Rolling open vs. screen. What's RAI? What's more fun?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I thought I'd start this thread here, as there was some conversation on another thread about this issue that was way off topic.

So, DMs using screens vs rolling open: What is RAI? What is more enjoyable and/ or builds tension? Does rolling open provide too much player agency that was not intended by designers? Does some of this agency contribute to 5e feeling like it's on easy, particularly for caster classes who can use reaction spells like Shield/ Silvery Barbs more efficiently?

I have both used and not used screens for 1e and 2e. For 5e I'm firmly of the opinion that screens are RAI, create more enjoyment through tension, and provide needed limits on some abilities. What do you guys think?

[MoiMagnus]

What is RAI?


Not much. Given that the GM screen is sold by WotC, and that it's unpractical to roll openly when you have a GM screen, I'd say that rolling being the screen is RAI.

Going through my DMG, I'm quite surprised that most paragraphs assume that it's the players that are rolling for their character. You're supposed to determine whether a player has to roll or get automatic success/failure, but there is no mention on what to do for the NPCs (should you award automatic success and failure and not bother rolling outside of combat?).



What is more enjoyable and/ or builds tension?

It depends both on your playstyle and on what your players react better with.

Let's assume for example that you want a monster to be threatening. On one hand, concealing information keep an aura of mystery, as what is not shown is left to the imagination. On the other hand revealing information can put your player in front of the cold hard truth that this monster is OP.

Let's assume that a player is about to roll a campaign-deciding roll. On one hand the GM secretly rolling for the player and keeping the result secret allows to maintain the tension up until the end of the resolution. One the other hand the act of rolling that fateful die that everyone is watching can give unforgivable memories (especially if the result is a natural 1, moment after the GM saying "well, even if you fail, unless that's a nat 1 it shouldn't be THAT bad".)




Does rolling open provide too much player agency that was not intended by designers? Does some of this agency contribute to 5e feeling like it's on easy, particularly for caster classes who can use reaction spells like Shield/ Silvery Barbs more efficiently?


I don't think I would have used the term "agency" here.

Rolling openly will push D&D toward being a "game". It emphasis fairness and reduce confusion by giving additional informations to the players so that they don't need to rely too much on their capacity to interpret your obscure hints and descriptions.

Rolling hidden will push D&D toward being a "narration". Without the objective information, the players will be forced to rely on their subjective interpretation of what the GM is saying and how he is behaving (was the monster described as scary? more scary than the previous one?). By not showing the maths, it might encouraged some peoples to take irrational decisions, going with their guts instead of strategising.

[diplomancer]

I thought I'd start this thread here, as there was some conversation on another thread about this issue that was way off topic.

So, DMs using screens vs rolling open: What is RAI? What is more enjoyable and/ or builds tension? Does rolling open provide too much player agency that was not intended by designers? Does some of this agency contribute to 5e feeling like it's on easy, particularly for caster classes who can use reaction spells like Shield/ Silvery Barbs more efficiently?

I have both used and not used screens for 1e and 2e. For 5e I'm firmly of the opinion that screens are RAI, create more enjoyment through tension, and provide needed limits on some abilities. What do you guys think?

I'd say RAI is "the DM decides", and I think at least some abilities, like Cutting Words, strongly presume that the number of the die roll is known, even if the modifiers are not, or they just get very annoying to use.

Edit: having read the previous post, I'm a bit surprised; I was referring to the NPC's rolls; if it's PC's rolls, I'd probably bite the hands off a DM that wanted to get my dice away from me! Metaphorically speaking, of course. On some particular and very rare occasions? OK, I suppose. But "my character, my dice" is sacred.

[kingcheesepants]

I'm not aware of any rules regarding screens or rolling open vs hidden. So I'd say it's just a matter of preference and unrelated to the rules. Like doing character voices or speaking in 1st person or 3rd person.

That being said however I feel that rolling open is more fun and makes more sense narratively. It's more fun because it helps the game to move a little faster and it lets the players see when enemies miss only because of the things they (the players) did or when an enemy crits and that can be exciting. And from a narrative perspective the characters are there on the ground and should have a pretty good idea of whether or not the enemy is casually shrugging off their spells or putting all their effort into overcoming their effects and that's what the numbers on the die are representing.

Also why did you bring up silvery barbs? The spell can proc when an enemy succeeds on a save. Knowing what they rolled is irrelevant.

[diplomancer]

Also why did you bring up silvery barbs? The spell can proc when an enemy succeeds on a save. Knowing what they rolled is irrelevant.

It IS relevant to know whether the enemy succeed rolling a 7 or an 18, though.

[ProsecutorGodot]

At our table the DM rolls privately unless it's a roll they deem important for the players to see the result of without any possible shadow of a doubt. The players roll openly unless they have something they don't want the other players to see and the DM okays it.

Trust has not imploded, we all have fun. I don't think one method is preferred over the other honestly.

Tangent - I will say though that since my table plays digitally the players (including myself when I'm not the DM) prefer for the DM rolls to be private so player rolls can be more easily tracked. Distractions happen and having an easily viewable dice log is good for us.

[Sigreid]

Our table rolls in the open. We're all pretty good about not fudging it if we fail a roll; and there's a certain amount of excitement/anticipation at watching the dice tumble in a sticky situation.

[strangebloke]

there's a lot of abilities that reference 'after you roll but before you know the result' but almost no cases of 'after an enemy rolls an attack roll but before you know the result.' This seems to imply that the rules are at least open to secret rolls.

Personally I roll in the open, but I've done it in the secret in the past and so have some of my DMs. Doesn't matter much either way tbh

[JellyPooga]

There's enough "make a decision based on the roll, but before you know the result" features to suggest that, on the whole, open rolls should be the norm. The existence of Passive Checks as explicitly being, in part, used for secret rolls/results also suggest that hidden rolls should not be the norm.

[strangebloke]

There's enough "make a decision based on the roll, but before you know the result" features to suggest that, on the whole, open rolls should be the norm. The existence of Passive Checks as explicitly being, in part, used for secret rolls/results also suggest that hidden rolls should not be the norm.

cutting words is the only one I'm aware of, and even in that case there's no direct implication you actually get to see the roll. So mostly I feel its ambiguous.

[JellyPooga]

cutting words is the only one I'm aware of, and even in that case there's no direct implication you actually get to see the roll. So mostly I feel its ambiguous.

It's the only one that comes to mind right now, but without going looking for the right references I'm sure there's more. On that front, I posit that there's an argument for Cutting Words being the example that proves the rule.

That aspect aside, there's still Passive checks.

[J-H]

I roll behind the DM screen because I can see my dice easily that way. Sometimes I use my tower; other times I just toss the dice across the sea of papers strewn about before me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I generally roll in the open, although sometimes I'll roll physically when on a VTT. Less to hide things and more for those weird "ok, I have to make a dozen attack rolls with the same bonus" cases that are slow to do on the VTT.

I don't care if people know the values, and even let people use BI/protection/etc after they know the total number/if it hit or not. Takes too much effort to try to be secretive. On the flip side, I don't go out of my way to roll directly where everyone else can see (ie in the center of the table when playing physically). And do roll some "paranoia dice" for random things that aren't really real rolls.

[Lycurgon]

The DMG talks about this and it is 100% RAW that the DM decides. No need for RAI when we have RAW. The DMG talks about the benefits of rolling in the open or behind a screen. Page 235 goes through different options for rolling dice and things to consider. Rolling in the open shows impartiality and that you are not fudging. Behind the screen keeps more mystery about the strength of monsters (are they powerful or are you just rolling high) and allows you to fudge dice if you want to. You decide what works best for you.

[Elder_Basilisk]

College of valor's combat inspiration is another one of those examples. It increases AC rather than decreasing the monster's attack but it uses the same after the roll is known but before it hits or misses verbiage.

I'm generally of the view that open rolling is the best and most fun way to play, but it has been pretty clear that RAI and RAW support hidden rolling and DM screens and have since OD&D. You wouldn't have frayed DM screens with morale rules and weapon vs armor type tables on the back if hidden rolls weren't common practice.

[da newt]

I prefer to roll open especially when I'm playing with newer / less experienced players as it allows me to show / teach as I go, but with a more experienced party I like to roll behind the screen and just narrate the results without numbers other than hp damage - more mystery, less gamey, more realistic. With new folks I'll state every action, movement, BA, reaction etc with it's name and do all my math out loud so everyone can see the mechanics working - with experienced tables I'll narrate and describe.

For more seasoned games, I also like to describe foes without naming them to further increase the immersion / realism (unless of course I know the PCs would recognize a creature). Is the big greyish humanoid with a club wearing an animal skin a troll, an ogre, a hill giant, or ...

[Cheesegear]

For 5e I'm firmly of the opinion that screens are RAI, create more enjoyment through tension, and provide needed limits on some abilities. What do you guys think?

Early on I was accused of cheating and favoritism when it came to dice rolls. Since I wasn't cheating, it didn't really make sense for the screen to be there. I haven't used a DM screen since.

'You don't want to die, here? Well you shouldn't have made me get rid of the DM screen, because now I can't fudge it so you don't. *Rolls dice*...Take 84 damage.'

On the other hand, I have gotten very good at hiding my notes.

[Leon]

Whatever suits the DM is what is intended as you don't need a screen to do anything but they can be useful for quick reference and keeping your notes and such out of LOS. Played with and without as both Player and DM in past Editions and it didn't change how the game "felt" in ether case. 5e has been purely digital so far and for the foreseeable future.

[LudicSavant]

What is RAI? Book has a whole section on this. It basically says you can do either, and weighs the pros and cons of each style. It does actively discourage being too secretive with rolls or information like enemy HP (even re-introducing the idea of describing creatures as "bloodied" if they're below 50% hp). And suggests "not to overuse" rolling behind a screen. But takes a "DM does whatever they want" tone overall, as is generally the case in 5e.

As for my own opinion on what's most fun for me and my players, I'm on the "don't be too secretive" side. When I DM, I give my players an awful lot of information to work with. Descriptions are detailed. Knowledge checks tend to be very informative, etc.

So why do I think things shouldn't be too secretive? For one, because D&D is at least in part a strategy and tactical game (if you didn't want that, this really is not the system for getting that out of the way), and one of the factors that creates tactical depth is the ability for players to make informed decisions. Have too many unknowns and players are less and less likely to make situational choices, and just resort to "defaulting" (a player behavior that is generally used as a red flag for designers that your game has little tactical depth). And certain abilities might never show up at all (for example, if HP is totally unknown, things like Power Word: X become... really iffy to use). There's a reason strategy games tend to give you a lot of information.

For two, it also helps narratively. Information from the DM textures the world. Players can utilize mechanical information in tandem with the DM's descriptions to help them create a better picture in their heads of what's going on. Because at the end of the day, even when playing with professional writers who have wonderful descriptive powers, there's only so much bandwidth for describing complex situations in words (especially when running large scale combats quickly). It also helps give a sense of feedback and progress to their actions -- knowing whether their attacks hurt a lot or a little, for instance.

For three, I don't need to hide basic information to surprise my players, create mystery, stretch tension to its limit, or @#$% with their strategies. I have better ways to do that. Some DMs are terrified that if they let players get the full value out of their abilities, they won't be able to challenge them or something. Well, that's not a problem I have. :smallamused:

Rolling behind the screen is quite valuable for things like... say... Insight checks, where it can be valuable for the player to not know if they succeeded or failed (incidentally, one of the reasons the DMG gives as an example of a reason to be secretive). But I agree with the DMG's advice that it shouldn't be overused.

[kingcheesepants]

It IS relevant to know whether the enemy succeed rolling a 7 or an 18, though.

Ah, yeah I suppose that's true. In the games where I've had Silvery Barbs as a spell I hadn't run into a situation where I was facing an enemy with a save mod so close to my DC but I guess that could make a difference.


Our table rolls in the open. We're all pretty good about not fudging it if we fail a roll; and there's a certain amount of excitement/anticipation at watching the dice tumble in a sticky situation.

Yes having the DM just tell you after they make the roll just isn't the same as seeing it for yourself.


The DMG talks about this and it is 100% RAW that the DM decides. No need for RAI when we have RAW. The DMG talks about the benefits of rolling in the open or behind a screen. Page 235 goes through different options for rolling dice and things to consider. Rolling in the open shows impartiality and that you are not fudging. Behind the screen keeps more mystery about the strength of monsters (are they powerful or are you just rolling high) and allows you to fudge dice if you want to. You decide what works best for you.

Oh I didn't recall that particular section of the DMG. But yeah it makes sense 5e is generally pretty up to the DM on stuff like that.


Book has a whole section on this. It basically says you can do either, and weighs the pros and cons of each style. It does actively discourage being too secretive with rolls or information like enemy HP (even re-introducing the idea of describing creatures as "bloodied" if they're below 50% hp). And suggests "not to overuse" rolling behind a screen. But takes a "DM does whatever they want" tone overall, as is generally the case in 5e.

As for my own opinion on what's most fun for me and my players, I'm on the "don't be too secretive" side. When I DM, I give my players an awful lot of information to work with. Descriptions are detailed. Knowledge checks tend to be very informative, etc.

So why do I think things shouldn't be too secretive? For one, because D&D is at least in part a strategy and tactical game (if you didn't want that, this really is not the system for getting that out of the way), and one of the factors that creates tactical depth is the ability for players to make informed decisions. Have too many unknowns and players are less and less likely to make situational choices, and just resort to "defaulting" (a player behavior that is generally used as a red flag for designers that your game has little tactical depth). And certain abilities might never show up at all (for example, if HP is totally unknown, things like Power Word: X become... really iffy to use). There's a reason strategy games tend to give you a lot of information.

For two, it also helps narratively. Information from the DM textures the world. Players can utilize mechanical information in tandem with the DM's descriptions to help them create a better picture in their heads of what's going on. Because at the end of the day, even when playing with professional writers who have wonderful descriptive powers, there's only so much bandwidth for describing complex situations in words (especially when running large scale combats quickly). It also helps give a sense of feedback and progress to their actions -- knowing whether their attacks hurt a lot or a little, for instance.

For three, I don't need to hide basic information to surprise my players, create mystery, stretch tension to its limit, or @#$% with their strategies. I have better ways to do that. Some DMs are terrified that if they let players get the full value out of their abilities, they won't be able to challenge them or something. Well, that's not a problem I have. :smallamused:

Rolling behind the screen is quite valuable for things like... say... Insight checks, where it can be valuable for the player to not know if they succeeded or failed (incidentally, one of the reasons the DMG gives as an example of a reason to be secretive). But I agree with the DMG's advice that it shouldn't be overused.

Spot on as usual, more info generally leads to more informed decisions and is more fun overall for everyone. Also for the most part the character is there living in the world and making their way as an adventurer and should know way more than you (the player) do about the setting and monsters and combat and such. Being stingy on info is a good way to kill immersion and make things frustrating.

I also secret roll insight and stealth checks (also deception and player's death saves) while keeping pretty much everything else open roll. The insight/stealth/deception because the players shouldn't know about that and the death saves because they should be panicking if they have a guy bleeding out on the ground, who knows maybe he just rolled a 1 and you better get to him fast.

[Chaos Jackal]

Like others have said, the DMG presents both options and gives a brief rundown. So as far as RAW, RAI or whatever are concerned, both are in the mix.

Far as what I find more fun, I'm gonna say open, but that's rather biased of me; I've been in a couple games where the DM was very clearly fudging, and a lot; a particular campaign on roll20 saw a rather adversarial stance, with enemies hitting their attacks and making their saves against my own character an abnormal number of times in every single combat, with the entire table suspecting and culminating in a case where the DM declared nat 20s with disadvantage and we heard the dice rolling in the background after his declaration. So yeah, I'm not fond of the DM screen unless I fully trust the DM.

At the same time, there's little other difference because, in nearly all my games, my DMs declare the numeric result of a roll anyway. They won't usually declare the die number itself, but they won't ask for AC or DC, they'll just mention the total number and ask if it's a hit or a success or whatnot. So for things like shield we're already aware even if we can't see the dice and can usually make an educated guess over a couple rounds as to what the enemy is packing. Thus, mechanically not much changes for most of my tables; whether one or the other is preferable is mostly down to what extent I believe the DM capable of fudging.

Ultimately? I do believe there's some rolls that are better made in secret, but in the majority of cases I think it's preferable to just roll openly. For what it's worth, the few times I've DM'd, I've also rolled openly. Saves suspicion in case the group isn't very close (a common case these days with online games and whatnot) and really, not seeing attacks doesn't add much in the way of drama from what I've seen; if anything, it creates more pronounced reactions when everyone's watching the dice roll. Stuff like insight/deception, or stealth/perception, or illusions, or scrying, yeah, sure, roll these secretly. But most combat actions? Doesn't feel like it adds to the suspense, can cause friction even if the rolls are honest (unlucky streaks are a thing and nobody likes them when they come up) and mechanically it doesn't change much, especially if you were declaring results in some form anyway.

[Catullus64]

I know that as a player I prefer the DM to roll behind a screen. I generally don't have a problem trusting that the stated effects are the honest result of the dice being rolled; if the DM does fudge the dice occasionally, I don't feel betrayed. For me it's about making use of the dice while de-emphasizing them. I prefer to keep focus on the events and descriptions that the dice generate, not the dice results.

The actual game doesn't carry any assumption that players have access to DM rolls. I don't know if that's 'rules as intended' but I think it is clear that the rules are careful to in no way impede the all-behind-the-screen play style; having the rolls behind the screen is not a 'variant rule', neither is rolling in the open. It's not a question in the territory of the game rules any more than who pays for the pizza.

Franky, the designers' unwillingness to address the imbalanced pizza mechanics of their game just goes to show the declining standards of quality at WotC.

[Tanarii]

I always roll in the open. I consider it best practice for multiple reasons.

It's necessary for a few spells and features that call out after the roll but before the effect is applied.

Given 5e doesn't ever have the DM roll for the player, and instead uses passive checks when that's necessary to keep the results of a player roll secret, that's not an excuse.

And it looks suspicious. In the absence of secret checks on the players behalf, and with the presence of features that assume the player can see some common DM rolls, the only excuse left is the DM wanting to fudge.

[stoutstien]

I tend to roll in the open but sometimes they end up behind my screen just because I need to rapidly roll dice for multiple attacks or whatnot. The screen itself is less about secrecy than just being able to see all the relative information I need. Sometimes I just have a stack of index cards and a notepad.
In my mind the value of the dice are roughly related to some form of in-game information like a decently high attack roll would look like one so the player/PC need to see it to react according.

[pwykersotz]

And it looks suspicious. In the absence of secret checks on the players behalf, and with the presence of features that assume the player can see some common DM rolls, the only excuse left is the DM wanting to fudge.

Not quite, there's another reason. As was said above, it builds an air of mystery. I roll openly on a VTT right now, and players can immediately see a to-hit bonus of a monster. I like the transparency as a GM, and my players are happy with it. But as a player, I like a bit more mystery. I actually prefer it when the GM rolls behind the screen. You don't know if using shield will block the shot, you don't know what % chance the enemy has to hit you, etc. It's more exciting. Perfect information games get stale a little more quickly for me when I'm not running the world.

Edit for clarification: I think both ways are totally viable. Depends on the DM, depends on the players. It's a session 0 thing.

[Tanarii]

Not quite, there's another reason. As was said above, it builds an air of mystery. I roll openly on a VTT right now, and players can immediately see a to-hit bonus of a monster. I like the transparency as a GM, and my players are happy with it. But as a player, I like a bit more mystery. I actually prefer it when the GM rolls behind the screen. You don't know if using shield will block the shot, you don't know what % chance the enemy has to hit you, etc. It's more exciting. Perfect information games get stale a little more quickly for me when I'm not running the world.

Edit for clarification: I think both ways are totally viable. Depends on the DM, depends on the players. It's a session 0 thing.
That'd be valid if there weren't features that strongly suggest the players need that info to properly use them. It's not outright explicit, but if that weren't the case, sure, that's a reason.

Not one, to me, that outweighs the odds that the DM is a fudger though. IMX it's far more common for DMs who want to hide rolls because they think fudging is an acceptable, or even laudable, thing.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Not quite, there's another reason. As was said above, it builds an air of mystery. I roll openly on a VTT right now, and players can immediately see a to-hit bonus of a monster. I like the transparency as a GM, and my players are happy with it. But as a player, I like a bit more mystery. I actually prefer it when the GM rolls behind the screen. You don't know if using shield will block the shot, you don't know what % chance the enemy has to hit you, etc. It's more exciting. Perfect information games get stale a little more quickly for me when I'm not running the world.

Edit for clarification: I think both ways are totally viable. Depends on the DM, depends on the players. It's a session 0 thing.

Thinking about it as a player, I strongly identify with this; it just kind of feels wrong, gamey, and immersion breaking when my DM gives me info that I don't think I should have. I like the challenge and feeling of not knowing, and that's probably the biggest reason I started the thread come to think of it. I'm currently playing in a game where the DM is doing just that, in terms of providing dice rolls, but also enemy ACs and other things that to my mind we shouldn't know. It bugs me.

I'm enjoying reading the responses. They're varied and informative, as I knew they'd be. One thing I'm hoping to get a little more feedback on is around my last question. What do you guys think are classes and subclasses that might benefit most from more info?

[ProsecutorGodot]

One thing I'm hoping to get a little more feedback on is around my last question. What do you guys think are classes and subclasses that might benefit most from more info?
Spellcasting classes obviously, they have the most ways to interact with that sort of thing. We've had a few examples up thread about it. Shield, Cutting Words, Silvery Barbs to name a few examples. The specific example given by Diplomancer is exactly why too, you'll want to use Silvery Barbs when you know a high roll has succeeded as opposed to a low roll because your odds of now forcing a failure are higher. Seeing the rolled number of the die and knowing it successfully hit also lets you quickly figure out the enemies bonuses for Shield or Cutting Words.

It's something I'm kind of hesitant to say is a good or bad thing, but it definitely feels a bit too "gamey", even though this is a game, if I can start quickly mathing out an enemies stats. Say the roll is a 9, my AC is 14 and the DM says it hits. I shield, it misses. I've narrowed down the enemies to hit bonus from this interaction as opposed to the hidden roll interaction where you're simply told "you've been hit" and are asked to make the choice for shield blind. Typically even when I am hiding a roll I announce the total unless I know that the character has something that interacts with it, though after a certain point (one or two instances of this interaction) I assume the character has become aware of what will or won't waste their shield and we go back to announcing the total.


That'd be valid if there weren't features that strongly suggest the players need that info to properly use them. It's not outright explicit, but if that weren't the case, sure, that's a reason.

Not one, to me, that outweighs the odds that the DM is a fudger though. IMX it's far more common for DMs who want to hide rolls because they think fudging is an acceptable, or even laudable, thing.
If this is the sort of thing the table is aware can happen and they've agreed to it I don't see an issue. If the issue is with perceived dishonesty, all you need to do is be honest from the start, whether that's an admission that you may fudge from time to time or that rolls will be open to enforce unbiased results.

[Witty Username]

I tend to use openish, I don't use a screen, and I tend to say rolls if prompted. I tend to give the roll + modifiers though when it matters to players. For stuff other than rolls, I tend to go by information is discoverable. AC is not difficult to figure out, so I tend to leave it unmentioned so the players can try to estimate it.

[Imbalance]

The primary reason I use a screen is because I have it plastered with useful information that I suck at remembering. The only thing it "hides" is a bevy of miniatures to use in potential upcoming encounters and the current page of the open MM. I roll on my side of it so that I can see the result, not to prevent anyone else from seeing. I state the result, and the players may react. There is no class-based denial of agency. Trust issues? Check those at the door. Why are you playing if you don't trust your DM? I didn't bring my players to the table to lie to them, but if that's how they feel about me they can play somewhere else.

[Psyren]

Hybrid - I roll behind the screen, but declare the numerical result of most rolls verbally, which means that the players can eventually learn the AC, attack bonus, and save DC for most enemies fairly quickly. Meanwhile, some rolls like Deception and Stealth are always secret.

My policy on fudging is to avoid it except when the result of not fudging would make for a worse game. If an unlucky crit would delete the brand new player outright, I'll drop them into dying instead and give the party a chance to save them, that sort of thing.