Why don't people use DM screens anymore?

They still do. Get off Twitch and spend some time in the real world you filthy disenchanted millenial.

The fuck are you on about? It's 100% the responsibility of a DM to fudge dice.

They do.

Except I do you fucking heretic.

Mine is usually a book because I'm a poorfag.

What's a simon

The OP picture reminds me one player from my college group. Good times. I hope she's doing well.

DM screens always seemed like unnecessary waste of money when we were younger and we never missed it.
My current DM got one, because his other group tend to check his notes, though.

I haven't ever really needed one. Whats on the other side that makes it all that useful?

They usually have folders for holding quick-reference sheets. They're also to hide maps before they're explored.

They went out of style? I must be behind the times because I prefer to use one, the quick reference guides were used often.

I've never had a table large enough to support one comfortably. Usually we play in the living room. Players and I look up rules on our phones as needed. One day I'd like to be able to use one. Someone posted a nice method of using a couple of binders a while back that I really liked.

autism

>computer>paper
This.

They get in the way and have a tendency to get knocked over. Tablets are more useful and can hold all your notes as well as any referance material you need.

I still have my players have their core character sheets on paper, but anything else can be put on tablets/laptops

Ahhh that must be it. My super autism lets me remember most of that stuff out of hand. The rest I just keep on a laptop

The fuck are you on about? It's 100% the gayest thing to fudge dice.

My table isn't large enough to accommodate all my player's stuff, DM stuff, and the screen comfortably.

So I recently started this online campaign where the GM is an old friend who now lives across the country and most of his friends are the players. Every one of them is a cool dude, except this one guy.
>You're going to make me use electronic dice aren't you
>Well we're playing using a system that has dice macros, so we may as well use it. It makes play more open, too."
>You realize I can't role above a 10 using those right?
The guy will not listen to reason that the rolls are entirely random and any bad rolls he gets are up to chance. He insists that he's cursed to the point where he spends two minutes a turn in combat complaining about how he's going to miss, finally makes the die roll, and if he doesn't succeed then he groans loudly and says, "Well I guess that's my turn"
The complaints were so incessant that the GM got fed up and said, "Roll a die on the table, then." We heard him pick up a die, roll it on wood, and say, "...I got a 17."

I have no idea what I'm going to do. I don't want to start any shit but I can't stand it anymore.

I roll in the open when I GM and have a searchable pdf for every game I run.
Screens are kinda pointless.

>The complaints were so incessant that the GM got fed up and said, "Roll a die on the table, then." We heard him pick up a die, roll it on wood, and say, "...I got a 17."
Why would the GM ever let him do that instead of just booting his dumb ass? I'm sure I don't need to tell you that he did not, in fact, get a 17.

Cheating of any form is unacceptable, and that includes fudging rolls. The GMs role is to be an impartial moderator. That means following the spirit and letter of the rules and playing the dice as they lie.

I use a laptop and a DM screen.

The whole point of dice is to get random results.

If you didn't want a random result, the fuck are you rolling for?

The DM is god. It is the DMs job to be a "fair" and benevolent god.

I have one. Feels DM'y, man. I like it. I also fudge a shit ton of dice since my players are both new *and* idiots, and they'd be dead 25 times during our LMoP run if I wasn't such a softie.

I have to say, as a player I kind tend to consider a GM saying this as a good sign that I will not enjoy this table and I should excuse myself and run for the hills.

Certain results may complicate things way more than what the situation calls for. Sometimes the PCs need alittle nudge or they get themselves into deeper shit than they should. There are any number of potential reasons to fudge a roll.

So players have the illusion of chance.

This.

If you want people to understand the odds and how things in the settings work, the rules explain it. Messing with that means everything is done by whimsy instead of actual probability.

Removing the possibility of player's getting into deep shit sounds like turning the high seas into a shallow kiddy pool.

Games are supposed to have fail states. That's what makes them exciting.

There are never any reasons to fudge rolls.

These.
The GM is not a computer, they exist to adjudicate situations for the entertainment of the table.
That means creating good and bad situations a are warranted. The herp durp gms fudge dice for *insert reason* is an online meme. I can count on two hands how many times I have fudged dice in as many years of gm'ing, and it is not something done lightly, always judiciously.
The bigger problem is players who do not trust their gm and assume the worst possible circumstances, common on Veeky Forums than anywhere else.
Then play pc games.

The rules are guidlines for how to conduct a table. The DM has full creative liberty. Of course, this allows bad DMs to be really shit but the system allows good DMs alot more freedom as well.

A screen gives you the *option* to fudge a roll. If you've never been in a situation where fudging would be a good call then I'd wager you've never DM'ed at all. If you don't like doing it you don't have to, but having a screen still gives you some room for errors if either yourself or the PCs are being stupid/unlucky/whatever.

>Certain results may complicate things
Complications are good. The unexpected often leads to fun.

>they get themselves into deeper shit than they should
You might as well skip to the ending since the heroes win in the end and everyone lives happily ever after.

You can have consequences without killing players. Use your head friend. Unexpected things happen, a fudge every now and then to guide the game is a DMs right and if used correctly is a boon not a curse.

Some people prefer narrative style games instead of games where there are tactical analysis and decisions to be made. They don't want choices and consequences. They just want to feel like a hero even if they never actually pulled anything off.

Players only like the idea of failing, not failing.

Have you fat nerds ever played with new players? Not killing them outright is typically a good approach when you want to introduce new players to the game. Give them a good time, and then you can stop fudging later when they stop doing dumb shit and have learned the game. Sure, the "trial by fire" thing is great on paper, but normal people don't want to die in a fucking tabletop RPG 15 times before the game gets fun. You know what they'd do? Find a different fucking game to play, and I wouldn't blame them.

Your hyperbole is not an argument. Certain complications are bad for the table at a given time. And of course you can get into shit without getting over your head. Have a conversation instead of strawmaning me.

Well OP's pic is a GM Screen for M&M which is one of the best laid out screen containing excellent information which you otherwise would need to look up in the book every time it comes up (degrees of failure for damage being one). Really depends on the system though. For shit like CoC, no screen is really needed.

Have to agree with this. If you just want something to happen, just say it happens. If you want to roll and get results, roll. You're the GM.

fucking THIS. The goal of the game is to be compelling AND fun. People undervalue the actual strengths of tabl- top RPGs way too much.

It also depends on the tone of the game, and whether you tell the players what the deal is.
I ran a 4e one shot for a group of newish players, and I told them from the start it was going to be an old fashioned, high lethality dungeon crawl, so be prepared for pcs to die.
Out of 5 players, I had 4 pc deaths out of 8 pcs total.

>Certain complications are bad for the table at a given time

Spoken like a true fag. If you cant deal with complications in the form of either players OR dice rolls then just write a fucking novel.

Did you just assume my playstyle you shitlord?

Dying is fun and a part of the game. Playing a game where my character can't die would put me to sleep.

> If you didn't want a random result, the fuck are you rolling for?

to prevent autistic players from doing annoying things

You are making a massive leap of logic.
See , you are automatically assuming the worst about the GM on something that you generally don't know happened.

It sounds like you're joking, but choices and consequences are literally the point of playing the game.

I do, they're great.
A piece of art for the table, and I can obfuscate some of my rolls or notes.
And in Shadowrun, it's useful for accuracy modifiers.

Man, I actually agree with you. But most people don't. These days I'm doing lots of one-shots and a LMoP campaign, and my ultra normalfag what's-an-RPG friends almost got into a shouting match and a girl got angry because they attacked the dragon as level 3 PCs. If I hadn't fudged the shit outta everything they'd be dead in 2 rounds. Instead I made them hurt and succeed in chasing off the dragon. They had a great time. If I had killed them do you honestly think they would've wanted to continue playing?

If the entire party wipes to stupid shit its a waste.
If the narrative would be hurt by uninteresting consequences of accidental shit its a waste.

Not to mention there is a point of effort. At some point the stupid accidental shit is not worth the DMs time or the players time. Play the game. Ihave never and will never say to fudge every roll that goes south. Thats moronic. Its the ABILITY to fudge that is important. Knowing when and how to fudge separates the good DMs from the shitty ones.

Training wheels are fine when you're 6.
Training wheels are not fine when you're 16.

The thing is, you can have consequences without perma-death. It takes some extra creativity but it usually leads to more interesting things anyway. Turn the wipe into a twist. Make something out of it. I really think killing PCs is a waste unless there is some role-play payoff to it.

I feel like your ultimately missing the point of the game. If you or the people you game with like strict power gaming then fine. Alot of people aren't so competitive or focused on the mechanics.

No, but there is a difference between new players to the table, and veterans that have played for say 10+ years

Also if you are gonna fudge, why even roll ? just be honest that its a story drive thing thats gonna happen no matter what

I personally allways roll openly and keep to what the roll says, i get that this isnt for everyone

>and succeed in chasing off the dragon

So you taught them they can do anything no matter how implausible, and that their choices (especially their stupid choices) have zero consequences.

You might as well be playing level scaling games like skyrim.

For some people, that wipe is the narrative

Following the mechanics of the game is not powergaming, using said mechanics to be the best possible at every step according to statistics is

that said i understand the point you are making

If you can power game hardcore and become god you're probably playing a shitty game. As a player I want a fair challenge. If I fuck up I want to have consequences, if I succeed I want it to be from my own choices.

I don't want the GM to just suck me off.

Its about what the DM and group enjoy together, some want a game where death happens seldom and the narrative drives it forward kinda like in a book, some seek out mechanic driven resolution where wipes are fairly commonplace
and some just like to describe how their characters use their buttplugs

Yeah. My general experience is that constantly rotating characters just make everything a headache - suddenly the personal quest you were going on makes no sense because the character whose heirloom you were looking for just got croaked, or it dawns on you that literally none of the guys that were originally taskked with saving X are left in the party.

And that the more lethal a game is, the less of a shit the players give about their character. People say it adds realism, but my experience is that largely it just makes the characters into statbots.

Besides, it's not like there's not plenty of things to threaten to raise the stakes with a party of decently written characters. I've had plenty of tense games with characters that were mechanically immortal.

There will be consequences.
See:

I'll even assume your gender if you push me too far.

>So you taught them they can do anything no matter how implausible, and that their choices (especially their stupid choices) have zero consequences.
>the dragon came in, and in it's haughtiness, didn't take the weak mortals seriously
>to it's surprise, they proved more formidable than expected, and the dragon broke away to reaccess it's foes
Took me all of 10 seconds to think of an entirely plausible scenario for a weaker party to prevail against a more powerful foe that is not committed to a life or death battle.
Where is your imagination?

i have had a different experience, where when playing without death looming, the people i play with seem to want to just get to higher numbers
to kill more goblins, but as soon as it gets more deadly they cultivate each character like it was a fragile flower

In the end its just a matter of what people and your group like, no choice is bad, we just have to remember to not force it on others, and sometimes to find a middleground

I also have a responsibility as DM if the party is fighting a fucking dragon at level 3.

No, the GM"s role is not to be an impartial moderator. It's to make the game enjoyable for himself and others. Sometimes, fudging rolls is useful in achieving that aim. Imagine you're playing a first level game. First round of combat of the game, the Wizard eats a crossbow crit to the face, instantly dies. That's happened to me before, even had a positive CON mod (of course, the enemy was a ranger with preferred enemy: elves, but still). Now the rest of the party is out a character and that player has to sit out for possibly hours, and the time spent making that character was wasted. Is that fun for anyone? Especially when the player did no wrong? No, it's not. In cases like that, the GM should probably fudge the dice slightly; Lower the damage enough to be survivable, if not necessarily remaining conscious. Altogether, a better experience because the GM fudged the dice slightly.

>There is a knife on the table
>Player: Is it sharp?
>Yes
>Player: I stab myself in the Neck.
>You die
OMG It's the DM's fault!

>If I hadn't fudged the shit outta everything they'd be dead in 2 rounds

Maybe if the players actually researched the dragon, came up with a brilliant plan, then executed it well, I'd agree with you. If on the other hand, the GM just handwaves all the dragon's strengths and powers and intelligence just to spare you your feelings, fuck off.

I didn't realize you were running games for the mentally handicapped. My apologies.

But seriously, the best way to smarten up your players is to let them do something stupid and find out what happens. It's the only way some people learn.

You're not making a valid argument. You're just strawmaning. You can do better than this man.

Yes we do, and you as a player, will find a way to deal with it.

Its fun for my group and the guys i play with, but its really a thing where you know your own group, and have to do whats best for your players and you

a GM has no clearly defined role besides holding leadership over the game, some groups want a impartial unfeeling moderator, while others require someone that will never ever ever let them lose a single HP, 99% of us play in the spectrum that exists inbetween these two extremes

Mate, i made mine by stapling cardboard and a print.

>Maybe if the players actually researched the dragon, came up with a brilliant plan, then executed it well
You have no idea what the circumstances were, your ability to comment validly are short.
Regardless, I just presented an entirely possible scenario to justify the dragon being run off by weaker foes, despite your claims of such a thing being impossible.

>If I hadn't fudged the shit outta everything they'd be dead in 2 rounds

Is all the idea of the circumstances I require.
Try harder.

They where clearly not aware how dangerous a lizard was compared to their own powerlevel, with that group the best approach was to have them survive so as not to turn them off the game, later on they might gravitate towards other playstyles..... in the end he knows the players we do not

No you're a retard if you don't understand that point.

the fuck are you on about? there's no absolutes in personal preference you gay clown

You can't possibly miss the point that hard.

>too shit a DM t turn the group off hunting a dragon at level 3
>even more shitty DM practices to recover from that mistake
sounds plausible.

boy i'm glad i have a game with people who are collaborating to have fun with me tonight instead of sitting here bitching about how other people are doing that concept wrong

god, can you imagine if i didn't?

Your point is hyperbolic and doesn't encompass mine. There is a wide range of scenarios in-between your dramatic strawman and a reasonable situation.

>the best way to smarten up your players is to let them do something stupid and find out what happens. It's the only way some people learn.

Exactly. Some people can learn from other people's mistakes, some people only learn by making their own.

we get the point thats being made, but its not nearly the same thing, the players are obviously unaware of any roleplaying culture up until now and they dont know how dangerous the things are, being told *dragon* is the same as if i tell you that you meet a FH77 without googling i doubt you know what i am talking about or how this relates to your own level of 2

It's not like a GM should fudge every dice roll, but there are some occasions where it would probably be best to do so. So fuck off with your trying to call me some sort of carebear.

Personally i would have killed they players in my group these days, not sure if i would do the same to some newbies that havent played, ofc we dont know what happened that made them meet a dragon

Yes, if the GM had played the dragon as going all out from the start, they would have died. It didn't, and was driven off in surprise.
The only point being made is how if you aren't following a spreadsheet, you are doing it wrong.
The GM now has the ability to bring the dragon back full of hunger for vengeance and a proper fight, now that the players are more accustomed to the game.
The players are entertained, the GM has a plot hook and a nemesis the players created to use.

>the players are obviously unaware of any roleplaying culture

That's irrelevant. Their characters belong to that world, so obviously they are aware of how that world works and what the stories and dangers of that world are.

Should a player get to fudge dice if it would make the experience more fun for everyone?

The DM should do everything in their power to make the game fun for the players.

If the BBEG who has been hyped up the entire session has been rolling like flaming garbage the entire encounter, that's not going to be fun for the players. That's a total let down. Throw in a hit or two to at least. The party can still laugh and take pride in how easily they beat him, but at least put some tension in it.

Likewise, if that goblin rolled a lucky crit with max damage, and you realize you just OHKO the wizard at the table, maybe nudge it down so he has one or two HP left? Now instead of thinking, "Oh great, he died in one hit", the party is thinking "We have to protect our wizard!" This adds tension and excitement instead of aggravation.

By no means however, does this mean the party should be free of consequence. If they do something INCREDIBLY stupid, or are clearly willing to take a major risk, then let the axe fall so to speak. Victory has no value without struggle and loss.

This is why there is a PERSON running the game, so they can judge context and make a call during exceptional circumstances.