GM: "the NPC attacks you."
GM picks up dice, looks at notes and rolls. The dice produce some numbers the GM calculates the result and tells the player "you got hit, take X damage".
Meanwhile the player looks at the dice result, doesn't know what the GM's processes are nor what calculations he makes. Is this the norm? It is for me, perhaps it shouldn't be.

As a GM I find this awkward. I am arbitrating a situation with access to stats and rules, for the NPC's, the players don't have. I then tell them, their only clue is the dice result, what happened. Is that really the best way to do this? Obviously NPC's don't go around with their vitals written on their tabards, but isn't there a better way to do this?

I use contested rolls for combat because it 'feels' more like combat, and as a result the players get to find out what the numerical skill of their opponents is. In-game, the characters should have a very good idea how skilled their opponent is after the first few swings are exchanged anyway, so I don't see a problem with that. Especially since damage is partially factored from how high over their opponent they roll; it could be obfuscated but you'd really be going out of your way to do so, and making life harder for everyone in the process, including yourself.

I make all my dice rolls in the open, and tell my players, usually, what the monster needs to hit them. I don't usually make it explicit what the calculation is, though (e.g. "The monster has 4 HD, so it needs a 15 to hit you" or whatever).

I am rather open with the information I give the players. Like I don't really open with "ooooh you guys are up against King Statline, lube up" but I'm pretty open with attack scores, target numbers and the like. If they're curious and I'm not in a hurry I'll take time to explain what a technique someone just used on their character in Anima or a charm in Exalted does.

The exception to this is if if the true power of the antagonist is not apparent. Then I might ask for an attack roll and see if it hit myself. Of course inevitably someone will go "Missed? It's got defense WHAT?" and then if the antagonist doesn't escape I'm gradually showing my cards.

Figuratively speaking. Or... literally, if it's an Anima invoker *G*.

Does that not slow things down, having to explain what's happening and how the PC might lose out?

I roll everything, except(depending on system) character crucial things, behind the screen.
 Character crucial things like creature critical confirmations attacks in type III D&D(I let the players roll their fate).

It's much more dramatic and exciting for the players for the DM to roll in the open and tell the players what the monsters need to hit them; I'm with Noisms.

Plus, dice fudging is the devil.  (There are already long threads here discussing that particular sin).

The only things I tend to roll semi-secretly are wandering monster checks and wilderness encounters, because there's more tension when the players don't know those particular results when they rest, make camp, etc.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;597353Obviously NPC's don't go around with their vitals written on their tabards, but isn't there a better way to do this?

I make rolls out of sight. However after the first round, I let players know what they need to hit the monster (for the time being), so long as one of them hits. They always declare their rolls, and then go for damage automatically if they think they hit.

My players trust that I am not screwing them, and that I am making some calculations when I roll. Maybe they also expect I am fudging in their favor. But at the root is their trust.

I've always felt that the characters would quickly develop a feel for just how dangerous their opponent really is, so they should see the die rolls.  "Oh crap!  That guy just slammed me with a 4! We're in trouble!"

I absolutely agree fudging results is bad.

Quote from: Lynn;597380I make rolls out of sight. However after the first round, I let players know what they need to hit the monster (for the time being), so long as one of them hits. They always declare their rolls, and then go for damage automatically if they think they hit.

My players trust that I am not screwing them, and that I am making some calculations when I roll. Maybe they also expect I am fudging in their favor. But at the root is their trust.

Same here. I like to keep players in the dark about what they're fighting and how strong it is because:

A) Their characters typically don't know. If those PCs haven't fought it before, and it's not a common creature like a goblin, they have no idea what it is, how strong it is, etc.

B) It's scarier that way. ie is that a Shadow or a Wight?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;597353As a GM I find this awkward. I am arbitrating a situation with access to stats and rules, for the NPC's, the players don't have. I then tell them, their only clue is the dice result, what happened. Is that really the best way to do this? Obviously NPC's don't go around with their vitals written on their tabards, but isn't there a better way to do this?

I prefer to roll for anything the PCs can observe and know about in the open.  I think that letting the players compare the raw die rolls to the result, which might include factors they aren't aware of such as skill bonuses, helps replace intuitive information their characters would have, if they were really there, about how good or bad their opponent is.

God doesn't show me his dice rolls, either.
(i.e. GM rolls secretly)

My die rolls for my regular campaign are secret only due to convenience: I use a screen to hide my notes and rolling outside of the screen would simply be inconvenient and awkward.

I general, I don't announce numbers that represent information the PCs don't have access to. I don't announce numbers like AC at the beginning of combat, but I don't consider them state secrets: Players will quickly reverse engineer them in any case (which represents their characters learning the capabilities of their opponents) and there comes a point where it's easier and quicker to confirm the target number and allow them to quickly determine success-or-failure on their own.

While I like the idea of players only having the information their characters would have and thus hidden target numbers and so on (let alone the GM rolling for everything), in practice I find it's too much work keeping track of it. Though I suppose if someone actually asked me to not "spoil" things for them I would oblige.