Open or Closed screen DM ?

[Pugwampy]

I am an open screen DM . I like showing if i made a critical strike . I like the honesty . Why would a player trust or respect a DM who fudges his rolls behind a screen . I like tossing my dice in the middle of the battlegrid .

The supposed info on this inside never helps me . We all have house rules . I do not like the idea of standing up and moving my miniature instead of just reaching forward .

I understand this screen helps the DM maintain a bit more control .....supposedly ?

Which do you like and why ?

[pabelfly]

I am an open screen DM . I like showing if i made a critical strike . I like the honesty . Why would a player trust or respect a DM who fudges his rolls behind a screen . I like tossing my dice in the middle of the battlegrid .

The supposed info on this inside never helps me . We all have house rules . I do not like the idea of standing up and moving my miniature instead of just reaching forward .

I understand this screen helps the DM maintain a bit more control .....supposedly ?

Which do you like and why ?

My rolls when I DM are generally so bad that no-one is going to question them if I'm not showing them to the table.

I'll start the encounter with rolls in view of everyone, and will typically move to behind the screen after a round or two. I'll sometimes roll a dice to work out who enemies are going for, and I'll do that in full view of everyone, especially if that can really mess up or end a player's character.

Behind the screen can be good for several reasons:
- You want to look at your session notes or enemy stats while rolling or making enemy moves.
- It can be quicker to roll behind the screen, if you want to move the party to the next encounter more quickly
- You underestimated your encounter and you want to fudge some dice rolls the other way without being obvious that you're making the encounter easier for the players.

[Kurald Galain]

I've done open screen for a very long time. I don't feel the need to hide myself or my die rolls behind a screen, and prefer not having a "barrier" between me and the players.

Plus we commonly play systems that don't have a battlemap, meaning you also don't need a table and can play e.g. outdoors or on the couch, with no room for the screen in the first place.

[Biggus]

- You want to look at your session notes or enemy stats while rolling or making enemy moves.
- It can be quicker to roll behind the screen, if you want to move the party to the next encounter more quickly
- You underestimated your encounter and you want to fudge some dice rolls the other way without being obvious that you're making the encounter easier for the players.

You missed what as far as I've always thought is the most important reason: because you don't want any player who's half-decent at mental arithmetic to instantly know what their enemies' attack bonuses (and potentially also caster level etc) are.

Also, in relation to your first reason above, I always have the enemy character sheets and session notes spread out behind the screen, it would be a major pain to have to keep them covered all the time.

As you can probably tell, I'm firmly on the closed-screen side.

[Crake]

You missed what as far as I've always thought is the most important reason: because you don't want any player who's half-decent at mental arithmetic to instantly know what their enemies' attack bonuses (and potentially also caster level etc) are.

Also, in relation to your first reason above, I always have the enemy character sheets and session notes spread out behind the screen, it would be a major pain to have to keep them covered all the time.

As you can probably tell, I'm firmly on the closed-screen side.

Yeah, the fog of war is the main reason to keep it hidden imo.

[Zanos]

Unless it's a roll players shouldn't even know happened, like an enemy stealth check, or failed spot check, all my rolls are open. When someone is double 20'd by an orc ranger and killed by a x3 favored enemy composite longbow crit, it feels a lot better that both rolls were open on the table for everyone to see. Similarly, when the wizard casts glitterdust and every single enemy gets 15+ on die and makes their save, feels better for that to be in the open.

Too many DMs these days that "massage" dice results for my liking.

[Batcathat]

Unless it's a roll players shouldn't even know happened, like an enemy stealth check, or failed spot check, all my rolls are open. When someone is double 20'd by an orc ranger and killed by a x3 favored enemy composite longbow crit, it feels a lot better that both rolls were open on the table for everyone to see. Similarly, when the wizard casts glitterdust and every single enemy gets 15+ on die and makes their save, feels better for that to be in the open.

Yeah, this is pretty much my reasoning too, though I can see some advantages to having more hidden rolls.

[Darg]

Too many DMs these days that "massage" dice results for my liking.

It goes both ways. Having the screen allows me to create much more engaging encounters and do pre-rolls to keep things running much faster and smoother. It also gives me the liberty to let characters shine or drop as needed. Sometimes the die are too unforgiving to have a game run longer than a few minutes. Fudging rolls is a useful tool to keep the game going or slow it down. That said, it's a group of friends who trade off being DM. If we pull any funny business we know we'll just suffer for it in the future.

[icefractal]

I don't have a screen; the closest thing is that sometimes I keep certain pages of notes hidden and only look at them when picking up the whole stack, because even an unintentional glance would notice something that shouldn't yet be known.

Most rolls I make in the open, and the few I don't (certain Bluff checks, say) I'll use my phone or pre-make several rolls and use them in order.

[Crake]

When someone is double 20'd by an orc ranger and killed by a x3 favored enemy composite longbow crit, it feels a lot better that both rolls were open on the table for everyone to see. Similarly, when the wizard casts glitterdust and every single enemy gets 15+ on die and makes their save, feels better for that to be in the open.

This can easily be achieved by simply lifting your hands up after the roll and inviting players to peek over the screen in such events. Such has happened many times at my table in the event of uncanny and improbable dice events

I would argue that it feels even more exciting in that scenario, because the players are invited for a rare treat to peek past the veil

[KOLE]

I am a very firm believer in letting the dice be the final arbiter of the story, therefore I NEVER fudge dice; but I still run a screen; I keep all my notes open on the table and run a fog of war over all dungeon maps while keeping a DM copy on the desk so I can parse it. Without the screen, players could easily see the map, my notes about traps and story spoilers, etc.

Plus, even though I don't fudge, I don't always like players knowing monster modifiers. I used to play with a group that was very meta about saving throws; casters would take turns probing boss saving throws until they all found a weak one and then go in with all their save or sucks targetting it. I didn't really enjoy that as a fellow player and would hate it as a DM; so using the screen keeps them in the dark as to whether my homebrew monster getting a 23 on the Dex save was a really good roll or a really bad roll.

[Zanos]

It goes both ways. Having the screen allows me to create much more engaging encounters and do pre-rolls to keep things running much faster and smoother. It also gives me the liberty to let characters shine or drop as needed. Sometimes the die are too unforgiving to
have a game run longer than a few minutes. Fudging rolls is a useful tool to keep the game going or slow it down. That said, it's a group of friends who trade off being DM. If we pull any funny business we know we'll just suffer for it in the future.
I don't fudge dice, nor do I want them fudged for my benefit. Knowing, or even suspecting, that DM will just can a roll that would have led to your defeat cheapens every victory in the campaign.


This can easily be achieved by simply lifting your hands up after the roll and inviting players to peek over the screen in such events. Such has happened many times at my table in the event of uncanny and improbable dice events

I would argue that it feels even more exciting in that scenario, because the players are invited for a rare treat to peek past the veil
I prefer to just be transparent to begin with. The act of rolling a die for a nasty attack on its player and seeing it come up 20 yourself is enough.


I am a very firm believer in letting the dice be the final arbiter of the story, therefore I NEVER fudge dice; but I still run a screen; I keep all my notes open on the table and run a fog of war over all dungeon maps while keeping a DM copy on the desk so I can parse it. Without the screen, players could easily see the map, my notes about traps and story spoilers, etc.
To clarify, I do keep information that characters would not be aware of away from them when it matters. There's not free access to my notes, maps, monster stats(although I am liberal with knowledge checks, even for monsters that the PCs "couldn't" know about, they can make fair inferences), campaign information, etc. etc.

[Darg]

I don't fudge dice, nor do I want them fudged for my benefit. Knowing, or even suspecting, that DM will just can a roll that would have led to your defeat cheapens every victory in the campaign.

Nothing is just black and white. I personally don't just drop rolls that can simply lead to defeat. For me it's more of a safeguard against terrible RNG that would steamroll the players. I do pre-rolls for a lot of things and seeing a line of 20s in the first round of combat for the game that we had literally just sat down for isn't going to be a fun time for anyone. I guess I can see how it could be fun for some people, but I at least like getting players warmed up with the session before obliterating the whole party in combat.

[Pugwampy]

You missed what as far as I've always thought is the most important reason: because you don't want any player who's half-decent at mental arithmetic to instantly know what their enemies' attack bonuses (and potentially also caster level etc) are.

I dont get it ....sorry ? If player is familiar with a monster how does a screen help ?



I would argue that it feels even more exciting in that scenario, because the players are invited for a rare treat to peek past the veil

A player just called your dice roll . He is annoyed thinking you cheated and you would be annoyed if you being falsely accused . either way that could ruin a session .



- You underestimated your encounter and you want to fudge some dice rolls the other way without being obvious that you're making the encounter easier for the players.

Most experienced players can tell if DM is helping them win or not .


I own a hand me down screen i have used once or twice . Interesting replies , I expected maybe 90 percent used Screens but its seems 50/50.
As long as my monsters are equal level to players I dont mind good rolls that forces the party to retreat .

[redking]

It goes both ways. Having the screen allows me to create much more engaging encounters and do pre-rolls to keep things running much faster and smoother. It also gives me the liberty to let characters shine or drop as needed.

Pre-rolls. Holy sh-t my mind just got blown. Having the next 100 DM rolls already done and dusted is awesome.

[Elkad]

Open as well, minus things like stealth or bluff.

If I need to fudge an encounter, I can fudge hitpoints or available spells or how many reinforcements come or a dozen other things.

[Darg]

I dont get it ....sorry ? If player is familiar with a monster how does a screen help ?

That has all to do with the lack of variation you add to your monsters. You can switch out feats, move skill ranks around, change up level based ability score adjustments, etc. Sure, it's limited, but a player thinks they'll hit on a 10 with power attack that all of a sudden can't hit on a 12 will realize they can't just make definitive judgements about monsters based on patterns or the stat block itself.

[emulord]

In battles all my dice rolls are visible. (Tohit, damage, saving throws)

DM only relevant stuff is rolled closed (Weather, random encounters, enemy hitdice (usually prerolled), morale, NPC knowledge/sense motive/spot/listen hidden so that I can better describe what happens rather than the players seeing "Oh my stealth roll succeeded"

[ngilop]

Closed screen all the way for me.


But, I do all the rolls that need to be in the open right there in front of everybody.

So players know if kurt the ogre saved on his burning hands spell or if the random troglodyte successfully critted.

I do not roll secret results,, so players won't know if they successfully snuck past mittens the cave bear pet near the entrance of the cave until it's too late.

I can say that in over 30 years of playing, I have never played a game where all rolls were kept hidden.. is that a new age RP thing.. or did I just experience some kind island of strange in all my gaming?

[Crake]

A player just called your dice roll . He is annoyed thinking you cheated and you would be annoyed if you being falsely accused . either way that could ruin a session .

Yeah, not everyone has trust issues with their DM. That is also not even close to the scenario I described.

Please dont project your tables insecurities onto my experiences

[Lorddenorstrus]

Was open screen for 99% of my time DMing, I just got one.. not to hide my rolls which my players could care less about.. but because I can use the screen to put things on that I have trouble remembering. My memory issues are really bad for certain details and I realized after asking what my players AC was for the 5th+ time of the night...... I need to write that down. I have notes on the campaign but blank on the obvious stuff to much. It has helped me flow better to have a giant screen of plastered #s n stuff to remember in front of me.

[Zanos]

Yeah, not everyone has trust issues with their DM.
It seems like maybe they should, since nearly everyone here is saying that if they hide monster rolls, part of the reason is so they can fudge the results.

[pabelfly]

It seems like maybe they should, since nearly everyone here is saying that if they hide monster rolls, part of the reason is so they can fudge the results.

DnD is not a game, it's a system designed to help with collaboratively creating a narrative, with the DM providing potential scenarios and the players having a set of rules that dictates how they can respond. If the scenario I'm providing as a DM is not something players are enjoying responding to, I see no issue with changing the numbers to create a situation I think the players will prefer.

[Zanos]

DnD is not a game
News to me.

[pabelfly]

News to me.

Games have win and loss conditions. There's no win or loss condition for DnD.

[Crake]

News to me.

More accurately: dnd is not a competitive game where the DM is pitted against the players. A good DM’s players will trust that their DM WILL fudge the dice rolls to ensure that the game is fun, while still feeling high stakes. A DM might fudge a boss’s save to make a fight not end in one round resulting in an upsetting anticlimax, or he might fudge the boss’s attack so that he doesnt insta-kill a player on the first round of combat, resulting in an anticlimax for that player as they’re immediately ripped from their immersion.

Trust issues with your DM are on a level above diceroll fudging. The issue isnt that you dont trust your DM to not fudge the dice, its that you dont trust the DM to not fudge the dice in THEIR favour, at YOUR expense, in which case you have bigger problems than a DM screen, if your relationship with your DM is that antagonistic.


Games have win and loss conditions. There's no win or loss condition for DnD.

Thats the definition for a COMPETITIVE game. Not all games require win or loss conditions. Peek-a-boo is technically a game.

[Buufreak]

There are rolls that are reasonably not to have the results known immediately to the party. Those should be rolled secretly.

[Zanos]

Trust issues with your DM are on a level above diceroll fudging. The issue isnt that you dont trust your DM to not fudge the dice, its that you dont trust the DM to not fudge the dice in THEIR favour, at YOUR expense, in which case you have bigger problems than a DM screen, if your relationship with your DM is that antagonistic.
I already clarified I don't want dice fudged for or against me, the examples I gave were things that happened when I was DMing. This idea that "actually he lives anyway despite rolling horribly because it would be bad for the narrative" is a new school of DM thought that thinks having narrative arcs and character development are more important than the game. Because it is one. Sometimes player characters die unexpectedly. Sometimes big villains roll badly. Both of those things are fine. They're part of the game, which are mitigated by smart play and good tactics.


Games have win and loss conditions. There's no win or loss condition for DnD.
DnD has obvious win and loss conditions, and "Game" is literally used on the first page of both the PHB and DMG.

[Crake]

I already clarified I don't want dice fudged for or against me, the examples I gave were things that happened when I was DMing. This idea that "actually he lives anyway despite rolling horribly because it would be bad for the narrative" is a new school of DM thought that thinks having narrative arcs and character development are more important than the game. Because it is one. Sometimes player characters die unexpectedly. Sometimes big villains roll badly. Both of those things are fine. They're part of the game, which are mitigated by smart play and good tactics.

Yes. It is a new school of thought.

But it's not a wrong one.

Some people prefer narrative arcs and character development over the tactical combat wargame simulationism of the past.

And that's okay.

If you WANT combat simulationism, and you don't trust your DM to play fairly while maintaining fog of war then, again, that is an issue that transcends fudging dice or not. My players, however, would rather I fudge the dice so that their character doesn't die in a very unsatisfying manner, as long as they aren't aware that it happened.

[Zanos]

Yes. It is a new school of thought.

But it's not a wrong one.
I don't think I said it was. I just refuted silly arguments that the definitive(tm) Role Playing Game is not a Game.


Some people prefer narrative arcs and character development over the tactical combat wargame simulationism of the past.
You can have both, you just have to accept that sometimes the dice are going to have influence over narrative arcs and character development.


My players, however, would rather I fudge the dice so that their character doesn't die in a very unsatisfying manner, as long as they aren't aware that it happened.
If your players don't mind it, why would they need to be unaware of it?

[Psyren]

We prefer closed screen on both sides. But we'll occasionally do really dramatic, hail-mary type rolls fully in the open.

[Catullus64]

I'm a closed-screen DM, but it has little to do with concealing or fudging dice rolls, though I occasionally have reasons to do both. I like being able to keep my notes & maps concealed in an easy way for sure; I also like the way in which a screen encourages the players to think less about the dice and keep their focus on the action. Most of all, the DM mysteriously peering over the screen as they make their pronouncements of doom and ask hapless fools 'are you sure?' is so iconic to the game. It's a tradition with deep roots, and it makes a game feel more like D&D by its very inclusion.

In some of the oldest D&D, I think the rules assume that the Referee is doing all of the dice rolling? I'll have to check the old sourcebooks unless someone remembers.

[Jay R]

I don't use a screen, and I make some public rolls and some hidden rolls.

My players trust me to make the best possible game I can, and recognize that I will sometimes make mistakes. I've never hidden from them the fact that the DM is the final authority, even over something in the rulebook.

Often, especially for ambushes, I make NPC rolls in advance. It helps get an encounter going quickly. I rarely fudge a die roll, but sometimes I don't roll; I decide. As long as I keep the game interesting and fun, the players don't sweat the small stuff.

The most important requirement for making a game successful is to be trustworthy. This means (among other things) letting them know that occasionally, I will make a decision based on story concerns instead of leaving it up to the dice.

[Crake]

If your players don't mind it, why would they need to be unaware of it?

Feel like thats pretty obvious, is it not? The same reason people dont want to peer behind the curtain at a play, or dont want to see the wires suspending an actor in a movie: immersion, suspension of disbelief, verisimilitude, maintaining the illusion.

[pabelfly]

DnD has obvious win and loss conditions, and "Game" is literally used on the first page of both the PHB and DMG.

What obvious win or loss conditions? There's no win condition since there's always more challenges to overcome, not to mention that the DM is deliberately trying to create tailored challenges for your party to beat. Death has no impact besides being able to make a new character, and even death is only a temporary setback when you're high enough level.

DnD is best understood as rules-based cooperative storytelling, rather than a game.

[Zanos]

What obvious win or loss conditions? There's no win condition since there's always more challenges to overcome, not to mention that the DM is deliberately trying to create tailored challenges for your party to beat. Death has no impact besides being able to make a new character, and even death is only a temporary setback when you're high enough level.
The obvious win conditions are completing an adventure. The obvious lose conditions are dying or not being able to complete an adventure. Those aren't the only ones, and D&D allows you to define your own 'win' conditions to some degree, but just because the game isn't over doesn't mean you aren't winning or losing. But hell, there's nothing that requires something have a win or loss state to be considered a game, I don't know where you heard that. Just because we aren't tracking everyone's points when playing mini-golf doesn't mean we suddenly aren't playing a game.

If dying wasn't an undesirable outcome, which it usually is both from the player characters perspective and the game mechanics, people wouldn't go to so much trouble to try to avoid it.


DnD is best understood as rules-based cooperative storytelling, rather than a game.
No, that's what systems like FATE or FFG Star Wars are for. D&D, especially 3.5/PF, is way too heavy on mechanical, combat based rules and too light on narrative rules to be considered a system "best understood" as cooperative storytelling. A colossal amount of page space is dedicated to explaining the rules on how to resolve game mechanics relative to space spent on explaining how to cooperatively tell stories.

[Crake]

No, that's what systems like FATE or FFG Star Wars are for. D&D, especially 3.5/PF, is way too heavy on mechanical, combat based rules and too light on narrative rules to be considered a system "best understood" as cooperative storytelling. A colossal amount of page space is dedicated to explaining the rules on how to resolve game mechanics relative to space spent on explaining how to cooperatively tell stories.

Rules describe how to resolve conflicts and disputes, whether they be between characters, or the envionrment. What they they don't define is the goals of why you're playing.

[Pugwampy]

DnD is best understood as rules-based cooperative storytelling, rather than a game.

Why can it not be both ?

I have a silly semi coherent comedic story part and afterwards I pack out the plastic and tokens and minis and we all roll dice to beat each other up part . XD

[Jay R]

DnD is best understood as rules-based cooperative storytelling, rather than a game.

That is certainly one way to approach it, and if you enjoy that, then great! Keep doing it.

If you believe that that is the only way to approach it, you are simply mistaken. If you think your favorite way is the only "best" way to approach it, then that is a personal opinion not shared by all.

In any event, my players and I will continue to approach it as a game, and to enjoy it. I strongly urge you to continue approaching it the way you choose, and to enjoy that.

[Zanos]

Rules describe how to resolve conflicts and disputes, whether they be between characters, or the envionrment. What they they don't define is the goals of why you're playing.
Sure, but not every goal is equally well served by every set of rules.

[Crake]

Sure, but not every goal is equally well served by every set of rules.

Not ever goal needs to be served by rules though. You don't need rules to tell you how to weave a narrative for example.

[rel]

Barring particularly unusual homebrew, which I can't always be bothered to make, a skilled player can reverse engineer a large portion of a monsters stat block from very little information. And rolling dice in the open, makes this process far easier.
I find this penalises less experienced players, and those trying to engage with the game in a less mechanical way. So in general I will avoid rolling in the open, although I might make the occasional particularly important roll in front of the players.


Briefly addressing the parallel discussion on fudging dice rolls;
Being something of a tinkerer when it comes to systems, I see the need to fudge the dice as a failure on my part in correctly selecting or modifying the system or setting up the world and content to match the game I wanted to run.

If I didn't want the party wiped out by a string of lucky crits, I probably shouldn't have equipped the enemies with high crit weapons, or used the reduced crit variant rule or implemented some sort of modification to the death rules.
If I was worried about a TPK, I should have reduced the strength of the opposition, or given them motivations to keep the party alive after they are defeated.
If I want the PC's big gambit to work out then I probably should not have called for a dice roll in the first place, or added some sort of mechanic to allow for the occasional guaranteeing of particularly brazen stunts.

Point being, if I reach a point where I think the game would be better for everyone if the dice had landed differently, I can't help feeling I've made a mistake in leaving things to chance.

[Zanos]

Not ever goal needs to be served by rules though. You don't need rules to tell you how to weave a narrative for example.
No, you don't, but in this discussion it seems that the rules are actively obstructing what you're trying to achieve. A not unexpected outcome by using a set of rules for something it wasn't designed for.

[Satinavian]

I use a screen for notes. Rolls are usually out in the open if placement of stuff on the table allows. When playing online, rolls are always out in the open.


When it comes to character deaths, i think fudging is extremely inelegant. If people don't want them, they should just play with rules that can prevent them.


Rules describe how to resolve conflicts and disputes, whether they be between characters, or the envionrment. What they they don't define is the goals of why you're playing.
No, rules do way more than describe how to solve conflict. That it is all about conflict is an old idea that led to creation of system that tried to interpret everything as some kind of conflict to bring their conflict resolution mechanics to bear. It very much didn't work well.

You are right that rules don't define why you are playing a certain game. Even if they were to include win conditions.

[Crake]

No, you don't, but in this discussion it seems that the rules are actively obstructing what you're trying to achieve. A not unexpected outcome by using a set of rules for something it wasn't designed for.

Actively obstructing because you’re choosing to fudge dice? Pretty sure fudging dice is a time honored, age old tradition of DMs, regardless of ruleset.

[Pugwampy]

No DM is the same . We all decide if we want to fudge or not . Tradition is irrelevant .

[Elkad]

I've used rolls where the roll is hidden from both the player AND the DM for a time.
Say stealth vs perception.
We both grab a d20 and drop it in the die tower, but the output bin is covered.

Then we reveal the rolls later - when the PC is actually in a position to potentially be spotted.

Sure, you could just wait to roll, but the suspense of "the roll is there... waiting..." seems to work out well.

[atemu1234]

I run my campaigns over Roll20, and am working on making the games integrated so that I can have people in-person and online. I've had times where I've had open and closed screens regarding dice rolls - as a rule, I prefer closed, as it breaks character less when I fudge dice that way. It makes the players feel better to not know when the laws of probability services the law of drama like a copper-piece harlot.