. And some tables want the numbers to tell them a story. Different kinds of tables, different kinds of fun.

Would you enjoy watching a sporting event if the rules were fudged to make a more compelling narrative? If one team got an extra at bat in the 7th inning so they could tie it up and then the batting order gets changed in the 9th so the guy who missed his last five at bats can get a home run and win against their rivals?

Maybe. We watch movies about sports events. And that's basically the same as a highly fudged D&D game.

Well put. Another way to say it: having an agreed-beforehand outcome is normal in Pro Wrestling, and a likely career-ending scandal in Olympic wrestling. But you don't watch or participate in those for the same reasons.



I have fun both ways. But I would be upset if I came to the table to play baseball and wound up watching a baseball movie instead. And vice versa.

And I would politely decline the "watching a baseball movie" one, while being furious if I was told it'd be the "playing baseball" one and it turned out to be the movie one. But that's just my personal opinion.



The math stay the same. The GM cannot unfairly influence the outcome.

I prefer just trusting the GM to not be unfair, by playing with people I think are trustworthy.

But I think you've attributed that quote to the wrong forumgoer.

[truemane]

Well put. Another way to say it: having an agreed-beforehand outcome is normal in Pro Wrestling, and a likely career-ending scandal in Olympic wrestling. But you don't watch or participate in those for the same reasons.
Perfect example. Pro Wrestling is one kind of entertainment. Olympic wrestling a very different kind of entertainment. You can like one, or both, or neither and/or be in the mood for either on any given day. But the fact that some people like one doesn't invalidate the entertainment value of the other for people who are into that kind of thing.


And I would politely decline the "watching a baseball movie" one, while being furious if I was told it'd be the "playing baseball" one and it turned out to be the movie one. But that's just my personal opinion.
"Furious" would be a bit strong for me, but agree that I like to know what I'm sitting down to. I'll ask DM's I don't know what their fudging policy is. Because we should all know what we're up to.

For example, I only ever played in a single 4E campaign, run by a DM who was the Oldest of Old School. Carefully balanced, complex combats. Every non-combat encounter was cunningly crafted to point you to the next combat and every combat opened a door to the next social encounter. And he would rather cut off his own toe than fudge a single die roll for anyone. And his games were as compelling and as tense and satisfying as a really close sporting event.

The main 2E campaign I played in was run by my older brother who knew all the rules but cared very little about any of them. Rule of Cool was his watchword and if what you wanted to do was fun and interesting and shook things up, he'd find a way to make it work. We players told him what we wanted to get up to and he ran it. And the whole thing was a chaotic rolling disaster wrecking ball both in combat and out.

I have very fond memories of both games. And I had ever sat down to one and got the other, I would have had a bad time.


But I think you've attributed that quote to the wrong forumgoer.
Woops! Thank you. I'll edit that.
Edit: Edited

[Pex]

I stand by what I said. The PCs are not treated the same as the monsters. There are combats where all the monsters are mooks. There are combats with a couple of lieutenants and the rest mooks. Then there's the combat with BBEG. the Lieutenants maybe, and rest mooks. With practice and experience players learn which character should go after which bad guy with context of the particular combat taken into account. From the monsters' perspective all party members are BBEG. The trope is players should attack the wizard first. That does not work in reverse. The PC wizard should not always be attacked first as a matter of playing the game. Sometimes, yes, in the context of the fight. Sometimes the party's healer will be attacked first. There's a tactical reason to do so and the bad guys of that fight have relevance to be aware of that tactic and use it. As a matter of just playing the game, no, every PC is equal target. The wizard or healer is not always attacked first. One PC is not always attacked first. To avoid unintentional bias the die is rolled.

Of course there's the famous marching order. That usually means warriors in front, spellcasters and archers in the back. Sometimes the spellcasters are in the middle and a warrior is last in case of attack from the rear. The warriors want to be attacked first. It's their job. They have the AC and hit points to withstand the attack. That's ok and supposed to happen. The monsters attack the first PC they see. It's a casus belli. Without a casus belli, the die roll is fair.

[KorvinStarmast]

We've now formalized it. If there's no reason to target anyone else, intelligent foes always recognize and disproportionately target the ship's captain. Which is why Admiral Nelson would occasionally ask for his red jacket. :smallwink:

That PCs make choices and then deal with the consequences is fundamental to how I think a RPG should work. And sometimes, those choices lead to unsatisfying sessions, as happened for us last month, to which complaints I responded "You all made the decision to go back in there, since {player Z} wanted to see if there was more treasure. you surprised me, but I responded to your decisions. If the five of you can't figure out what you want to do as a team, that's your problem to solve as a team, not mine"

Different kinds of tables, different kinds of fun.
The OP's question, though, as a complement to your point is one of those "it's a matter of taste" not "it's a matter of Truth" kinds of questions.

I'm forever flabbergasted by the degree to which people automatically, instinctively, instantly, and irrevocably, slide their opinions into the file marked Fact and just cling to it in the face of mountains of objective evidence to the contrary. It's weird. I thought it was weird in the mid-80's when I first started writing my own adventures and the older and more varied and more discussed and dissected and discussed and analyzed the hobby gets, the weirder it gets. Not to mention, overthinking things is a common thing during forum discussions.

The math stay the same. The GM cannot unfairly influence the outcome. But the OP question was about "How do I figure out which monster attacks which character" and "is using a die to determine that OK?"

To which there is no single correct answer, per your own experience. (And mine)

the barbarian (under influence of an enlarge potion) and the dwarf (Fighter/BM) are in a five foot wide 8' tall passageway. Barb is a bit over 10 feet tall, so he has a bit of 'squeeze' going on, but he does have boosts to STR/Althletics check from the enlargement.
Neither can figure out how to open the secret door, so they try to brute force it: barb slides door up (it slides up and down, and there's a catch somewhere) just enough to slip a crowbar (provided by rogue [in the next rank) to hold it open for a sec.
The barb and dwarf (whose passive perception didn't notice someone moving on the other side of the door), now that they have moved it can both get a grip and both apply their power (Barb squats, dwarf is basicall between barbs legs, both get their hand under the door's edge, to pull the door up.
(Yeah, brute force is a method, the door is made of, mostly, a stone slab)).
I set DC at 22 since they had to over power the latch and lift heavy door. (They didn't know that, I jotted it down) ATH result? 25.
They broke it! So, up the door went, but now (the barb realizes, since I tell him this) he feels all of its weight: he knows it's gonna slide down if he lets go.
He's standing there as the dwarf sees enemy (two myrmidon earth elementals moving toward these two interlopers who just busted their secret/sliding stone door).
Roll Initiative.
Dwarf has his weapon out, but doesn't move into the room, which allows the EEM to close.
Who does the EEM attack? Dwarf with a weapon out, and who just hit EEM ith a readied action to attack (attack if EEM got any closer) or, the barb standing their, somewhat awkwardly, holding the broken door up?
EEM has to make a quick decision, so I rolled for it using my time honored even odd convention. (Could have flipped a coin)
Odd, so he went for the dwarf.
I could have justified EEM attacking either one.
Rounds are compressed into 6 seconds. EEM decision was to close and attack (Idea being to repel these interlopers)
From the discussion in this thread, apparently some feel participants that it is wrong, as a matter of some weird principle, that I chose to roll to see which PC EEM attacked first. (His ally was later in initiative, and ,there was an obstruction to him getting closer (stacks and stacks of beer barrels).

Sorry, they can go and jump in a lake. It worked for me, and it worked for my players.
(Ended up being a very entertaining and tricksy fight all said and done).

[Composer99]

There is nothing wrong with a DM changing monster hp on the fly - as long as the players know going in to the game that this happens from time to time.

There is nothing wrong with a DM changing a die roll result on the fly - as long as the players know going into the game that this happens from time to time.

There is nothing wrong with a DM shaking things up when the players are struggling to find direction on their own or are dilly-dallying - just as long as the players know going into the game that this can happen.

The DM doesn't have to announce every instance of these things happening, or even any instance of them happening. They just have to be upfront, IMO, that that is part of their games.

Then, if any given player doesn't enjoy that style of gameplay - and there is also nothing wrong with that, either - they know that that DM's table is not a good match with their preferences. Well and good: DMs can run the games they want to run, and players can play the games they want to play, just as long as everyone is upfront with each other about it. (Obviously, this also means that DMs and players have to start thinking through what they like and don't like.)

Suffice to say, it's when the players don't know you make those sorts of on-the-fly adjustments that doesn't sit well with me in my capacity as DM. (Again, not on an individual case-by-case basis, but as a general rule.) Because that means they can't tell what kind of game you want to run and whether it's a good fit with the kind of game they want to play. And I think that even if you're well-intentioned (which I assume is the case unless I have good reason to know otherwise), players who don't want to play the game the way you want to run it are entitled to be upset if they feel misled as a result.

... oh, but maybe you want to add in an exception for when it's <5 minutes before the session's supposed to end> PM - or <wait, what time is it now?> AM - and you just want the session to wrap up with a quick post-combat denouement but oh god this fight is going on forever. :smalltongue:

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll note that on Sunday I'm going to be doing session 1 of a new campaign, where the party will start off (as decided in session 0) on the road with a caravan. Within the first few minutes, the caravan will be attacked by raiders who don't know that the party is anyone special and are looking to cause havoc and destroy the caravan[1]. So that first round, the goblin archers are going to pick targets randomly from the set of
* PCs
* caravan drivers
* caravan mules
* anyone else visible

They don't care who they hit--as far as they know they're raiding a defenseless (other than the drivers having crossbows like normal) caravan. Once the party reacts, they'll make individual decisions on targeting from there. To me, that's the most immersive, verisimilitude preserving outcome--if they all chose the nearest target, that poor creature would get focused to death. And they have no reason to target one over another.

[1] as part of a false flag operation to blame the destruction of the caravan on another nation in hopes of starting a war. They don't actually plan on robbing the caravan, and are fine with being driven off as long as they can plant the idea that <other nation> attacked a caravan in someone else's territory. Ideally they'd kill everyone but a patsy, plant bodies in <other nation> colors, and let the patsy "go for help". They just happened to hit the one that a party of adventurers was accompanying as paid guards.

[heavyfuel]

As others have pointed out, the amount of transparency that is too much varies from table to table. Some people like full transparency, some like none, most fall somewhere in between.

Personally, when I DM for new players, I give them zero transparency. There's already too much going on that they shouldn't also worry about what the DM is doing. Plus, I might need to fudge dice rolls to ensure they have a good time and want to continue playing.

When I DM for experienced players, I give them a little more transparency, but still not complete transparency. Usually when it's a high stake roll, I do it openly (like a boss rolling a Wisdom save against an encounter ending spell) so that they know I didn't cheat them out of their highest level spell.

I do this last one because I had the horrid experience of playing with a DM early in gaming life whose NPCs were all but immune to anything other than HP damage. "Used a save or suck spell on 4 enemies? Well aren't these guys the luckiest NPCs to ever be created! They all make their save because screw you."

[Doug Lampert]

I do this last one because I had the horrid experience of playing with a DM early in gaming life whose NPCs were all but immune to anything other than HP damage. "Used a save or suck spell on 4 enemies? Well aren't these guys the luckiest NPCs to ever be created! They all make their save because screw you."

This brings up another reason that I (strongly) prefer open rolls. Imagine if when 3 out of 5 NPCs shooting at a large ship's crew all chose the same target it was a PC. If I rolled in secret, how would the player feel about it?

In fact, things about as unlikely happened to PCs, and everyone was fine with it.

For all we actually KNOW, heavyfuel's GM may have been rolling a bunch of 20's. Weird stuff happens. But instead of having a story and memory about how they won despite that horrid luck, which would have been pretty good and is what they'd get if those rolls were real and open; instead, heavyfuel has a conviction that the GM was fudging/cheating.

He probably was, but if he wasn't, that's an EVEN WORSE tragedy of wasted gaming.

And, I'll add, if he was, let the PCs be awesome, that's a big part of your job as a GM. I get plenty of enjoyment from seeing how the PCs upset my plans and succeed despite their screwups or because they think of something I missed.

[dafrca]

If you roll a die in the open, then change the outcome the roll would have based on something else which is not in the open ( like a monster's HPs, save mods, or the like), how is it any different to having the roll hidden and changing the outcome?

It's not and based on what you have said so far, it should bother you just as much. :smallbiggrin:

[Pex]

I have no problem with a DM rolling in secret or out in the open. I grew up with it being in secret and has nothing to do with my infamous rant against tyrannical DMing. Trust in the DM is what matters. However, for those DMs who do roll in secret I appreciate those moments when he rolls in the open for the Very Important rolls, those moments when it's absolutely crucial for a desired outcome to happen and we deal with the consequences of whatever happens. Whether the DM fudges or not is not the point. It's a respect to the players that whatever happens it's the players "agency" that causes the outcome because the players made the roll happen.

[Thrudd]

I make combat rolls and saving throws in public. Most everything else is secret. I do use dice to decide targets, only when there is not a clear reason to pick one over another. It doesn't take but a second to decide the roll parameters and make it. It doesn't matter if this roll is secret or open, really, since I don't want to spend any time to explain it to the players.
I would tell players from the beginning that I don't fudge dice, if I roll for something I abide by the result. I also let them know I keep some rolls, or the meaning of the roll, secret when I'm deciding things that would be opaque to the characters.
That's the level of transparency I prefer. Preserve verisimilitude and immersion as much as possible- everything that can be rolled in public will be. Try to reassure the players I'm not going to cheat or force preferred outcomes.

[Chronic]

I expect my players to trust me with what is good for the game and for them. So no transparency ever for me. There is 2 reasons for that. First it allows me to cheat. I don't do it often, but sometime you need to salvage something. Usually it's to salvage my own mistake, I didn't plan for this or that, and this or that would be of dubious interest for the group. I know them, I know what they like, I also know what they need, so sometime I nudge the results if I believe to be for the best in the end. The second reason, which is my favorite reason: a magician doesn't reveal it's tricks. Hell I sometime pretend to roll while they talk just to make them wonder what's going on. Being transparent is depriving yourself of very useful tools in your kit. But again, it require trust from the player, and a commitment to the players from the GM.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have no problem with a DM rolling in secret or out in the open. I grew up with it being in secret and has nothing to do with my infamous rant against tyrannical DMing. Trust in the DM is what matters. However, for those DMs who do roll in secret I appreciate those moments when he rolls in the open for the Very Important rolls, those moments when it's absolutely crucial for a desired outcome to happen and we deal with the consequences of whatever happens. Whether the DM fudges or not is not the point. It's a respect to the players that whatever happens it's the players "agency" that causes the outcome because the players made the roll happen. This is well said.

I expect my players to trust me with what is good for the game and for them. So no transparency ever for me. {snip} But again, it require trust from the player, and a commitment to the players from the GM. The trust relationship is a key to this working.

[Cheesegear]

How much of what a DM does should be kept "behind the screen" as it were?

For my preference? Nothing except the story notes and monster stat blocks. However very canny players will start memorising AC and HPs (or writing it down), and very experienced players will just start knowing statblocks - especially if they're also DMs. So the only thing that should ever be kept secret, properly secret, is the adventure itself.

I don't use a DM screen and I explicitly tell the players it's for their benefit, not mine.


whenever there's some doubt about who an enemy will attack, puts it down to a die roll.

Absolutely not. Enemies should have two priorities:
1. The most threatening opponent, and/or
2. The easiest kill

Whoever dealt the most damage last round is getting attacked this round,
Whoever the hostiles saw do healing, is getting attacked this round,
Whoever has the lowest AC is getting attacked this round,
Whoever has the lowest current HPs, is getting attacked this round,
etc.

Even if you're a melee hostile, and even if there are multiple targets within reach; Revert to one of the above.


I'm actually bothered by it, particularly the fact that he will say out loud, "I'll roll a d6; on 1-2 he'll attack Peter, on 3-4 he'll attack Paul, and on 5-6 he'll attack Mary." He says he does this so that there's fairness, and that people know he's not playing favorites with who gets targeted. But I personally find it somewhat immersion breaking

I agree completely. If you are undecided about which player to attack, figure out a way to decide - and no a random dice roll is not the correct choice, because monsters wouldn't - or shouldn't - attack at random unless they are going berserk - some monsters do that, fair enough.

I even get bothered when a monster with Multiattack attacks two different targets. Why would you do that? That doesn't make sense. Use both attacks vs. the same target and knock the **** out of them.


There's also an issue of slowdown. It takes a lot longer to announce the roll, assign numbers to the roll, and read who gets targeted than it takes to just make a snap decision about who the monster is going to attack.

If you have a grid or battlemap, both players and the DM should be 'making' their turns well before their actual turn via a decision tree in the player/DM's head, unless something amazing happens. Turns at my table tend to be very quick by virtue of players already knowing what they're doing.
(And players making their turns in advance is usually why a lot of my boss fights have elements that happen at the start or end of round [e.g; Reinforcements or terrain changes], so that their foresight doesn't work)


I'm ok if the DM's judgements are secretive and somewhat arbitrary...

If the DM's decision tree is arbitrary or random, either way, the players shouldn't know.
(That's why I hate the Quantum Ogre argument...How the **** do your players know your decision tree unless you tell them? Even if they accuse you of arbitration, just say 'Nope, it's random, lol!' and what are they gonna do?)

[KorvinStarmast]

Whoever has the lowest AC is getting attacked this round,
How do the NPCs know this? That naked monk has an AC of 18, the rogue wearling studded leather has an AC of 16; the latter looks like it has more armor.
Whoever has the lowest current HPs, is getting attacked this round, How do the enemy know this? HP are an abstraction.
(As an aside: do you use the "bloodied" description for creatures (PC and NPC) with less than half of their HP?)

The 'whoever did the most damage to me last time' works for a lot of choices, though.
'Whoever cast a spell' also works as an *in world* cue.

That doesn't make sense. Use both attacks vs. the same target and knock the **** out of them.
That's how I play starspawn manglers. Closest to a PC death we have come, twice, was one of them doing the blendo-matic thing. The other was a crit from an animated statue.

[Pex]

I expect my players to trust me with what is good for the game and for them. So no transparency ever for me. There is 2 reasons for that. First it allows me to cheat. I don't do it often, but sometime you need to salvage something. Usually it's to salvage my own mistake, I didn't plan for this or that, and this or that would be of dubious interest for the group. I know them, I know what they like, I also know what they need, so sometime I nudge the results if I believe to be for the best in the end. The second reason, which is my favorite reason: a magician doesn't reveal it's tricks. Hell I sometime pretend to roll while they talk just to make them wonder what's going on. Being transparent is depriving yourself of very useful tools in your kit. But again, it require trust from the player, and a commitment to the players from the GM.

I hate when the DM fakes rolls. I find it adversarial. It's minor of all things adversarial, but it is a metagame attack to make players paranoid that is uncalled for. It's a DM getting his jollies at the players' expense. I just continue on with whatever I was doing or saying pretending the roll didn't happen. If the DM is a donkey cavity I'll know soon enough.

I contrast this to a DM rolling for a legitimate reason the players couldn't possibly know about, such as an NPC or monster in the next room or down the hall or whatever who could possibly hear the party arriving or having a conversation. Maybe the DM is rolling a chance an event happens. Whatever. As long as there is a reason it's fine. How do I know if there's a reason or it's a fake roll? Context matters. Experience of playing. If the DM is not a donkey cavity then it doesn't matter, but I still don't like fake rolls.

[Cheesegear]

How do the NPCs know this? That naked monk has an AC of 18, the rogue wearling studded leather has an AC of 16; the latter looks like it has more armor.

Yes. Sometimes the Elf-with-high-Dex Dragon Sorcerer has an AC of 17, naked. That has come up before and yes I do take it into account.

However that's Specific vs. General and please can we not go down this rabbit hole.


How do the enemy know this? HP are an abstraction.

Typically, the same as players, the monsters will know how much damage they've done to each opponent. Unless they have Beast Intelligence or whatever...Speaking of Beasts, how far does this Specific vs. General rabbit hole go...


(As an aside: do you use the "bloodied" description for creatures (PC and NPC) with less than half of their HP?)

No. But typically I will describe something happening when a hostile reaches - what I believe - is its last six seconds on the Material Plane...Then again sometimes players just miss.

[EggKookoo]

I'm apparently a pretty transparent DM. I tell my players the enemy ACs, at least after the first round. I don't get into enemy HP until they get really low and there's a reasonable chance a PC can take the enemy out with one hit. I almost always tell the player the DC for any check or save. I always roll in the open, which means the players get a sense of the bonuses applied to enemy saves and such.

None of this seems to interfere with their suspension of disbelief.

[KorvinStarmast]

and please can we not go down this rabbit hole. I already stopped. :smallsmile:

When a PC wants to knock out an enemy who they think is on their last legs, I'll sometimes give a clue/queue that they see them on their last legs, something like your "last six seconds on material plane" I suspect.

AC information usually comes after the first successful hit, although our battlemaster can do that assessment thing now if he wants to.

[Cheesegear]

I'll sometimes give a clue/queue that they see them on their last legs, something like your "last six seconds on material plane" I suspect.

Alright, my turn...The Cave Bear looks around, afraid, it seems to realise that the only way out of this cavern is through you, with a roar it rears on its hind legs and gives a great roar, and attacks you with a desperate swing.
Player: ...It's probably almost dead.
Me, the DM: ...Probably.

When I do something like this, I'm kind of telegraphing to my players that I don't think the hostile will make it to its next turn based on what I believe the players' damage output is...Depending on the initiative order that might mean it has any number of HPs left - it's tricky that way. That's why I prefer the way I do it, rather than straight up say the monster has 50% HPs left. The monster has any number of HPs left, it just doesn't think it has a shot at beating you in its current state.

My players generally know 'One more round left, maybe two if we **** things up.' If you're planning to do non-lethal damage, you should probably tell me now. :smallwink:

[KorvinStarmast]

If you're planning to do non-lethal damage, you should probably tell me now. :smallwink: Yeah, kind of the "why" to that last six seconds cue.

[False God]

I guess I value decisiveness and immersion over fairness and transparency. I'm ok if the DM's judgements are secretive and somewhat arbitrary, so long as the focus is kept where it ought to be: on the world, the situations, and the characters. Interested to hear people weigh in on situations like this, where there's a conflict between perceived "fairness" and effective game running.

Generally speaking, I prefer to be enjoying the game then worrying about how the gears are turning that make it run.

As a DM I've tried to cut down how often I roll for unnecessary stuff and just make decisions. Half my dice-rolling behind the screen is just to put my players on edge. Every time I drop a die they're like "OMG HE'S ROLLING FOR SOMETHING WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" and that just amuses me.

"Fairness" can be something of a subjective perception. IME, I've seen a lot of different ideas on what is "fair" in D&D, and a lot of unfairness comes from an inherent mismatch between player and game/DM.

[dafrca]

"Fairness" can be something of a subjective perception. IME, I've seen a lot of different ideas on what is "fair" in D&D, and a lot of unfairness comes from an inherent mismatch between player and game/DM.

I think this is a great point. What one group thinks is unfair another might not care about at all. The key to a happy table is the alignment of all at the table, players and GM. :smallsmile:

[Cheesegear]

"Fairness" can be something of a subjective perception.

Not really.

1. Players have Levels. Hostiles have CR. Do the math and come up with a fair encounter.

2. The game expects six to eight Medium or Hard encounters per day, with two Short Rests. Do the math and come up with several fair encounters in a single day or session. If you want to fiddle with these maths, the game gives you a guideline on how much each character - or total party - can handle in a single day, if you want to have more, or less encounters.

3. Don't use a screen. When the players can see your rolls...What's unfair? RNGesus hates everyone. As per 1 and 2, the game expects you to beat this encounter. But I rolled a crit and two hits and then high damage, in one turn, and now you're on the ground with two failed Death Saves. That's not supposed to happen. But it did. You all saw the rolls. Them's the breaks.


When you screw around with those, players can objectively tell when things are unfair, real fast.

[False God]

Not really.

1. Players have Levels. Hostiles have CR. Do the math and come up with a fair encounter.

2. The game expects six to eight Medium or Hard encounters per day, with two Short Rests. Do the math and come up with several fair encounters in a single day or session. If you want to fiddle with these maths, the game gives you a guideline on how much each character - or total party - can handle in a single day, if you want to have more, or less encounters.

3. Don't use a screen. When the players can see your rolls...What's unfair? RNGesus hates everyone. As per 1 and 2, the game expects you to beat this encounter. But I rolled a crit and two hits and then high damage, in one turn, and now you're on the ground with two failed Death Saves. That's not supposed to happen. But it did. You all saw the rolls. Them's the breaks.


When you screw around with those, players can objectively tell when things are unfair, real fast.

1: Encounter math and CR measurements are known to vary wildly across monsters, and player levels do nothing to measure their skill or synergy.

2: This entire point relies on the previous one. Which has well known faults.

3: This has nothing to do with percieved fariness.

Finally: games are not pure math and players are not neutral number-crunching-machines. If you don't think players, as human beings, often have very personal definitions of what is and isn't fair, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Frogreaver]

Well. Some PCs want to 'draw aggro.'

Random rolls make that impossible.

Generally I’ll roll when there are multiple PCs that make sense to attack. That doesn’t mean I’m rolling against the whole group.

For example if there’s 2 tanks 10 ft away and 3 other PCs 60ft away I’m only rolling to see which tank the enemy goes for (but effective taunts and such can eliminate the random roll by making the enemy prefer attacking 1 tank much more than the other.

[Cheesegear]

and player levels do nothing to measure their skill or synergy.

I was hoping you'd say that.
The DM is not at fault when the players build bad characters and make bad choices.

Having a Wizard with 8 CON wasn't the DM's choice. In fact I can almost guarantee that they warned the player against it.


This entire point relies on the previous one. Which has well known faults.

To which I have the same response as above.
The game expects the guidelines, hence why they were written. For whatever faults they have, that is what the game itself, says.

When a DM sits down at the table and says 'Alright, six-to-eight Medium to Hard encounters with two Short Rests...Here we go...'
That is what the game expects.
The is what the DM, playing the game, can expect from their players.


3: This has nothing to do with percieved fariness.

You don't think there's a difference in perceived fairness (that's your term, not mine), when a player can see the DM's dice rolls, vs. when they can't?

The instant a DM Screen in on the table, I immediately expect the DM to fudge a dice roll at least once. I'm not saying all the time. But I am saying at least once...But which roll is it going to be? All rolls become suspect (IMO), even though I know the DM probably wont even fudge that many...He just has to fudge specific ones at the right/wrong time.

It has everything to do with perceived fairness.


Finally: games are not pure math and players are not neutral number-crunching-machines.

No. But the DM is almost required to be, regardless of the players' skill levels or character builds.

If you are going to say that the DM is responsible when players can't build good characters and/or can't form a good party, then the DM is required to be number-crunching machine even more than they already are, because they have to adjust for the fact that the players can't perform at a level that the game expects them to.

When the players suck, the DM has their work cut out for them. It's way harder to DM for a group that doesn't have a clue what they're doing, than to DM for a group that absolutely knows what they're doing.


If you don't think players, as human beings, often have very personal definitions of what is and isn't fair

Whatever is in the book, is what's fair. Whatever common understanding exists for a rule, is what's fair. The DM can be very transparent when they're playing by the rules. It's when they're not playing by the rules that the DM has to hide things.

[False God]

Cheesegear I feel like we are talking about two very different things and I'm not sure if you're trying to obtuse or not, so I'm going to skip the long wordy point-for point reply.

To clarify, my initial comment was to point out that personal views, personal opinions, personal definitions affect how a player feels about the fairness of a game. "The Game" says nothing about the fairness of killing a player while they are down, but a player may still be of the opinion that this is an unfair action.

You countered my post about how people feel and their opinions on fairness with...math.

Math has nothing to do with opinions.

If your argument can be summed up as "If the book doesn't explicitly say 'don't do it' then it is fair, and if a player disagrees they are wrong." then just say that and we can end this now.

[Cheesegear]

To clarify, my initial comment was to point out that personal views, personal opinions, personal definitions affect how a player feels about the fairness of a game.

Right, and the three things I pointed out, are fair.


"The Game" says nothing about the fairness of killing a player while they are down, but a player may still be of the opinion that this is an unfair action.

You'd have to get real specific with that scenario.
But I see nothing wrong with attacking a downed player. I could potentially argue that it doesn't make narrative sense in some cases. But the DM can absolutely do it.


You countered my post about how people feel and their opinions on fairness with...math.

Okay. The thread is about DM transparency.

The specific actions of a creature absolutely comes down to the circumstances at the table. But if the DM is being transparent, the players can see the creature attack a downed player. This is not an unfair action, as players know that creatures can do this. Unless the DM is playing easy mode and the players haven't been taught yet that monsters can attack downed players and kill PCs.

If you're talking about a monster, hidden, readies an action to attack the party when condition [X]...Maybe.

But, can monsters be hidden? Yes.
Can monsters ready actions? Yes.
Is it allowed? Yes.
Is doing it unfair? ...Potentially. It's an action taking place without the players' knowledge that they can't prepare for. But also, that's what a surprise kind of...Is.

A better example is a DM saying 'The hostile readies an action.' and then not telling players the trigger, nor the action. The DM is probably allowed to do that. But it feels real ****ty when they do. Because now the trigger can be anything, and the action can be anything. The DM is not being transparent, and now the hostile has Schrodinger's Action, and the trigger is literally anything.

Another perfect example is Counterspell and how it doesn't counter spells:

DM: 'I cast a spell.'
Player: 'What spell?'
DM: 'Do you counter?'
Player: '...What spell is it?'
DM: 'I don't have to tell you.'
Player: 'So if I counter you were casting a Cantrip, and if I don't it's a Level 5 spell going to blow us away?'
DM: '...You don't know that.'


If your argument can be summed up as "If the book doesn't explicitly say 'don't do it' then it is fair, and if a player disagrees they are wrong."

No. My argument can be summed as 'Both sides should have a reasonable expectation of what the other side can and/or will do.' With a few exceptions, where being unfair may be the point of the scenario. But ideally those scenarios are rare. With the follow up being, what the other side can and/or will do, can be found by both sides, reliably.

If you want to argue narrative fairness (i.e; "That doesn't make sense! Why would [creature] do that? I know they can, but why?")...That's a whole different kettle of fish that is wildly subjective and you are completely correct. But it is not the point I was making, nor do I think it's within the scope of the thread.

[KorvinStarmast]

Another perfect example is Counterspell and how it doesn't counter spells:

DM: 'I cast a spell.'
Player: 'What spell?'
DM: 'Do you counter?'
Player: '...What spell is it?'
DM: 'I don't have to tell you.'
A month or so ago we had an interesting thread about counterspell.
At our tables, we don't have the above conversation.
It is usually:
DM: "The {spellcaster/creature} casts a spell"
Player: "Counterspell"
(Result is diced for or spell is countered, level dependent)

or something like this
DM "The {spellcaster/creature} casts a spell"
Player didn't react right away, so DM asks: "Do you choose to counter it? You are within range"
Player: Either says "Counterspell" or provides "No" as an answer.
(Result is diced for or spell is countered, if appropriate)

Simple. Not much time expended in either situation.

[Hytheter]

We roll everything on the (virtual) table on our server and personally that's the way I like it. But that's nothing about fairness or to avoid fudging, it's just easier (with a dice roller bot on discord) and also more exciting. When the enemy rolls a 19 and the player has 20AC, or when the players can see that an attack would have critted them if not for disadvantage, they feel like clutch moments. It's fun.

I typically tell monster ACs and effect DCs as well. Again, it's just easier, you avoid the back and forth of "does this pass" and go straight to damage rolls. Plus it helps players plan their actions since they have more information about the enemy; rolling on the table helps that too, since the players will see the modifiers.

I do fudge monster HP sometimes. Most of my combat-focused games are one-shots with no set party or even level and that I don't plan until an hour before session. Suffice to say, balance is spotty. Nobody wants a cakewalk fight, It's boring for everyone. So yeah, I'll bump HP if I have to (though once I announce a creature's bloodied that's locked in). Or I'll add a mythic phase, or another wave of enemies (but sometimes this goes too far and I end up nearly killing everyone in a supposedly "medium" difficulty session:smallbiggrin:). But I'm not hiding it. My players understand the limitations we're operating under and that sometimes things need to be modified on the fly for the sake of enjoyment, and I'll often go into how I've messed with stat blocks and such after a game.

I don't always say what spell a creature is casting but I let counterspellers identify it for free. If counterspell is troubling me I just plop it on the casters. Counterspell wars are surprisingly fun for the players in my experience, as is the tension of whether to counter a spell you failed to identify.

I guess overall I'm pretty transparent.