Yes. And having been one.
Pennshome:
I'd have walked before you "Fake rolled" - it's not building the good kind of tension. I find repetitive noises particularly annoying. But I find also that GM's who roll behind the screen a lot tend also to be railroading players.
I've found it better by far to have all dice rolls that matter done in the open, on the table, and with dice everyone can read. If you're just going to ignore the dice, then don't bother rolling, because you are in fact lying to your players.
I've found no good comes of playing with habitually dishonest people, and rolling behind the screen tends to be one of the warning signs of that. Fake rolling is a MAJOR warning sign of that.
Even if the lies are simply to protect the PC's, it's still robbing the players of their characters experiencing real risk.
If I'm rolling dice, it matters. And the suspense has been much better since my players came to that realization - if I'm reaching for dice, something is about to happen.
Wow. We're debating how to roll the dice.
For the record, I roll the dice behind the screen. I'm not above a fake roll either; it was recommended in a gamemastering article way back in my D&D days, a way of making sure that players don't go on the alert for traps or ambushes just 'cause they hear the clatter of dice. If that makes me dishonest, well, I lied to my kids about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, at least until they got old enough to reason it out themselves; made them happy as young 'uns, as they got older it taught them that poppa loved them but was not to be trusted, which is fine - a person should always have a bit of distrust for authority figures.
It was good advice back then, it worked for D&D, where folk would start breaking out the sensing magic and search skills when the dice clattered, but that was college days. Older players tend to be better about sticking to character even in the face of events external to play. But the key to trust is not honesty - try being too honest with your wife and see what happens. As with marriage, the key to trust is agreeing on the rules and sticking by that agreement. If the players understand and accept that fake roles will occur to cover events that they shouldn't have knowledge of, there shouldn't be any complaints. If someone can't abide that - and this group can play straight even when dice roll and they don't know why, and you all agree to forgo the fake roll bit - then fake rolls are improper in the extreme. And if he can't abide that, but also can't keep outside knowledge from influencing his play - well, maybe he can go find someone who'll put up with that. I'm not much on letting the players manipulate the game master for their own advantage.
As for hiding rolls: the game is a story. The game master is the director in a show in which the player is star, but it's improv: the game master cannot control the player. He orchestrates events around the players to create a fun and exciting adventure; the game lies in the players' response. The rules guide player and game master alike, providing a framework in which the players can challenge the odds, take pride in their achievements, and find satisfaction in the occasional heroic defeat. Hiding the rolls so you can reroll to the disadvantage of the player is not just cheating, it's lousy storytelling and makes for lousy adventure: the gamemaster's roll is not to "win", it's to entertain. Hiding the rolls so you can deliver a cakewalk to the players is also lousy storytelling. However, blind chance is not great storytelling either. There is a time for the hero to die: when he has given his best and can face his end with equanimity - or when he does something stupid and chance passes the ultimate sentence. That time is not when the entire group is in an air/raft at 100 feet and and some throwaway minion takes out the power plant with a wildly lucky roll.
This is not something one does regularly, but it is a fair tool of the gamemaster's chest. The players must have a fair chance at overcoming adversity and winning the day. The antagonist must have a fair chance at defeating them. But, one can't lazily turn one's head away and say, "Rules", when all the players' and game master's planning is about to come to nothing because of a random series of rolls.
Traveller represents a departure from traditional RPGs. It is less forgiving of blind chance - fewer hits, powerful technological weapons, no magic spells to resurrect the unfortunate or undo bad luck - but it's pretty fun rolling up a new character, and a starting character can be every bit as effective as one who's been played for three years, given only the proper tools, which can often be had from surviving players. It's a game where the random death of one or two players doesn't have to derail the campaign. Still, given the choice, I'd just as soon not see the air/raft take the gang down.
