Why is it fair, or unfair, for a GM to make his rolls behind a screen or keep the enemies' stats hidden from the players?
>>46270261
What the fuck is that brown thing in the background?
>>46270261
Neither method is inherently fair or unfair.
The rationale for why it's "fair" though usually amounts to the argument hiding your rolls means your players won't know the enemy stats and therefore can't use meta knowledge to win.
I disagree with this; meta knowledge means jack dick in combat. Knowing out of character how many times you need to hit an enemy to kill it doesn't change the number of times you need to hit it. I don't tell my players stat blocks, but it's no skin off my nose if they figure it out.
Dice rolls I usually let my players see because again, it's not like it changes anything. I feel it's a matter of trust. I like to let my players know I have no intention of lying or fudging rolls.
>>46270322
Make a roll, the GM may or may not tell you what he is since you don't have access to the enemies' stats.
>>46270261
Fair or unfair doesn't enter into it, unless your players dont trust you. If they dont trust the DM to DM, they probably shouldn't play with the DM.
As to a reason to do so, its largely tradition but there are some reasons. For example, say you have to roll for a random effect and you don't want the players to know what it is immediately. If they know the table yer rolling from, they can figure it out straight away and negate some of its impact. If you keep it hidden, they can't. That sort of thing, basically.
>>46270360
>Not giving me the enemy's stats
This is bullshit, how do you expect me to win D&D?
>>46270332
>pic and filename
I laughed.
>>46270261
I tend to use paper notes when I'm GMing, just to remember important things that I might otherwise forget like "The players have hidden the princess at Dragon Keep but the Evil Overlord doesn't know this."
It's better for players to see a screen with mystery behind it than to see a bunch of notecards
>>46270332
Even though I agree with you on the broadest strokes, your example tells me you have no idea what tactics are. If we're focusing down a huge enemy and I know he only has a hit left in him, I'm going to suggest we stop dedicating our entire party to that enemy and that we split off to take care of other, time-sensitive things, knowing he's very likely to die this round to only the barbarian and that the rogue is better spending his turn on something that isn't immune to his sneak attack.
>>46270525
Thing is though is it's not really meta gaming to behave like that. All the players need to do is ask "what shape is he in?" and you can give them a straight answer. Being aware an enemy is close to death is something you can reasonably expect a character in that situation to figure out.
Now, if a player just straight up asks me how much HP a monster has, I won't tell them because that's irrelevant to the game experience. But if the player is a veteran roleplayer and knows the monster's stats by heart then I don't really care how they try to use that. If anything, the most it will cause is a few last minute actions motivated by a desire to stop a player death. And honestly, I'd rather excuse a bit of meta gaming than see a player character get killed in a random combat.
Especially if it's a good character I built a bit of plot around.
>>46270332
>meta knowledge means jack dick in combat.
Meta knowledge includes things like "is weak to fire", "is immune to poison", or "explodes on death."
Additionally, if the GM'S rolls a monster's dodge behind the screen and says I missed, I don't know whether it crit the roll or if it's just got a giant modifier. If he openly rolls dodge, gets a 4, and says "You missed", then I know OOC that it's time to leg it because that thing is untouchable.
Why is "fair" a concern?
Do you not have fun unless things are "fair"?
>>46270261
>enemy stats
fair
>rolls
debatable, depends on the situation
>>46270322
It appears to be a Dindu.
>>46270261
I'm playing with about 4 engineers.
If we can't determine stats based off of what we roll when fighting it and GM description, something is literally not adding up and some dm bullshit is happening.
That being said, hiding creatures stats is better than not.
>>46270792
Like a few anons have mentioned, the only people who seem to be concerned about "fairness" in this case are metagaming shitters who can't have a good time unless they feel like they've "won" something.
>>46270978
I know.
Not only do I hide most enemy rolls from my players (saves, checks, etc.), but in my games, player skill rolls for things like Perception, Knowledge, Diplomacy, etc., are all rolled with their numerical results hidden from the player.
If you're gonna cry about something being "unfair", go fuck off to your murderhobo min-max Monty Haul games. We're playing roleplaying games here.
There's no fair/unfairness in hiding rolls, only in what you do with it.If I'd been rolling in secret, one of the PCs wouldn't have died in a single round like a punk last session.
>>46270322
>image search
>some shit about a ghost comes up
I don't know but something tells me it might be a ghost, anon.
>>46270628
>Being aware an enemy is close to death is something you can reasonably expect a character in that situation to figure out.
True. But knowing that an enemy is 1 hit away from death if the character uses attack x, but 2 hits from death if he uses y is something a character isn't going to be as sure of. Assume that attack x uses some ammo that it running low. The less information the players have, the harder the battle is, because they have a higher chance of using x at the wrong time and/or target.
If the first hit an enemy makes in combat does a lot of damage, rolling openly means that they will know if it was a lucky hit or if the enemy usually hits that hard. Hide the roll and the players will be left guessing.
If you do the 'to hit' roll in secret, it takes longer for the players to work out how likely the enemy is to hit them.
With the damage and to hit rolls hidden, players have a harder time working out which enemies are the bigger threat.
So I try to hide information from the players, where possible, to make combat more interesting for them.
In saying that, one system I like to run has:
- Attack rolls are opposed rolls.
- Roll is a dice poll ranging from d4s to d12s.
- Highest number showing on any rolled die wins the opposed roll.
- There is an ability called "Luck" which lets its user pick any single die in the roll, theirs or their opponents, roll it twice, then pick the result from the three values.
As soon as a player takes that ability, I'm left with no choice but to make any roll involving that PC in the open.
>>46270322
Its some ghost shit.
>kids are playing in mock grocery store for some reason
>parents are all talking to each other about how precious it is
>one particularly enterprising mother snaps a photo of their kids playing
>haha good day lets go home and develop these photo's
>cue horror movie seen of mom flicking through the photos till she sees this one
>can't put her finger on it but something seems of abou-OMGOD!
>asks other parents if their shit showed anything
>no.
>mother post photo on facebook or makes copies to send to parents or just shows them it depending on source
>everyone scured now
>parents ask kids about the figure
>every kid just goes
"Yeah! Thats mr.teddybear! He plays all the time with us!"
>cue inception horn, pan, zoom, frame scured mothers face
Shits made the rounds around /x/ for years and everytime the story changes.
>>46270261
All dice rolling done by everyone at the table should be done out in the open simply because people aren't trustworthy. GM included.
>GM lies about a roll behind his screen so he can kill me
Fuck you.
>GM lies about a roll behind his screen so he can save me
We're playing a game not writing a damn fanfic, fuck off with that pussy shit.
>GM lies about a saving throw he made behind the screen because he doesn't want his snowflake bbeg getting hit by that effect
I will cut you.
>>46274006
Found the autist
>>46274006
If you can't trust your GM don't even bother playing.
>>46270261
Depends on the sett--
Wait, that doesn't apply.
I'm of the mind that a GM could keep their rolls behind a screen to help the narrative along. Assuming they don't fudge rolls often, it should be used as an emergency regulator if at all.
>>46274006
>>46270628
>Thing is though is it's not really meta gaming to behave like that. All the players need to do is ask "what shape is he in?" and you can give them a straight answer. Being aware an enemy is close to death is something you can reasonably expect a character in that situation to figure out.
I do this and it works pretty well, except for one fucker. Every single hit he asks me "what shape is it in now?" and its getting harder and harder to give meaningful information without outright stating "you need one more attack to finish it off," and he's somehow getting more and more impatient and annoyed that there isn't some sort of DM table to describe hit point loss.
>Enemy has about 250 health maximum
>Down to around 100 health
>"What shape is it in?"
>"It's looking pretty beaten up"
>Down to around 50 health
>"What shape is it in?"
>"You guys seem to have it on its last legs"
>"What but we've done like 50 damage to it since you said it was beaten up"
>"Yea and now it's about to drop dead"
>He attacks. Does like 20 damage. "Is it dead yet?"
>"No"
>"What but you said it was on its last legs"
>"Last legs for something with this much HP is a relative term"
>He then tries to start an argument about the implicit meanings of injury descriptions as if that will change how much HP the monster has left
>>46274006
Sorry, but as a GM, I will tell you right now that it is hard to keep a game believable and a story to be coherent when people keep dying in the middle of a dungeon and random jackoffs just magically appear down there to join the group repeatedly, and everyone is expected to trust each other and stick around for the overarching quest.
>>46274950
>>46274006
>playing systems where failure == death
>>46274924
I use lightly wounded for 75-51% of health remaining, wounded for 50%-26%, and heavily wounded for 25% or less. Also if they are a boss or something and only have a few hit points left then i'll describe it and say they're barely standing or some such.
>>46270261
It's not. It's not supposed to be.
>rolling dice just to fuck with the players
Who gives a shit, DMs can and should do what's fun for them and their group.
To me, it's the most fun to do everything in the open because that way my players know exactly when fate or their own competence is either fucking everything up, or saving the day.
>>46270261
It's far.
By showing his rolls, it leaves the possibility open for the players to calculate relevant enemy stats.
Also it offers the ability for the GM to fudge rolls in order to improve the game.
Keeping stats hidden - I've never known a GM who didn't do this, or any players who have asked to see enemy stats. The characters can figure it out through observation, but hiding the stats can keep the players from immediately targeting the weakest save, etc.
Hiding rolls is shit though, it means the GM is fudging rolls and that means the game is a sham.
>>46270261
Depends where you come from. Roots in tabletop wargaming, it's unfair, because all units are supposed to be known to either side, and if one asks another 'what does that guy do, again?' then you're expected to answer.
Roots in, I donno, creative writing? Then it can be whatever you want.
Hiding dice rolls is absolutely haram, though.
>>46274006
Yep. Playing a necromancer is aggravating with most GMs, because they simply won't let you hit 'boss' enemies with save or fail spells, which are about the only spells you have.
>>46274950
My group rolls in the open and nobody ever dies. If you don't want any players to die, make your encounters less difficult.
>>46272382
>kids know the ghost and call him Mr. Teddybear
So close to a nice, simple, creepy story. Why does every creepypasta use that bullcrap nowadays?
>>46270261
Don't know or care either way, I put the screen up so I can use the cheat-sheets on the back and can't be bothered to put it down when I roll dice.
Generally I just run with what I roll so, really, who cares? But on the occasion that I do make some ridiculous roll (be it amazing or terrible) I will pick up the screen to show everyone, because I know they wouldn't believe me otherwise.
>>46270322
it's an Inuit you racist.
>>46270261
The entire goal of the game is to have fun. In a game where not only is it possible for an enemy to get a surprise attack on the party and luckily one-shot them, why would you want the GM to be that brutally honest? They should be honest when a player is seriously hurt, but god damnit just let them have some choice in any actions that would kill them out of nowhere, especially from the beginning. Twice now I've been killed, not knocked out, in one hit by the first enemy my party encountered. One of those times they attacked from behind in a surprise round. Sure you could say they were using nonlethal weapons or something, but then you may as well have just cheesed the roll to do nearly lethal damage.
>>46270261
Of course I keep rolls hidden. This isPARANOIA, where everything's made up and the dice don't matter.
Players are always asking about the next session, so something must be going right.
>>46271375
>dat spoiler
Sounds like it's a good thing you're rolling in the open
>>46276015
Am I supposed to feel for you inability to prepare for combat in D&D?
Don't let them see enemy rolls. Instead, explain why the hit missed and how badly. Did it only not hit because of their dex bonus to AC? Tell them the enemy dodged it. Was it a near hit? Then the enemy barely avoided the swing, possibly even leaving a scratch on their shirt or slicing off a couple hairs if it's really close. Did it miss but wouldn't have if they had no armor bonus? It bounced off their armor. By far? Mention how well-protected this enemy is and how it could take quite a while to break through at this rate.
>>46276613
You think I'm to blame for failing a perception check and getting decapitated from behind? Holy shit you sure know how to make things fun for your party.
>>46276666
Your GM is pretty terrible if that scenario keeps happening.
>>46276015Have you tried not playing D&D?Have you tried not having a terrible GM?
Seriously though, when used correctly all open rolls can enhance the tension, the "I could get killed at any time" risk that makes the rewards worth it. It's just another playstyle that, as usual, either works or fails on the skills of the GM.
>>46276666
Unless you're playing a meat grinder dungeon crawl, you have a terrible GM. My sympathies.
I hide rolls so that I can fudge them in the players favor if the dice have decided to be bitchy.
>>46275181
>My last GM
>Too much time passes while group is deciding what to do
>Rolls randomly
>You were discovered by a passing patrol
>Fuck you GM
>This is actually pretty fun and spices up the story
>>46272231
Well, I don't go out of my way to explicitly tell my players what they're dealing with. I just don't think it's a big deal if and when players work out an enemy's stat blocks on their own.
>>46270261
Why do DMs use a screen? To help their players. It's not about secrecy,it's so the DM can change the results of rolls for the benefit of the campaign whether That's to change a crit against a near dead player to a regular hit or preventing the BBEG from rolling a 1 on the first turn in the final showdown
>>46277669
>Why do DMs use a screen?
Don't know if you realize this, but the other side of the DM screen is crammed with tables and cheat-sheets for various game mechanics that save us -the GM's- time and effort having to hunt them down in the rule book(s) because, I'm sorry, we don't all have encyclopedic knowledge of each and every aspect of the game down to the smallest minutia.
>>46277669
Or the DM can just not hinge outcomes on single dice rolls.
As a DM, how is it best to handle NPC combat tactics? Go all out trying to kill the players (potentially using metaknowledge of the players' character stats and roles)? Or just hit whatever's nearest? Or do you play softball and just hit the tank?
>>46277783
>Don't know if you realize this, but the other side of the DM screen is crammed with tables and cheat-sheets for various game mechanics that save us -the GM's- time and effort having to hunt them down in the rule book(s) because, I'm sorry, we don't all have encyclopedic knowledge of each and every aspect of the game down to the smallest minutia.
Or you could just have your cheat sheet on a flat piece of paper. Or roll in front of the screen if you don't want to show your notes.
>>46278154
Depends on the NPC. Well trained soldiers will act differently to random bandits and monsters.
>>46278224
>Or you could just have your cheat sheet on a flat piece of paper.
but the screen has it already printed for me.
why should I put in the extra work if it's already been done for me?
-And I can't be bothered to move the damn thing when I'm rolling dice.
>>46278154
if one of the PC's looks obviously more dangerous than the rest, they will likely target him first.
>>46278154
what are the enemy? Bandits with poorly forged swords, or Knights of an enemy ruler? What are they trying to do? Eat, or kill? Who're the PCs in combat with them?
What I typically see, and do, is try and deal with the biggest, most immediate threat. If my options are
>Big scary mofo
>Skinny prick
>Skinny prick 2
>Medium scary mofo
Deal with the BSM first. Turns out SP2 is a wizard that does hideous damage? Change targets.
Obviously, this is meant for sentients. Animalistic intelligences would probably attack the guy in front, and just move down the line.
>>46278154
NPC's absolutely shouldn't use meta knowledge, but as long as they act within appropriate motivations anything is fair game.
>>46278154
I use a "pain chance" dice.
>PC is being attacked by wolf
>Wolf closes the distance and attacks
Normally the wolf will keep attacking until it dies, which is not to my liking.
So i roll "pain chance"
The roll that the monster has to make is a result of its own total HP, current HP and player attack damage
If the wolf succeeds, he gets to continue attacking as he was doing before
If the wolf fails he does NOT get any penalties or anything but he will briefly retreat and change its approach
>Try to flank the player
>Move backwards to charge again
>Try to intimidate by roaring (Or whatever is appropiate)
>Try to reposition itself for a better approach
>Try to run away if it seems hopeless
Etc.
In case of a humanoid they may leave their valuables behind to discourage further persuit and to communicate that the battle is over, they have won and there is no reason to continue beyond really hating the bastard
This is not a "morale" roll, those are made after the monster fails the "pain chance" roll
I use it mostly to spice up combat with mindless animals and mosters but can also add variety to the combat with sentients NPCs
PC do not roll for it since i can safely assume that they will change their approach if what they are doing right now is hopeless.
>>46275305
>it leaves the possibility open for the players to calculate relevant enemy stats.
Which the players know IC how?
>>46278098
"N-no! Your p-players are just shit!"
~t. D20 systems
>>46278416
In a world where wizards are fairly common, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that a guy wearing robes and a staff or otherwise looking wizardly would instantly be categorized as a threat and a higher priority target than the guy wearing armor you might not even be able to penetrate?
>>46280269
>wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that a guy wearing robes and a staff or otherwise looking wizardly would instantly be categorized as a threat and a higher priority target
It's a tough call when wizards are so similar to senile old men.
Sometimes gms fudge rolls.
I never fudge to make things less fun for the players. But I fudge sometimes to avoid stupid, boring, or cheap things happening. It would ruin it if the players knew I did this.
>>46280620
Why not just stab all senile old men in the neck just in case? Seems like a reasonable precaution to me.
>>46270261
Perfectly fair, although i generally prefer the GM to roll in the open most of the time, but it is ultimately their call. As for stats, keep that shit in the dark, games are far better when you dont have perfect information and have to make guesses and take risks.
>>46275431
This is a sign of shitty storytelling. Never have any enemy fight the pcs if your plot depends on them surviving the encounter.
If you want them to somehow menace the pcs and then leave for dramatic effect, give them some sort of telepathy and have them set traps/mooks on the pcs while they monologue. Or give them some kind of possession ability.
>>46280269
In a world where enemies geek the mage, why the fuck are you an old man with a long white beard and obvious wizard robes?
>>46270261
The only purpose to not rolling in the open is to keep your options open to fudge the dice when you need to. Personally I don't like having to fudge the dice so I plan my campaigns on not having to do so and roll in the open. I wouldn't hold it against you if want to fudge the dice for a better game, the ends justify the means and all that.
Why the fuck should players know the enemy stats? I'm not going to chase after you to not look it up but at the same time there's no reason to just give you the information.
>>46280620
I may have just decided to lug a series of sebile old men in robes around with me to spread out the pain a bit
>>46282151
>Behold, mirror image!
>Actually just A dozen or so old men kidnapped from various hamlets.
>>46275431
This is why you are not writing your story as a gm, you are writing the story of the players.
If you have people that must die at a certain point and a specific way, put it in an in game prophecy or write a fucking book. Anything else should be based on what can and can not work in the game system you all chose to play.
>>46278608
Get a good swing in?
Didn't draw blood?
Monster must have a thick, armor-like hide.
Wearing good armor?
Keep getting hit by thing?
Must be pretty good at hitting me.
>>46276615
This.
This this this this and this.
>Bounced off his armor
>Parries with shield.
Actually used this one when an enemy was rocking a +3 shield. Didn't go out of my way to describe it but the dwarf was getting furious going toe to toe and kept getting blocked.
Dwarf damn well looted it cause he was convinced it was special.
I don't hide rolls though. Just my stat sheets and maps. My games these days consist of 6-9 players. Even with the monster chessex maps and 3 tables under the thing the table is still pretty crowded.
Books, character sheets, smokes, drinks, food.
I'd rather them see my rolls than my maps and notes.
Besides AC can fluctuate depending on the situation.
I tend to roll HP for all my monsters even ones on the fly. So they vary as well.
When they see the dice rolling and that oh crap this mnster can potentially wreck the fighters in 2 lucky hits then things get fun.
About the only thing they can figure out is spellcaster levels if they get a fireball lobbed at them or something.
>>46280269
>a guy wearing robes and a staff or otherwise looking wizardly
That illusion magic yo.
Ever had an actual player use Illusion school to totally disrupt everything?
I have one particular player who loves him some phantasmal force. He's cause loads of party saving shenanigans. Totally changed encounters. He's made me have to think on my feet every game.
I've also had the party hightail it like no ones business due to illusions.
>>46270261
It's not about being fair, it's about adventure. If players read that a troll regenerates from damage and that's stopped by using fire, they just tell eachother to spam fire until the troll is dead. Encounter is over without thinking, without strategizing, without being careful or to do something daring or new.
Rolling in front of the players will show them the result of a die roll and then you add a modifier to it. The players will know that it has at least a +3 damage bonus and the average roll of a 8 or something. Now they can metagame and micromanage the encounter. Again: no risks, no thinking, no daring, no trying, no new stuff, no adventure.
What about skills? Everytime a player tries to figure out if an NPC is lying the GM can roll to lie for it. If the GM doesn't roll and just says he speaks the truth, detecting that lie didn't matter. If he had to roll to see how well the NPC lied, the rolls did matter and by how much. In both cases the player already knows if the NPC is lying or not. So just roll a die in both cases so the player will never be sure when you say: "It doesn't look like he's lying." It's to prevent metagaming, taking away risk, immersion, ADVENTURE.
>>46280269
Absolutely, and in most standard DnD settings you could reasonably expect many enemies to know what a magic user is, and what one might be capable of . But be careful before you play that card on your players, especially since once a fight starts there's jack shit the tank can do to protect the caster except stand there like a post and hope the enemy runs close enough to trigger an attack of opportunity.
At low levels it's probably best to not play enemies intelligently, otherwise you're going to burn through wizards pretty quickly. Once the party gets a couple levels under their belts you can afford to pull fewer punches.
