To Screen Or Not To Screen
-
The use of a game master screen is not something I really even gave a second thought about for the longest time. We have two game masters in my main group. My friend and I swap game mastering positions every couple months. I usually use a game master screen when I run, where as our other game master recently stopped using one while he runs. After talking to him, he posed the question, “Is it better to use a game master screen, or not to use a game master screen?”
As a game master, using a GM screen provides the following:
• Can give you quick access to reference charts and information that will help you run the game.
• Shields any game master notes you may have written down from prying player eyes.
• Hides your rolls from the players, allowing you to “fudge” rolls if you need to.
• Establishes dominance at the table since you are the only one with a screen (okay not really, but I thought that was funny).As a game master, not using a GM screen provides the following:
• All GM rolls are wide out and in the open and less likely to be disputed by players.
• Gives you more space since you have one less thing cluttering up your gaming area.I really think that whether you use a GM screen boils down to one primary issue, do you want your players to see your dice rolls or not? If you use a GM screen, it gives you more control over the game since you can fudge dice rolls. If you need to keep an NPC alive, you can do so by making sure he makes that defense check. Or if you want to keep a player character alive, you can simply get rid of that critical hit your bad guy just got. However, if you start fudging too many die rolls and your players catch wind of this, they may start to feel like their dice rolls no longer matter.
As a game master, I have more experience with using a GM screen than not using one. I usually don’t fudge dice rolls. However, I have definitely done it before both to save my NPCs and to save players. It has helped me direct adventures from time to time by avoiding unlucky dice rolls, but honestly it is a tool that I try not to use very often. But it is one of those safety net features that is there if you need to use it.
If you choose not to use a GM screen, you can garner some nice benefits as well regarding your dice rolls. If you get on a hot streak with your dice rolls, there is no disputing it by the players because the rolls are right in front of them. They may realize they are one critical hit away from destruction and you won’t be saving them with divine fudging intervention. This may actually lead the players to be a little more cautious because your rolls become a little more real to them.
I have played in sessions where if I had not seen my game master rolling what he did, I swear I wouldn’t have believed it. It has happened both ways with him. There was one session where he was just getting critical hit after critical hit. That session we just got pummeled and nearly all died. And not long after, there was another session where he was constantly rolling low. We actually blew through that adventure very easily. But all of these rolls, both high and low, were in plain view so we understood how his rolls affected our game session. There was no fudging of the dice.
I really believe that your players should have an input on this decision. Some players prefer that there be a level of mystery with the game master running the game. Some players prefer that they see what the game master’s rolls are. While other players have a view of, you can see my rolls so I should be able to see your rolls. Whatever the decision, it should be something that both the game master and players are comfortable with.
I go back and forth over whether I should use a GM screen or not. Some sessions I use it, some sessions I don’t. I definitely see the benefits to both approaches. In the end, it is going to be determined by your game mastering style and the preferences of your players.
What are your opinions on whether or not you should use a GM screen?
Leave a Comment
January 10, 2009 at 8:04 am
I don’t use the screen anymore. About a year ago I got into a new group with a different GM. He didn’t use a screen and that just blew me away. So when I ran, I tried it also.
In the past, at times, I have gone with the adage that I will not kll a player character unless the player does something he really shouldn’t have. That makes me partly responsible for a player’s character, and I just don’t want that responsibility anymore.
Yes, it sucks if a player character dies – BUT it forces a player to be responsible for their character’s actions. Even bigger, though, it makes a player’s success that much more satisfying.
I can’t think of a time that I actually looked at my GM screen to get information off of a table. For some reason, I just never did it. It wasn’t until I stopped using the screen that I figured that out.
Finally, when I GM, I don’t get to play my own player character. I don’t know why, but if I roll dice out in the open, without a screen, if feels like I AM playing my own character. Behind a screen, I get bored if I have to fudge rolls for all of the enemy NPCs. That’s just not fun. Now, with D&D 4e, it’s really fun to put all my bad guys up against the players – it’s just more fun.
Yes, the GM is there to help tell a story, and in that endeavor to help the players ‘win,’, but gosh darn it, if I roll out in the open, then it’s simply easier for me and a whole lot more fun.
January 10, 2009 at 10:54 am
I changed over to “No Screen” a couple of years back. Like Chris I realized that there is nothing on any screen I’ve seen that really is very useful. I also love “open rolling”. My players also seem to like it.
One thing I’ll add. 4th Edition supports screenless DMing better than previous editions. The reason why? The game is mechanically more stable. You don’t really have unexpected things happen, like a x4 crit that instantly kills a healthy character. In 4E characters can usually judge the situation they are in a little better. Plus extricating yourself from a bad situation is easier.
I use a 2′x4′ plexiglass sheet over a grid poster to draw maps on with dry erase. Near the grid (under the plexi) I have a couple of game aides. A list of conditions and their effects. And a master list of actions. Both are there more for the players then me.
When I DM each character in my game has a designated color. I arrange colored magnets on my dry erase board for initiative. I also use extra colored magnets on the conditions summary chart to mark which characters, or creatures, are subject to which conditions. This keeps me from physically messing with minis, but the condition chart is right next to the map area and easy for everyone to see.
John Lewis’s last blog post..To Screen Or Not To Screen
January 10, 2009 at 10:59 am
As a player both ways are nice in their own ways too. Overall I think it’s actually a bit nicer having the screen there because it gives you a sense of mystery of how many dice the GM is rolling, what he’s preparing and things of that nature.
It also allows the GM to make rolls, such as perception rolls that the players don’t need to know unless they pass, without being noticed. When I have GM’d in the past that is one of the things I liked to try and mix in there as it keeps people from doing the “He’s rolling perception? Then I am too since I’m right there.”
January 10, 2009 at 11:37 am
After talking to Chris on an unrelated gaming issue earlier this week it almost made me think too that it does depend on the game. Then what John said confirmed that thought for me. I can totally see how not using a GM screen for D&D4e would work, just because of the way the system works. However, try running Shadowrun without a screen. Players can get blasted into oblivion in one full-autofire burst. No GM screen means no fudge roll. That character is dead.
I agree with you too though Bryan. I actually like not knowing rolls of the GM sometimes. It makes me wonder what is going on. Is he doing a random check for something? Or just rolling to see who he’ll start killing first.
@ John and Chris – I’d love to take some pictures of the GM setup you guys have with explanations on how and why you do what you do. The setups you guys both have are awesome. I think if we posted it for all to see, there might be some game masters out there that take away something from it.
January 10, 2009 at 1:26 pm
@Sam “Players can get blasted into oblivion in one full-autofire burst. No GM screen means no fudge roll. That character is dead.”
Isn’t that the point though? The game is deadly blah blah blah? I dunno, that’s definitely one aspect of Shadowrun that I think is kind of not played up as much as it should be. I’m not sure how many times you’ve fudged rolls but it might be fun to try sometime without.
January 10, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I don’t use a screen. I got out of the habit when we went from playing at a table to playing in my living room. While it means I can’t fudge if the dice turn horribly evil against my players, I think it is better that they can see it (it precludes me “picking on someone”). Plus with the way Mean Green (my GM d20) rolls, it has to be seen to be believed.
Oz’s last blog post..GCAG foiled, GenCon Ch 11 reorg plan approved
January 10, 2009 at 6:33 pm
“Plus with the way Mean Green (my GM d20) rolls, it has to be seen to be believed.”
Nice.
January 11, 2009 at 12:29 am
I’ve never used a screen. There are two things that play a significant role in this decision: (1) Running games that are simple enough or that I know by heart so that references are not needed and (2) Never fudging.
Going without screen takes me to same level with the players in that I can draw things, roll dice, and just generally socialise more easily without the hindrance of a wall between us.
This might change if I run more session of my old school-styled dungeoncrawling game, where a map visible to me might actually be useful.
January 11, 2009 at 1:33 am
I hate screens. They get in the way so that I have to stand to see 1/2 the table and usually do nothing more but take up space. That said I do use a screen for the 4E game I run once a week because I’m still referencing certain rules (like conditions and combat bonuses) and it’s a lot easier than flipping through the book. There though the screen sets on a separate desk off to my left where it doesn’t block my view of the table. For all the other games I play (most of which are indie RPGs), I don’t use a screen at all.
And here’s the more controversial part of my comment: I also don’t believe in hiding rolls from players, especially in conflicts. Fudging rolls, whether it’s for the players’ benefit or not, is the same thing as cheating. I fail to see the point of playing a game if you know, in the end, the rolls don’t ultimately matter. You may as well just play free-form diceless at that point (which is also fine with me). For example, I’ve told my 4E players that my job as a GM is to try and kill them: Either they’re heroes or they end up as the corpse someone else later loots. That’s what the ultimate point of the game is about. Otherwise you’re just railroading players, only in a different manner. If you’re fudging rolls to protect PCs from dying because of a fluke of the dice, it is a problem of the system and IMHO you should look for something better.
January 11, 2009 at 7:37 am
It seems like no one who has replied to this thread uses GM screens. Which bears the question, who are these people that are buying GM screens?!
January 11, 2009 at 7:41 am
In many ways I agree with MJ Harnish. I used to fret over character death, but not so much anymore. If I need to manipulate the storyline (for any reason) I do so through story-driven, and plot device methods. Otherwise once the dice start flying the chips fall where they may.
In my Friday game we recently had a situation that could have easily turned into a TPK. I though for a moment of just allowing the party to die but honestly that just seemed to be letting them off the hook for their questionable decisions. Instead the enemy forced the party to surrender and took them captive. Long story short, by the time they did escape it was just barely. And they ultimately failed their mission and now live with that stain on their record as heroes. As a side note it has also forced the campaign into a new direction because instead of stopping The Eyes of Darkness the party was actually responsible for their release (in fact they actually inadvertantly helped the bad guys do it).
John Lewis’s last blog post..To Screen Or Not To Screen
January 11, 2009 at 8:31 pm
I am using a screen for my 4E campaign. My previous campaign, Temple of Elemental Evil for 3.5, I didn’t use a screen. Myste Creek, my 3.5 campaign before TOEE, I used a screen. And before Myste Creek I ran a 3.5 game in Vancouver with no screen.
To screen or not depends on my setup. What do I need to reference, what atmosphere do I want (me vs. them or coop), do I want a place to hide rolls?
Often with screens I still roll in public. And often without a screen I make secret rolls.
What I would like to see from publishers is two-sided screens. The art on the players’ side is cool the first couple of sessions, but mundane thereafter. Players don’t tend to pick my screen up mid-game and peer into the art.
The D&D 2nd Ed. screens had player stuff on the outside, and GM stuff on the inside. Nice.
Currently I’m trying out the WotC 4E screen. It’s pretty good. I’m still learning the rules so many of the charts I reference each session. This usefulness might fade if my long term memory starts to kick in.
I usually use my trusty Citizen Games customizable screen (as pictured in this blog post John?) though and fill it with random name tables, world specific info, etc.
Johnn Four’s last blog post..Johnn’s 2009 RPG Goals
January 12, 2009 at 7:54 am
No screens for me. I don’t like having a barrier between me and the players.
There’s two rules that I tend to use for most games that make this irrelevent. There’s no need to fudge dice – if you find yourself doing that you need to fix your rule system, it isn’t doing what you want it to. First, I don’t roll dice if I can get away with it. Most games are pretty easy to turn into players rolling everything – there was even a rule for it in 3.5 IIRC in one of the books. The idea is that instead of opposed rolls the GM simply used an average. PC wants to attack? Roll their weapons skill against the bad guy’s combat score to see if they hit. Is the PC being attacked? Roll their defense against his weapons score.
Add to this metagame points – hero points, action points, whatever. They can be used to do several things, but nearly always include either increasing defense rolls or reducing/negating damage, or both. Therefore I don’t need to fudge anything. If the PCs are having a bad run of luck they have points they can spend to make it through. I’m just a referee.
The only exceptions are gritty games like All Flesh Must Be Eaten or Call of Cthulhu. And in those games I don’t want to hide what I roll because eating PCs is kind of the point
January 14, 2009 at 7:47 pm
For me it not a matter of keeping the dice rolls away from the players rather my notes. Most of the places I play at tend to have very tight spaces and if I didn’t have a screen, I wouldn’t be able to keep my notes and maps away from them.
bonemaster’s last blog post..Winged Tiger
January 25, 2009 at 7:33 am
Samuel,
I loved your post! Could I translate it to Brazilian-Portuguese and publish it in my blog (with the proper credits, of course)?
Marcelo Dior’s last blog post..O Salvador da Pátria
January 25, 2009 at 7:51 am
Sure thing. Thanks, Marcelo.
January 25, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I’m using the D&D screen in our 4E campaign. Two reasons: First, my players are all tactically astute, and some secrecy increases the challenge for them. They seem to like working out the monster attack bonuses, the remaining HPs, etc. I still make some rolls in public for efficiency’s sake, but I’m thinking on ways to bring those behind the screen.
Second, I’m still getting back in the DM’ing swing of things, so I find the screen gives me a little bit of intellectual space where I can gather my thoughts and re-group if needed. Oh to only have one PC to worry about.
Bald Man’s last blog post..Race/Class Synergy in 4e: Revised Analysis
January 30, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I use screens alot. If we played more combat-oriented games I might just take it off the table. But I don’t want my players knowing whether or not their character missed a piece of information, or didn’t see someone trying to sneak away, etc. because I rolled bad. Secrecy helps reduce the possibility for meta-gaming in my opinion.
April 11, 2009 at 6:59 pm
I use a screen because it hides my maps and I can paperclip NPCs and diagrams to the inside of it. However, I run the game sitting beside the seat where the screen is. When I need the material on the screen, I lean over and look at it.
Some games screens REALLY help run the game they are made for – my V:tR home made screen has a cheat sheet for every discipline in the core rules so I remember what the heck every one does. Nice when you only play a game four or so times a year.
Die rolls are made in the open most of the time. That’s not what the screen is for – it’s a reference tool and a way to hide notes and maps, not to hide the game itself.
Dyson Logos’s last blog post..25 Favourite RPGs of All Time
April 19, 2009 at 7:23 am
I make my own two sided screens, similar to those pictured in the article.
Why? Because I make the other side of the screen a player’s reference, with things like turn sequence, action charts, conditions, etc.
I also prefer landscape mode screens, like the picture, so they don’t block my view of the battle map.
In play, I rarely use my side of the screen. It often gets pushed to one side. I roll my dice behind it most of the time.
The players use their side more often, especially when I teach them new systems.
April 19, 2009 at 7:53 am
There are those three-sided GM screens where you can slip paper inside a plastic living. I should really invest in one of those, as they’re only like $20. And for that price, you can use it for any game.
April 19, 2009 at 8:21 am
Working from memory, past RoleplayingTips.com readers have mentioned making screens using page protectors glued to cardboard (allows you to slip papers in and out), making screens out of cereal boxes, sourcing restaurant menus and slipping pages into those, and using clips plus carboard for easy custom screens.
I’m still using my D&D 4E screen, though it’s off to the side to hide maps and notes. I use a laptop and it forms a natural screen.
April 20, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Something I tried recently that works nicely is buying a piece of plexiglass and placing all of my DM screen stuff directly on the table with the plexi over it. Worked great. My charts and tables were easy to see and read while nothing blocked my view. It allowed me to essentially free up more table space and I had a built in space to take notes using dry erase on the plexiglass.
John Lewis’s last blog post..Experience Points: Fools Rush In…
April 21, 2009 at 6:06 am
Garbage picking (hey, nobody said I had class, but as DM my players can’t tell me that) I spotted a business throwing out their poster display holder things (sorry for the technical jargon). The holders had clear plastic covers to put the posters behind.
Anyway, the post-sized clear plastic covers work perfectly with dry erase markers and I was able to scoop two before 1d6 angry hobbies attacked. These have worked great for maps, but I might think about some GM screen use like you have, John.
April 28, 2009 at 7:22 am
I usually run with a screen, though I have recently reduced its footprint down to about three inches high.
Along the lines of Nick Garcia’s post, my main concern is how to handle things like perception checks.
How do all you screenless DMs handle search checks, knowledge rolls, etc? i.e. if the player sees that the roll is low, they disregard the result and simply ask someone else to try.
April 28, 2009 at 9:50 am
I was just talking to another GM about that last night. His suggestion was to have a list of rolls already set for each character. So, you could just mark them off for each character as you go. It would require a little pre-planning, but it would definitely make things faster.
I haven’t been using a GM screen lately, and when I needed to do that stuff I just rolled it and didn’t tell anyone what it was for. Or, I’d roll a D20 before I knew they would need to make the check and I would just keep the number in my head.
April 28, 2009 at 11:11 am
A couple more options for secret rolls:
Use a small die-rolling box, small enough that it doesn’t take up much space on the table, but with sides high enough that someone sitting a few feet away can’t see down into it. That way you can make secret rolls in the box, and non-secret rolls out on the table.
Another option is use 2 or 3 different colored dice, and mentally select before rolling which one you will read. This would unclutter the table even more and still prevent meta-gaming by players.
April 29, 2009 at 6:28 pm
I like the idea of using two or three different colored dice. I might try that one. Although, I can see some players might not trust the GM, and just say that he picked the die he wanted after seeing the results.
July 8, 2009 at 7:30 am
I use a screen and not for rolling dice. When I am rolling, I get off my butt and let them see what I roll. But I use the screen for things that the game system is designed so the players don’t know, ie. monster stats for monsters I create; a map of the region or dungeon; a script for the night’s read aloud; and quick reference for stuff I need otherwise. The point is that my rolls don’t need to be fudged. I have enough info behind my screen that even with perfectly visible rolls, they wouldn’t know too much, and it leaves the game the way it was intended. Beside that, its not as though I can’t make up an attack that imposes a negative in the instances where the party did nothing wrong and I really threw too much at them…
August 3, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I’m still quite an inexperienced GM, so I use the screen as it has a lot of tables on there that I can quickly reference without having to flip. The screen also makes a nice mount for pictures of places or NPCs which I can put on the front with paperclips.
As I GM with the cards very clsoe to my chest, it hides the notes I have and it ALSO hides any notes that I make.
Occassionally, I will take the screen down mid-game when it becomes impractical, like in a space battle where I have to keep moving the minatures a lot.
The screen also is lent to a player who wants to GM for the session, and it gives quite a bit of reassurance.
November 20, 2009 at 9:49 am
for 4e, becuase we are all still a little shaky on the rules and conditions, we use a screen. the screen is great because it provides most of the things you need as a dm without having to pause and flip, or adjucate on the spot.
Otherwise, I usually have all my game information stored on my laptop, where other players can easily see, so I don’t need a screen to hide things I don’t want the other players to see.
All of which is to say that the only thing I ever use screens for is a handy way to keep information in short form.