I would say you as a player experience the game best when you are not privy to 90% of what happens behind the DM screen. The more mystery there is, the better. Half the point of the screen is for the DM to be able to weigh if certain things trigger and if they do not, imo. I agree that D&D is at its best when a DM loosely has what an idea for the campaign but leave it up to the players to write the story.
I personally had the most fun as a player when the DM was constantly rolling hidden checks, since out of character you feel that danger is lurking. I agree that you wouldn’t want predictable outcomes for whatever happens next, since the fun is in the mystery.
I would say that the DM has a lot of agency to pick and choose what moments you succeed versus fail. The DM may throw a check at you that requires a 30+ to succeed, but you don’t know that in the moment. Likewise, if you’re in a close fight and one of the players scores a natural 20 and a big hit, then I feel it’s a better moment for the story if that enemy drops from that. Rather than having the foe still stand with a couple hp, it dodges the next two rounds of hits, and wipes the party.
I agree totally, but the rolls that aren’t supposed to be behind the screen shouldn’t be. It removes agency from the players when the DM is deciding what they can and can’t do. Like you said, there are plenty of things they do control. There’s no reason to control other things. There should be hidden checks for things like spotting traps/enemies they aren’t aware of, and things like that. Their actions shouldn’t be hidden though.
I would say it shouldn’t be something you do often. Maybe if you’re secretly charmed or mind controlled I could see it, but I don’t think there would be too many instances a DM should be hiding a player’s roll.
For sure the DM shouldn’t abuse the player’s trust in those situations either. If it’s a hidden roll, the DM shouldn’t be lying about if the player actually passed the check or not.
I can see the appeal, for instance, of having the party running for their lives to escape a collapsing cave and having players make hidden rolls as they perform strength and dexterity checks on the way out. There can be tension behind not knowing if you pass or fail. Killing a player that way would kinda suck though rather than having some sort of funny outcome if they fail, imo.
I would say you as a player experience the game best when you are not privy to 90% of what happens behind the DM screen. The more mystery there is, the better. Half the point of the screen is for the DM to be able to weigh if certain things trigger and if they do not, imo. I agree that D&D is at its best when a DM loosely has what an idea for the campaign but leave it up to the players to write the story.
I personally had the most fun as a player when the DM was constantly rolling hidden checks, since out of character you feel that danger is lurking. I agree that you wouldn’t want predictable outcomes for whatever happens next, since the fun is in the mystery.
I would say that the DM has a lot of agency to pick and choose what moments you succeed versus fail. The DM may throw a check at you that requires a 30+ to succeed, but you don’t know that in the moment. Likewise, if you’re in a close fight and one of the players scores a natural 20 and a big hit, then I feel it’s a better moment for the story if that enemy drops from that. Rather than having the foe still stand with a couple hp, it dodges the next two rounds of hits, and wipes the party.
I agree totally, but the rolls that aren’t supposed to be behind the screen shouldn’t be. It removes agency from the players when the DM is deciding what they can and can’t do. Like you said, there are plenty of things they do control. There’s no reason to control other things. There should be hidden checks for things like spotting traps/enemies they aren’t aware of, and things like that. Their actions shouldn’t be hidden though.
I would say it shouldn’t be something you do often. Maybe if you’re secretly charmed or mind controlled I could see it, but I don’t think there would be too many instances a DM should be hiding a player’s roll.
For sure the DM shouldn’t abuse the player’s trust in those situations either. If it’s a hidden roll, the DM shouldn’t be lying about if the player actually passed the check or not.
I can see the appeal, for instance, of having the party running for their lives to escape a collapsing cave and having players make hidden rolls as they perform strength and dexterity checks on the way out. There can be tension behind not knowing if you pass or fail. Killing a player that way would kinda suck though rather than having some sort of funny outcome if they fail, imo.