Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Kavannah Sep 10, 2011 13:26:15	So what is the friendliest way to ask the DM to make his rolls in front of the dm screen because I no longer have faith in his impartiality? Over our last few game sessions, our DM's rolls have become steadily and steadily more statistically unlikely.  Increasing numbers of high rolls and increasing numbers of natural 20s have been the norm.  All unverifiable because our dm rolls behind the screen.  Two sessions ago I started sending another player at the table texts when I thought the DM was about to roll a 20.  Though I haven't predicted every 20, every prediction I have made over two game sessions came true.  In our last game session, the DM rolled 12 attack rolls over 2 encounters.  4 of them were 20s.  (2 of them killed a character) Statistically possible?  Yes.  But when you add to the mix that they are not happening at random times, but in patterns that I have been able to successfully predict, the odds of chance get a lot more stretched.  I figured that the first step in dealing with the problem should be 'communication'.  After the last session, I sent an email to the DM.  I laid out the history, and requested that he dm the next couple sessions without the dm screen.  That was over a week ago, and he has yet to respond.  I don't know whether he's angry with me, has hurt feelings, or just wants to air everything publicly with the whole group at our next session.  Am I being a *(&% by asking him to ditch the screen?  Any advice on how to move forward without killing the campaign?
#2 slobo777a Sep 10, 2011 14:13:22	I agree with you in as much that I prefer a game which doesn't have dice fudging. I personally hate this style of DM tweaking. When I DM I roll in the open. However, you've hit a hot topic amongst DMs - some swear by dice fudging as a device to help balance a game and make it more exciting. Perhaps that is his reasoning - as a player you would tend to notice good rolls happen when the monsters are losing "too easily", and bad rolls if the swing goes too far the other way and the DM risks a TPK if he doesn't rein in the monsters. You have to start by trusting that the DM has the best of intentions. Otherwise, you shouldn't play with at all . . . I don't rate your chances highly, but then I don't think you are being a *(&% either, at least not for wanting a game without altered dice rolls. I guess it depends on how you worded your email and your request to change style. If you are lucky, the DM will take your feedback seriously, and consider whether his approach is actually damaging the game. But it is possible you and the DM cannot agree on this topic, and if so you will have to decide to accept this part of his game or vote with your feet.
#3 RyndarLocke Sep 10, 2011 18:47:54	A DM screen is there to make secret rolls.  Searching, hearing, spotting, stealth.  Or for things you wouldn't see in game.  Like the hidden attacker making his listen check. Combat rolls should always be in front of the screen.  Because you as a player can see the effects of those rolls within the game.  A hit is seen/felt/taken and a miss is also seen/felt/taken. I support you 100%.  I can't stand DM's that fudge the dice.  If you use the encounter building guidelines the chances of a TPK are fairly low.  If the dice favor you, yay for the dice.  Work in a capture.  Leave the group dying. Have them wake up ina  completely different location stripped to start over. If my character can't die/lose I don't want to play.   By the same token if my character is beaten into the ground by every minion in the game I'm not having fun either.
#4 Litmus Sep 11, 2011 7:39:01	If you're sending each other texts during the game, then the DM's rolls are not the real issue.  It sounds to me as though the DM is on the defensive for some reason and there is a 'DM vs Player' situation going on in your group as a result.  This might be the DM's fault, it might be the players' fault or, in all probability, it's a bit of both.  If you want to help get the campaign back to being fun, then you need to defuse the conflict so that everyone is working together to make the campaign enjoyable. I'd advise you to have a chat with the DM and ask first for some feedback on what you can do differently as a player.  That way the DM is much more likely to listen to any feedback that you have for him.
#5 sirkaikillah Sep 11, 2011 12:18:19	As a Dm I make all rolls in front of the Dm screen.  I don't always tell the players why I am rolling.  Nothing makes players uneasy like rolling a natural 20 in front of them, chuckle to your self and scribble notes on a paper.  But Dm styles vary between individual Dms.  I play with other Dms who fudge dice rolls constantly.  They will never let an errant die roll derail or dictate the games narrative in anyway.  As long as I am enjoying myself, I let the dice fudging continue with out incident. One thing to consider before getting confrontational, is the dice fudging robbing the group of victories?  Or is fudging making the encounters more challenging?  You notice the number of critical hits, but do you notice the number misses, when it comes to an enemy delivering a death blow to a Pc?  DMs who fudge dice, tend to fudge both ways, to add challenge in the encounter and save Pcs from destruction.  But if the constant dice fudging is ruining your enjoyment, start calling out the Dm.  I don't get this constant need to avoid being a "@#*$ or something.  Calling out the DM for fudging the dice is going to be confrontational.  It's ruining your enjoyment, confront the Dm on it.  Prepare for resistance and an argument, as the WoTC designers reccomend a Dm hide dice rolls and fudge from time to time.  The one thing you should remind your Dm, is they reccomend you fudge dice sparingly.  Let your Dm know his constant dice fudging is creating a growing lack of faith in his fairness.   Remember to forgive and ask for forgiveness after the confrontation, it goes a long way in maintaining friendships.
#6 yronimosw Sep 11, 2011 12:53:15	Those were some of my first questions, Sirkaikillah, but looking at the original post, the original poster says that it's happened often enough to seem obviously statistically unlikely, it's gotten predictable enough that players can count on the "natural" 20's like clockwork, and characters are dying because of it (I assume that means PCs so that it looks like the work of a cheating Killer DM, or at least important NPCs so that it feels like a trip on the Railroad that the PCs can't hope to save themselves from). I think the OP seems like he isn't over-reacting, and is handling the situation reasonably.  And I think it's a good idea to keep it polite and balanced, suggest using this standard DM tool sparingly, and forgive and ask for forgiveness after the confrontation, especially since everyone seems to be having fun and getting along otherwise.
#7 Krusk Sep 11, 2011 20:40:21	"Hey DM, it sort of ruins the fun for me, if I know that you don't actually use the result of the die rolled. I prefer a straight out fair challenge. Please don't manipulate the results for or against me, I don't appreciate it. Thanks."
#8 Man_in_the_Funny_Hat Sep 11, 2011 20:46:52	I will assert to the last that a DM should retain the right to keep his dice rolls secret - at his own discretion.  I will similarly assert that the DM may fudge at his discretion (but only IN FAVOR of the PC's.)  The fact that DM has this right should not, however, be taken as a suggestion that the DM should always use nor ever abuse this right.  There is nothing wrong with a DM being partial - unless impartiality is expected and deserved by the players.  When it gets to the point where a player can predict when a DM will roll a 20 and has to ASK for him to demonstrate greater impartiality then the DM has failed in one way or another. I figured that the first step in dealing with the problem should be 'communication'. It is. After the last session, I sent an email to the DM.  I laid out the history, and requested that he dm the next couple sessions without the dm screen.  That was over a week ago, and he has yet to respond.  I don't know whether he's angry with me, has hurt feelings, or just wants to air everything publicly with the whole group at our next session. Communication isn't necesarily just sending an email.  Sending an email like that is just the first step.  It simply indicates to the DM that you have a problem.  The DM has to then have time to absorb that and decide how to respond?  To do as you ask?  To suggest something else?  To tell you you're crazy?  To ignore it and hope it all goes away?  Communication is a process.  This is a bad habit the DM has gotten into and it doesn't likely get cured with smiles and bow on top after just one email.  At your next session if he hasn't respondeed to you before he should respond to you then.  If he doesn't then you take it a step further and the process of communication continues. Am I being a *(&% by asking him to ditch the screen?  Any advice on how to move forward without killing the campaign? Well, you should wait to see what he does/says first.  Are you going too far in asking him to ditch the screen?  Insufficient data for a meaningful answer.  If it were me I'd just tell you, "No, I am not ditching the screen.  But since you have issues with how I'm running the game or how it's progressing let's talk about OTHER ways to deal with that."  I don't know how he'll react or why.  Neither do you yet. So what is the friendliest way to ask the DM to make his rolls in front of the dm screen because I no longer have faith in his impartiality? I no longer have faith in your impartiality in areas of the game that I feel REQUIRE your impartiality.  The quickest, easiest way to restore that faith would be to have you make all your rolls in the open where I can do all the math myself and make sure you cannot lie about what the die actually rolls.  What do YOU say?"
#9 tubaman Sep 12, 2011 8:56:54	The DM is clearly out to kill some PCs if he's "mysteriously" getting nat-20s at "lucky" times to kill PCs. In addition to asking him to roll in front of the screen for a little while, however, i'd also suggest inviting him to possibly share his reasons for killing said PCs.  Perhaps he feels certain characters are too powerful, not powerful enough, or ruining his game, and either can't figure out a way to tactfully say/do anything, or has tried already to say/do something and has been ignored or unsuccessful? As you said, communication is important, but make sure that it actually is two-sided communication!       also   A DM screen is there to make secret rolls.  Searching, hearing, spotting, stealth.  Or for things you wouldn't see in game.  Like the hidden attacker making his listen check. Combat rolls should always be in front of the screen.  Because you as a player can see the effects of those rolls within the game.  A hit is seen/felt/taken and a miss is also seen/felt/taken. Combat rolls need not ALWAYS be made in the open.  There ARE drawbacks to rolling in the open all the time.  Our dm has just very recently started rolling attack rolls behind a screen for the first time (we trust his impartiality in the matter) for a VERY good reason.  As players, we had a tendency to tailor our actions on the DICE roll, rather than the result.  If goblin #4 managed to miss be by only 1, and i saw the dice roll of a 4, then gosh darnit i'm gonna avoid goblin #4!!! similarly, if goblin #2 missed me by 1, and he rolled a 16 on the dice, then even my thief or wizard would think nothing of standing in melee with goblin #2. We had a rather interesting situation in our game last night we've never had, due to the DM rolling behind a screen.  We were in a single-combat "honor fight" - the first one to either 1) push their opponent out of the ring, 2) knock their opponent unconscious, or 3) land an unanswered blow (a hit, followed by the other person missing) wins that bout (and each player got to participate over the course of the encounter).  In our first match, our cleric (with the scale armor/heavy shield-level AC) gets hit.....gets hit by 6!  We're thinking "woah! this person has a huge attack bonus!" and were worrying a bit about the fight at that point!  it seemed more likely that the cleric would miss an attack before the opponent.  Well, on her turn, our cleric landed a hit and second winded (dwarf) and the next attack missed by 5 or 6 (on her new AC +2).  Had we seen that initial enemy roll, which could have been a 19 or something, we'd have been much much less worried (13+ to hit if that were the case) and it would have really taken a lot of suspense and fun out of the moment.
#10 RyndarLocke Sep 12, 2011 14:38:20	The DM is clearly out to kill some PCs if he's "mysteriously" getting nat-20s at "lucky" times to kill PCs. In addition to asking him to roll in front of the screen for a little while, however, i'd also suggest inviting him to possibly share his reasons for killing said PCs.  Perhaps he feels certain characters are too powerful, not powerful enough, or ruining his game, and either can't figure out a way to tactfully say/do anything, or has tried already to say/do something and has been ignored or unsuccessful? As you said, communication is important, but make sure that it actually is two-sided communication!       also   A DM screen is there to make secret rolls.  Searching, hearing, spotting, stealth.  Or for things you wouldn't see in game.  Like the hidden attacker making his listen check. Combat rolls should always be in front of the screen.  Because you as a player can see the effects of those rolls within the game.  A hit is seen/felt/taken and a miss is also seen/felt/taken. Combat rolls need not ALWAYS be made in the open.  There ARE drawbacks to rolling in the open all the time.  Our dm has just very recently started rolling attack rolls behind a screen for the first time (we trust his impartiality in the matter) for a VERY good reason.  As players, we had a tendency to tailor our actions on the DICE roll, rather than the result.  If goblin #4 managed to miss be by only 1, and i saw the dice roll of a 4, then gosh darnit i'm gonna avoid goblin #4!!! similarly, if goblin #2 missed me by 1, and he rolled a 16 on the dice, then even my thief or wizard would think nothing of standing in melee with goblin #2. We had a rather interesting situation in our game last night we've never had, due to the DM rolling behind a screen.  We were in a single-combat "honor fight" - the first one to either 1) push their opponent out of the ring, 2) knock their opponent unconscious, or 3) land an unanswered blow (a hit, followed by the other person missing) wins that bout (and each player got to participate over the course of the encounter).  In our first match, our cleric (with the scale armor/heavy shield-level AC) gets hit.....gets hit by 6!  We're thinking "woah! this person has a huge attack bonus!" and were worrying a bit about the fight at that point!  it seemed more likely that the cleric would miss an attack before the opponent.  Well, on her turn, our cleric landed a hit and second winded (dwarf) and the next attack missed by 5 or 6 (on her new AC +2).  Had we seen that initial enemy roll, which could have been a 19 or something, we'd have been much much less worried (13+ to hit if that were the case) and it would have really taken a lot of suspense and fun out of the moment.       Fair evaluation, within reason.  If a monster is missing on a 16...it's not the correct level in 4e to be an encounter.  Likewise if it hits on a 4 it better have some bonus' that don't come standard in it's write up.  Cause that's not balanced either.
#11 yronimosw Sep 12, 2011 21:12:35	The DM is clearly out to kill some PCs if he's "mysteriously" getting nat-20s at "lucky" times to kill PCs. In addition to asking him to roll in front of the screen for a little while, however, i'd also suggest inviting him to possibly share his reasons for killing said PCs.  Perhaps he feels certain characters are too powerful, not powerful enough, or ruining his game, and either can't figure out a way to tactfully say/do anything, or has tried already to say/do something and has been ignored or unsuccessful? ... Now that you mention it, I think there is a thread in the DM forum from a DM asking about the best way to kill off a PC. If I remember correctly, it turns out it was at the request of a player, who'd gotten bored with the character, and had secretly pulled the DM aside to ask the DM to kill the character so the player could create a new character he cared about more, but didn't want the other players to know about the arrangement. I think some of the first suggestions to come out of that discussion were, essentially, to roll behind the screen and "fudge" the numbers. Is it possible that's what is going on in this case... a matter of "old, boring" character euthanasia, by secret player request?
#12 salla Sep 12, 2011 23:23:59	Is it possible that's what is going on in this case... a matter of "old, boring" character euthanasia, by secret player request? It's possible ... hopefully that will come out if/when the OP asks the rest of the group about it. If you want to be passive aggressive, you could always try 'beating the DM to the punch'.  "The monster lunges forward, swinging his sword ..." "Twenty." " ... "
#13 rambaldi Sep 12, 2011 23:55:40	Combat rolls need not ALWAYS be made in the open.  There ARE drawbacks to rolling in the open all the time.  Our dm has just very recently started rolling attack rolls behind a screen for the first time (we trust his impartiality in the matter) for a VERY good reason.  As players, we had a tendency to tailor our actions on the DICE roll, rather than the result.  If goblin #4 managed to miss be by only 1, and i saw the dice roll of a 4, then gosh darnit i'm gonna avoid goblin #4!!! similarly, if goblin #2 missed me by 1, and he rolled a 16 on the dice, then even my thief or wizard would think nothing of standing in melee with goblin #2. We had a rather interesting situation in our game last night we've never had, due to the DM rolling behind a screen.  We were in a single-combat "honor fight" - the first one to either 1) push their opponent out of the ring, 2) knock their opponent unconscious, or 3) land an unanswered blow (a hit, followed by the other person missing) wins that bout (and each player got to participate over the course of the encounter).  In our first match, our cleric (with the scale armor/heavy shield-level AC) gets hit.....gets hit by 6!  We're thinking "woah! this person has a huge attack bonus!" and were worrying a bit about the fight at that point!  it seemed more likely that the cleric would miss an attack before the opponent.  Well, on her turn, our cleric landed a hit and second winded (dwarf) and the next attack missed by 5 or 6 (on her new AC +2).  Had we seen that initial enemy roll, which could have been a 19 or something, we'd have been much much less worried (13+ to hit if that were the case) and it would have really taken a lot of suspense and fun out of the moment.       Thats why I do mine behind the screen, I know some of my players will "cheat" if they knew the real results. Plus more of them might die, I have some wonky dice I think. I roll far more 20s than I should so I pass the die out to the player who is having the most trouble :p doesn't work for them though.
#14 sirkaikillah Sep 13, 2011 0:21:14	.., similarly, if goblin #2 missed me by 1, and he rolled a 16 on the dice, then even my thief or wizard would think nothing of standing in melee with goblin #2. I am totally unconcerned about this kind of meta-gaming.  If I could just get every player to pay such close attention to the game, that would be great.   I do not believe any and all meta-gaming is wrong or ruins immersion.  I narrate that kind of dice reading meta-gaming as a Pc ability to guage his enemies prowess in combat.  For example, "The wizard realizes the goblins feeble skills in sword play, and simply steps up and buries his staff in the goblins little green skull."Any adventuring spell slinging wizard combatant has a chance to guage which enemy is more dangerous than others, using spell or sword.  At least in my campaign.    Heck I rely on that kind of game play, to enhance the ebb and flow of the game narrative.
#15 slobo777a Sep 13, 2011 1:15:38	.., similarly, if goblin #2 missed me by 1, and he rolled a 16 on the dice, then even my thief or wizard would think nothing of standing in melee with goblin #2. I am totally unconcerned about this kind of meta-gaming.  If I could just get every player to pay such close attention to the game, that would be great.   I do not believe any and all meta-gaming is wrong or ruins immersion.  I narrate that kind of dice reading meta-gaming as a Pc ability to guage his enemies prowess in combat.  For example, "The wizard realizes the goblins feeble skills in sword play, and simply steps up and buries his staff in the goblins little green skull."Any adventuring spell slinging wizard combatant has a chance to guage which enemy is more dangerous than others, using spell or sword.  At least in my campaign.    Heck I rely on that kind of game play, to enhance the ebb and flow of the game narrative.   This. I'm quite happy to roll a 16, say "That is 25 vs AC", and not particularly concerned if players want to look. Now, if they got distracted by checking out every die roll, and doing math on each one, I'd probably get a screen. But I haven't had one for nearly 20 years.
#16 sirkaikillah Sep 13, 2011 3:43:08	.., similarly, if goblin #2 missed me by 1, and he rolled a 16 on the dice, then even my thief or wizard would think nothing of standing in melee with goblin #2. I am totally unconcerned about this kind of meta-gaming.  If I could just get every player to pay such close attention to the game, that would be great.   I do not believe any and all meta-gaming is wrong or ruins immersion.  I narrate that kind of dice reading meta-gaming as a Pc ability to guage his enemies prowess in combat.  For example, "The wizard realizes the goblins feeble skills in sword play, and simply steps up and buries his staff in the goblins little green skull."Any adventuring spell slinging wizard combatant has a chance to guage which enemy is more dangerous than others, using spell or sword.  At least in my campaign.    Heck I rely on that kind of game play, to enhance the ebb and flow of the game narrative.   This. I'm quite happy to roll a 16, say "That is 25 vs AC", and not particularly concerned if players want to look. Now, if they got distracted by checking out every die roll, and doing math on each one, I'd probably get a screen. But I haven't had one for nearly 20 years. ditto
#17 FlatFoot Sep 13, 2011 11:25:41	If goblin #4 managed to miss be by only 1, and i saw the dice roll of a 4, then gosh darnit i'm gonna avoid goblin #4!!! similarly, if goblin #2 missed me by 1, and he rolled a 16 on the dice, then even my thief or wizard would think nothing of standing in melee with goblin #2. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, while you can react to the numbers, it also helps tell the story. You avoid goblin #4 because you've seen how powerful and potentially accurate he is. Similarly, you've seen that goblin #2 is a sloppy melee fighter. These are things your characters would see and it was represented by the dice.
#18 robertread3 Sep 13, 2011 20:30:48	when i DM a home group, i know the monsters will be designed to be strong enough to challange the players, and i dont ever need to fudge anything.  in LFR the mosnters are many times super outdated and a pushover (only in earlier mods) so i normally will give myself about 2 fudge rolls in a session, its not somthing you want to overuse, but if the bad guys dont even get a punch in, they need some extra luck. on the flip side, i somtimes throw out 2 intentional misses per session in LFR, somtimes the PC is trying to do somthing epic and dropping them to 0 right before their big hard won setup nova goes off kills their enthusiasm  however, i have NEVER and will NEVER fudge a crit, this is an ironclad rule as a DM you can fudge a hit or a miss under the right conditions. but under no circumstances should you ever fudge a crit.
#19 Krusk Sep 14, 2011 9:56:28	Isn't fudging the rules in LFR grounds for being warned/reported/whatevered? Genuinley asking, I haven't done LFanything in a while.
#20 thespaceinvader Sep 16, 2011 6:45:43	Isn't fudging the rules in LFR grounds for being warned/reported/whatevered? Genuinley asking, I haven't done LFanything in a while. Not really.  You're meant to follow the rules, but there's no reporting mechanism to ensure it.
#21 blueblazer Sep 16, 2011 15:44:32	RE: Secret Rolling, I'm a fan.  Whether it's every roll, or just the ones that need to be secret (unknown monsters sneaking or perceiving, etc) is up to each group, but I can't imagine a game where nothing is rolled in secret. I'm not going to go into the immortal question of To Fudge Or Not To Fudge.  There are merits to both and drawbacks to both.  DMs roll a lot of dice, and rolling two or three crits in a row may not happen every night, but it will happen several times in a campaign.  Regardless, that isn't the issue.  The issue is that if the DM in question is fudging rolls, s/he's doing it in a way that isn't fun.  Whether you approve of fudging rolls or hate it, I don't think there's anyone who believes the DM should fudge rolls to "win" or to kill PCs.  The point of fudging rolls (if you do it at all) is to make the game more fun (for the group): to avoid killing someone's beloved, brand new character with the twenty page backstory because of wild luck; to reward a player's clever play; to succeed at a crucial save to avoid anticlimax, etc.  Any encounter is made boring or frustrating if it's dramatically too easy or too hard... some DMs might fix this by "forgetting" to recharge powers/dropping monster HP (when too difficult) or having reinforcements show up/etc (when too easy), but this isn't "cheating," it's "adapting."  Proper fudging (again, if you use it at all) is used extremely sparingly, is used exclusively to prevent luck from ruining the group's good time, and isn't noticed at all (if the group suspects fudging, you're doing it wrong). I can't say whether your DM is fudging or not (I've had nights where I've rolled over ten nat-20s in one encounter), but it doesn't matter _ either your DM is fudging badly and ruining the fun, or your DM is getting very lucky but your worry about it is ruining the fun.  Either way, the solution is for your DM to roll attacks in the open.
#22 kimokeo Sep 17, 2011 11:00:29	If you doubt the DM's rolls, then ask if the rolls are fudged for the sake of the game. I don't agree with putting the dice in front of the screen as a DM. The reason was simple and it was noted previously. If the creature misses by 1 and the roll was very low, the group knows something they shouldn't - mathematically.  However, the power of observation.  If I state, "the Goblin thrusts his spear at you, barely missing and he wasn't even trying that hard to hit you." and the players chance of being hit was thought to be high, then I have provided the player with information without revealing the roll. Same thing with magical weapons and their bonuses - when a roll is seen, and the roll is the same one I rolled for another creature, but this one hits...conclusion?  Dice shouldn't dictate knowledge. As DM, I like hiding my rolls. Eventually, I'll roll outside the screen solely because I know it doesn't affect roleplay and game.  But, if it goes behind the screen, no one complains (unless they die).
#23 sirkaikillah Sep 17, 2011 13:37:00	.., However, the power of observation.  If I state, "the Goblin thrusts his spear at you, barely missing and he wasn't even trying that hard to hit you." and the players chance of being hit was thought to be high, then I have provided the player with information without revealing the roll. .., In my experience I can hide rolling a 3 behind the screen and say,  "The Ogre effortlessly smashes Orin with his club."  But it does not create the same drama and tension as rolling a 3 in front of the DM screen and then saying, "The Ogre effortlessly smashes Orin with his club."  A Dm can choose to hide rolls to staff off meta gaming, or a Dm can use rolling dice in the open and player meta-gaming as a story telling tool to create tension and drama.  Since I have been very successful over the years in using dice rolls to enhance the drama and tension, I will continue roll in front of the screen.  I also advice other Dms to roll in front of the screen to enhance tension and drama.  That said I also will defend a Dms perogative to hide and fudge dice rolls as they see fit.  I will also defend my perogative as DM to roll all dice rolls in front of the screen.  I also refute the idea that a Dm must avoid players reading the dice because, "that's meta gaming and meta gaming is bad."  Not all meta gaming ruins emersion.  It has been my experience that some meta gaming can be used to by experienced and skilled Dms to enhance tension and drama in a scene and emerse players even further into the games narrative and story. PS If a Dm is concerned about players reading dice rolls, how do you avoid players reading thier own dice rolls?  Do Dms try to curb a player changing tactics by reading thier own dice?  For example,  player rolls a 16 and misses the armored Black Knight.  Then because the high roll misses the player decides to use sure strike giving him a +2 bonus to attacks.  So how do you stop this kind of meta-gaming?  Do you roll dice behind the screen for players?  Is there a way to stop such meta-gaming and let the players make thier own dice rolls?  Or as a Dm do you just ignore players reading there own dice and meta-gaming?
#24 MrCustomer Sep 17, 2011 14:28:27	Though I haven't predicted every 20, every prediction I have made over two game sessions came true.  In our last game session, the DM rolled 12 attack rolls over 2 encounters.  4 of them were 20s.  (2 of them killed a character) Statistically possible?  Yes.  But when you add to the mix that they are not happening at random times, but in patterns that I have been able to successfully predict, the odds of chance get a lot more stretched.  this is hard to answer, 4 criticals is not that many, and in only 2 gaming sessions this isn't really anywhere enough data to make a statistical statement. As for the rolls getting progressively higher, this could simply be the DM upping the ante, increasing the challenge. Tougher encounters by definition will equal higher rolls. If the DM changed gears to increase the difficulty (I ussually start my games light to get a feel of the player's skills and then turn up the difficulty) then all you are expereincing is an increase in difficulty that you might not be ready for. As for PCs being killed by a couple of criticals. Your point being? In most cases where such hits will kill PCs, they are already in bad enough a situation that the DM wouldn't need to fudge a critical to kill them (essentially overkill) It's more of a situation where a DM fudges a roll to prevent a character from death (such as ignoring a 20 and saying "oh darn, a 1, it misses") The other flip of the coin is that if a PC is going to die, I prefer (and I find the player also prefers) that the PC die as dramatically as possible. Death by attrition, of the enemy doing slightly more damage then the PC has HPs, is not as dramatically felt as what a critical hit allows,  "Wow a Critical Hit! The Orc Cheif swings his Great axe, shattering your shield and breaking your arm, your head flys and lands with a thump in front of the party as he bellows a war cry!, you took a total of......"  I figured that the first step in dealing with the problem should be 'communication'.  After the last session, I sent an email to the DM.  I laid out the history, and requested that he dm the next couple sessions without the dm screen.  That was over a week ago, and he has yet to respond.  I don't know whether he's angry with me, has hurt feelings, or just wants to air everything publicly with the whole group at our next session.  Am I being a *(&% by asking him to ditch the screen?  Any advice on how to move forward without killing the campaign? what is the friendliest way of accusing someone of cheating? Dunno but I would think that accusing someone of cheating and demanding that he roll openly because he can't be trusted, is not something that you do by email, no amount of polite wording will hide the meaning, and that kind of conversation, or rater accusation, should occur face to face. That the DM has not responded to your email is actually a good thing, especially if he hasn't been fudging rolls at all (in which case an email accusation is doubly offensive) Demanding that he prove he isn't cheating by rolling in the open? thats tough to swallow. I have been accussed of fudging rolls countless times, and I roll me eyes every time, since the odd time that I do is generally in the PC's favour. This sounds much more like a case of steadily increased challenge then it does of Dice fudging. A few lucky rolls here and there are likely just that, a few lucky rolls here and there.
#25 Man_in_the_Funny_Hat Sep 18, 2011 10:36:00	A Dm can choose to hide rolls to staff off meta gaming, or a Dm can use rolling dice in the open and player meta-gaming as a story telling tool to create tension and drama.  Since I have been very successful over the years in using dice rolls to enhance the drama and tension, I will continue roll in front of the screen.  I also advice other Dms to roll in front of the screen to enhance tension and drama. The disadvantage you have then is that tension and drama are STRICTLY tied to random rolls of the dice.  I generally keep my dice rolls behind a screen because when I want to create tension and drama I want to do so without being told by the dice that there ISN'T tension/drama.  Likewise when I want to defuse tension I don't want the dice creating the PERCEPTION of a crisis. For example, if I roll dice where players observe them and happen to roll consistently very high (18, 19) that creates a PERCEPTION of greater danger than if attacks are hitting the PC's but only just barely at what I need to hit.  Similarly, if I'm just barely missing that may create a sense of complacency in the players that I do not want. When I choose to make die rolls in the open where players can see them then it is usually an indication on my part that there is some additional information for players that I INTEND for them to metagame.  Often it's because the players have failed to note my suggestions that the PC's are facing a more powerful foe than they admit and I want them to see the MATH of the monsters hit bonuses.  Sometimes it's because a player has done something else stupid and I want them to see that the dice now control the characters fate and I'm not going to fudge anything.  Then of course I may not bother with the screen because it may be a routine combat, I don't care if the players know it's just a routine combat, and there will be no effect either way if players can observe the die rolls. If, however, I roll ROUTINELY in the open then if ever DO want to prevent the players from metagaming based on the die rolls then I am signalling that there is significant metagaming that can be done and that's a clumsy way to induce tension and drama.  Tension and drama are ROLEPLAYING elements and should be based more on roleplaying and not JUST the math of game mechanics.   PS If a Dm is concerned about players reading dice rolls, how do you avoid players reading thier own dice rolls? You don't.  It is after all a roleplaying GAME so there are still game elements to be dealt with.  However, there ARE some DM's who make the die rolls for the player characters as well as tracking their hit points, letting the players make decisions based only on the DM's description of their characters condition and capabilities. Still, the die rolls that the players make are NOT metagaming because the players do know (and the characters know) that their capabilities have limitations and are still subject to a range of random possibilities.  If they roll a 16 and they have a certain number of bonuses to add then they have a functional knowledge of what they should be able to hit.  They know their own, but what they cannot know for a certainty is all the mathematical details of their OPPONENT's abilities.  Their assessment of their opppnents has to be based on how effective their own rolls are and the results of enemy die rolls rather than the rolls in and of themselves.
#26 sirkaikillah Sep 18, 2011 13:07:15	..,The disadvantage you have then is that tension and drama are STRICTLY tied to random rolls of the dice.   That statement is completely WRONG.  I can roll the dice in front of the Dm screen and let the dice rolls create tension.  But I can create tension and drama without rolling a single die, striclty through the narrative.  I can use the dice, and can use the narrative to set the scene and I can use my own voice and language use to set tension.  I am not STRICTLY tied to dice rolls to create tension.  You are STRICTLY WRONG on that point.  To be honest, the dice rolls are nothing without the narrative, and the dice rolls need narrative support to cause drama and suspense.  Relying on dice rolls alone may be a clumsy way to build tension, using dice rolls to enhance tension is a creative way of using gameplay to tell a story.  Still, the die rolls that the players make are NOT metagaming because the players do know (and the characters know) that their capabilities have limitations and are still subject to a range of random possibilities.  If they roll a 16 and they have a certain number of bonuses to add then they have a functional knowledge of what they should be able to hit.  They know their own, but what they cannot know for a certainty is all the mathematical details of their OPPONENT's abilities.  Their assessment of their opppnents has to be based on how effective their own rolls are and the results of enemy die rolls rather than the rolls in and of themselves. Here you give a good argument.  I think we have a difference in what is meta-gaming.  I take meta-gaming as a player using knowledge his Pc would not know.  A Pc may know his own abilities, but he does not know his ability score the math in being successful or the result of a dice roll and how changing tactics changes the math and chance of success.  IMO that is meta-gaming, even if a player interprits such meta-gaming as a player understanding his own abilities.  Heck you can interprit players reading the result of the Dms dice as an experienced Pcs ability to judge his enemies capabilities.   But they are both meta-gaming IMO and neither is bad meta-gaming or ruin immersion.
#27 droma Sep 18, 2011 21:44:23	I'm a player in tubamans group. For a little more perspective not all of our players look at the dice that closely but the ones that do(me included) will meta-game to a certain degree. Sometimes, it's like oh that guy has a +X bonus he only needs Y to hit me he must be a lvl +2 soldier or something. Another example I do all the time is keeping track of what monsters took what damage to figure out life totals. Like Goblin A took 17 from the ranger and 10 from the cleric and is bloodied. So I know he's got at most 54 hp total, so if I'm on my barbarian I know I can use an encounter power and probably kill him or if that doesn't work follow it with an action point and finish him. Knowing whether or not spending certain party resources is or isn't overkill is I would think in most people's opinions meta gaming. I just don't think our DM likes that much meta-game knowledge flying back and forth across the table so he's started using the screen to curb some of that.
#28 slobo777a Sep 19, 2011 1:39:07	Meta-gaming is literally "gaming the game". It means different things in different RPG games, because different parts of the event count as "the game". In the games that I DM, I am perfectly comfortable with players using knowledge of die rolls, bonuses and math that theyhave figured out to make choices such as when spending resources. That's because I consider resource spending as part of the the game (I find it annoying to justify the 1/day and 1/encounter powers with in-character reasoning all the time).  When I talk about meta-gaming problems, it's social things, such as "well these are all my friends and they have to let me play, so I can be an idiot and they just have to suck it up", or "the DM has to give me a level appropriate encounter, even if I fight the good guys, so I'm going to go into every in-character conversation with a massive attitude problem". I guess when it comes to dice rolls, it's the information-gathering ones which I dislike seeing meta-gaming happen. "He's asked Bill for a Perception check, so let's search the area really thoroughly."
#29 Man_in_the_Funny_Hat Sep 19, 2011 11:31:00	..,The disadvantage you have then is that tension and drama are STRICTLY tied to random rolls of the dice.   That statement is completely WRONG.  I can roll the dice in front of the Dm screen and let the dice rolls create tension.  But I can create tension and drama without rolling a single die, striclty through the narrative.  I can use the dice, and can use the narrative to set the scene and I can use my own voice and language use to set tension.  I am not STRICTLY tied to dice rolls to create tension.  You are STRICTLY WRONG on that point.  To be honest, the dice rolls are nothing without the narrative, and the dice rolls need narrative support to cause drama and suspense.  Relying on dice rolls alone may be a clumsy way to build tension, using dice rolls to enhance tension is a creative way of using gameplay to tell a story. Remain calm, I just misstated: the disadvantage is that rolls of the dice are controlling your tension and drama - as my post went on to describe at length.  When you roll all your dice where players see the results the dice will often control a game at times when that control should be more firmly in the hands of the DM.  Players don't need to see dice rolls to learn that their attacks are not being effective - the DM can inform them of that.  Tension or drama that the dice provide can and should be provided instead by the DM by adding description as needed and desired to his otherwise unseen die rolls.  The DM can thus create tension and drama when the dice say there is none, and similarly play down the tension when desired, or exert greater control over the rise and fall of the drama of combat.
#30 Litmus Sep 19, 2011 14:43:08	what is the friendliest way of accusing someone of cheating? Dunno but I would think that accusing someone of cheating and demanding that he roll openly because he can't be trusted, is not something that you do by email, no amount of polite wording will hide the meaning, and that kind of conversation, or rater accusation, should occur face to face. That the DM has not responded to your email is actually a good thing, especially if he hasn't been fudging rolls at all (in which case an email accusation is doubly offensive) Demanding that he prove he isn't cheating by rolling in the open? thats tough to swallow. Totally agree. I'm actually surprised this thread hasn't focused more on the texting thing.  How many DMs on these boards would put up with players texting each other during a session?
#31 yronimosw Sep 19, 2011 15:20:38	I'd meant to respond to that more than once, but kept forgetting all about it (stupid insomnia - I keep forgetting what I'm doing, and losing chunks of time!) Good catch about the texting, becuase I missed it entirely until you'd mentioned it the first time, and nobody else has talked about it as far as I know.  I take it that the original poster has been interrupting the game to call out the unseen (alleged?) die roll results before the DM does, too, which seems a bit rude. So yeah, I agree that there are deeper issues at work here, and that the complaints about the die rolls are just one small symptom of that bigger problem. Whether he deserves it or not, it sounds certain that DM is getting no support, respect, or cooperation.  If he's focused on rolling all his die rolls behind the DM's screen and not paying attention to the players as they text each other and roll their eyes from the player's side of the screen, then it sounds like the DM is out of touch with the players and not cooperating with them, either. It sounds like a dysfunctional table, and a good, long out-of-game conversation between game sessions, with the DM's screen neatly folded and set aside and all dice put away until everyone can shake hands and agree to turn over a new leaf, is what is really called for here. Edit to add:  I can't help thinking this is not a problem of a bad DM or bad players, but rather a problem with communication, so I think there's hope here.  I keep picturing the DM as a socially awkward little gnome hiding behind the screen a bit and doing his best to send an exciting adventure out to the outside world without exposing too much of himself to social rejection, and I picture the players feeling a bit left out and disconnected and left out of whatever is going on in the DM's little world.  I might be reading too much into it, but it seems like something that a little more communication and support could patch up quite nicely.
#32 Detoxifier Sep 19, 2011 15:52:35	When I DM I make my attack rolls out in the open but I keep out of combat rolls to myself.  I always ask players for their results and compare them to the challenge without telling them how much they failed or succeeded by.  But, even the rolls I keep to myself I just take the number off of the die.  I don't bother to fudge rolls, I let the dice fall where they may and just go with the result.  Sometimes I kill a lot of PC's in a short amount of time, other times a fight thats meant to be challenging turns into a laughing fest as I roll less than 8 nearly forty times in a row (this actually happened last week and the players easily dealt with a monster that should have had them crapping their pants).      If your DM is fudging the rolls so often it is easily detectable, predictable, and a pattern is arising.  Then there is no point in the DM bothering to roll, he should just declare a result while the dice sit in his bag.  If this doesn't seem acceptable to you then confront the DM and be blunt about it.       Remember, being civil and respectful doesn't mean you are being nice, it just means you aren't namecalling.  I personally see no value in being nice, as I told a habitually late but 'nice' player "We don't want your apologies, we want you here on time.  That shows more respect than hollow pleas of apology for an offense you committed with forethought.  If you intend to do something that you know will irritate people, then own it, don't pretend to be sorry for having done it." What I am saying in essence is, I disagree with the suggestion that you should apologize for pointing out his faults after you confront him.  Feel free to disagree, but I have more respect for those who stand by their convictions than those who apologize for something they did with intent.  Apologizing seems disingenuous to me.  Maybe I'm wierd but I would rather be friends with someone who had the sincerity to stand by their decision to piss me off with an accusation.
#33 RyndarLocke Sep 21, 2011 1:02:46	what is the friendliest way of accusing someone of cheating? Dunno but I would think that accusing someone of cheating and demanding that he roll openly because he can't be trusted, is not something that you do by email, no amount of polite wording will hide the meaning, and that kind of conversation, or rater accusation, should occur face to face. That the DM has not responded to your email is actually a good thing, especially if he hasn't been fudging rolls at all (in which case an email accusation is doubly offensive) Demanding that he prove he isn't cheating by rolling in the open? thats tough to swallow. Totally agree. I'm actually surprised this thread hasn't focused more on the texting thing.  How many DMs on these boards would put up with players texting each other during a session? When the DM pays for my cell plan, and buys my smart phone, then he can say when and who I can and can't text.  As long as it isn't distracting from the game, or keeping myself from not being ready on my turn/missing important info during narrative/roleplay it's not an issue. Some people take so long to do stuff on their turns I could litterally send/recieve a dozen texts, and you expect me to sit there bored to death for the 8 minutes it takes the party barbarian to decide to "charge" just like last round? No thanks.   Also it seems to me these texts would stop at about the same time the Dm stopped cheating.
#34 yronimosw Sep 21, 2011 6:18:15	Actually, it sounds like the boredom from the 8-minute hemming-and-hawing of indecisive party members wouldn't stop because the DM changes the way he/she rolls the dice, so I don't think the texts would stop. There are deeper problems at work there than just dice-rolling, and I think that resolving only the dice issue is just going to push what these players are acting out about onto some other excuse. The real issues in this dysfunctional group have to be sorted out first, and a large part of that trouble is that everyone involved would rather pout about whatever is bothering them (whether it's the way the DM rolls the dice, or an unsatisfactory story, or lack of player engagement, or how long it takes players to complete their turns, or players texting instead of paying attention, or...), than come right out and talk to each other about it directly like adults, or leaving to move to a different group if talking doesn't improve the situation.
#35 warrl Sep 22, 2011 18:12:46	Combat rolls need not ALWAYS be made in the open.  There ARE drawbacks to rolling in the open all the time.  Our dm has just very recently started rolling attack rolls behind a screen for the first time (we trust his impartiality in the matter) for a VERY good reason.  As players, we had a tendency to tailor our actions on the DICE roll, rather than the result.  If goblin #4 managed to miss be by only 1, and i saw the dice roll of a 4, then gosh darnit i'm gonna avoid goblin #4!!! similarly, if goblin #2 missed me by 1, and he rolled a 16 on the dice, then even my thief or wizard would think nothing of standing in melee with goblin #2. If you and your friends get in a fight with another gang, and you see that one member of the other gang is a really good fighter while another is not, you're going to adjust your tactics accordingly. Why wouldn't PCs do the same? And what does a character being "a really good fighter" or not mean, that the players can see? Answer: the really good fighter hits on low rolls, the poor fighter misses on good rolls.