Secret Rolls

[Psikerlord]

To actually address the topic, I like to play games where the GM doesn't roll anything. Everything that happens that requires a roll is based on the players rolling. Everything is in the open.

This is a major strength of players roll everything type games. Tend to also get a similar effect when playing online, the rolls are there for everyone to see.

[Earthwalker]

Fair enough.
While investigating a crime scene, one of the PCs says something dumb that one of the NPCs reacts to (because they know something that the PCs don't, and believe that it might be true). Do the PCs notice? If not, it'll likely be days later before the PCs notice the ramifications of that NPC hearing that comment.

Late replying to this and others have stepped in but I am going to share my thoughts. So in an open game where the players get to know what’s going on and the game is them deciding how they use that information (not a game of can the players learn that information) I have a few options.
Simplest… I mark the NPC in question with an aspect of “suspicious of the PC” and if it’s the PC messing up give the NPC a free invoke on that (basically giving the NPC an advantage in dealing with the PC). The PCs would be told this had happened.

That’s simple but might not be what the player is after.

One question others have asked, what was the PC trying to achieve by the dumb thing he said. If he was trying to do something I could let the dice decide right now what happened, maybe let the PC roll Rapport with success meaning he spotted the NPC and now has leverage or if he failed means the NPC has advantage like above.

It’s an open situation and hard to give the exact answer because as other have pointed out what you are trying to achieve is not really possible in this style of game.

This is a flaw that comes with trying to achieve other things, mostly allowing the players more control of the narrative space. (Well that’s what I think, someone will most likely tell me it’s not about that)
In the same way secret rolls can be some be seen as a flaw with trying to create more immersion in games. (Removing some control / agency from the players)

If this doesn’t answer your question I am happy to go over with more details.

I'm personally too lazy to bother with secret rolls when I GM, at least when it comes to secretly rolling Perception, Sense Motive, and the like for the PCs. I'm more than happy to let the PCs do that.
But I'm also totally cool with other GMs deciding to roll that way (one of my GMs roll secretly for Perception, Sense Motive, and Will save sometimes in Pathfinder), and it can create interesting situations.
In closing, both approaches work fine, and neither is wrong or inherently better than the other.

Just wanted to say it so nice seeing someone else on the boards saying…

Yeah both ways are fine.

Nice to see someone else that also playing in games that do both. I too play different games with different ideas on how they should be run and I am happy with either. If I was playing in Pathfinder for example, sure the GM can be making secret rolls. If I am playing in Fate then secret rolls don’t make much sense.

[Aotrs Commander]

There is never such a time. Rolling in secret is always bad for the group.

*looks around*

Whelp, looks like my group still turns up every week when I DM after a few months shy of thirty years, so I have to question your definition of "bad for the group..."

Maybe I'm hallucinating, and actually my players have never existed outside my head? Mind you, if that's true, then all of this is a halluncination as well, so if so, clearly none of you exist either...

[LudicSavant]

I prefer to roll in the open; the exception is things where the roll itself would communicate information the players shouldn't have ("roll Perception to see if you spot the assassins").

[Mordar]

Do you use these as a ref or do you always allow players to roll Perception-related checks themselves?

I used to let players make their own but realized later that if I made the Perception/Insight/Investigation/Deception checks secretly, it can be really fun.

Give me your viewpoints as referees and players, please and thank you.

I'm generally in the "prefer them to be secretly rolled" camp, but with zero compunction about all rolls in the open, all rolls made by the player or all rolls made by the GM games...at least until I learn the dynamic at the table. So I guess that means the people at the table are way more important than the method of rolling the dice for these kind of checks. If you'll all abide by the rolls, then open is fine. But once time of "I rolled a 2, but I really think there should be something here, so I'm going to keep looking..." sours me a little bit.

One of the most enjoyable RPG experiences I had was a game where we (the players) didn't even know our character stats/skills. We had a sense of what they were and how they compared to the other characters and the general public, but that's all. The GM managed all of the random number generation as well. It made for a very interesting experience and while cumbersome for the GM it was really worth the extra work (according to him as well)...though only manageable for a few sessions. In retrospect (this was mid 1980s) it ended up feeling a lot like a good video game experience combined with cool storytelling. We didn't have to worry about the crunch, but the game still had randomness and chance. Of course, required a group very familiar with one another.

- M

[DanDare2050]

My general rule with 5e is that I state target DCs and players roll. If I'm rolling for an NPC then its out in the open and not hidden. No fudges.

With perception the rule adjusts :

Passive perceptions
- players are being cautious and perceptive - their value as is triggers when the hide/sneak DC is beaten otherwise nothing.
- players are rushing, distracted by something in their face - as above but hide/sneak DC is +2.

Players actively using their perception
- they indicate where they are looking and what they are looking for. Passive operates in the target area at +2 for anything that may be hidden there.
- players roll dice but I do not give a DC. I give an answer based on success/fail.
- no reroll for the same search. They must come up with a different approach, move to change perspective etc.

I do not roll hide/sneak values but have a pre-generated list so the information is not given away by dice rolling.

[Malifice]

Lying to your players out of character makes you scum.

Lol. You must be a hoot at parties.

Also, nah. Just nah.

[Keltest]

Lol. You must be a hoot at parties.

Also, nah. Just nah.

Yeah, just yeah. Don't lie to your players when youre speaking as the DM. D&D is a game, not a challenge to screw over people in the most effective manner. Let them be wrong if they came to it honestly, but don't lie to them. There aren't a lot of universal rules for DMing but "don't lie to your players" is one of them.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, just yeah. Don't lie to your players when youre speaking as the DM. D&D is a game, not a challenge to screw over people in the most effective manner. Let them be wrong if they came to it honestly, but don't lie to them. There aren't a lot of universal rules for DMing but "don't lie to your players" is one of them.

Many DMs like to come up with justifications for why they aren't lying to their players or cheating. Often some incorrectly applied version of rule 0 or (more recently) rulings not rules.

[Malifice]

Yeah, just yeah. Don't lie to your players when youre speaking as the DM. D&D is a game, not a challenge to screw over people in the most effective manner. Let them be wrong if they came to it honestly, but don't lie to them. There aren't a lot of universal rules for DMing but "don't lie to your players" is one of them.

Yeah, nah.

For all your salt, lying to players is an important skill to know if you want to be a good DM. Has been that way forever, and it wont change due to some of the sooks in here.

[EGplay]

Yeah, nah.

For all your salt, lying to players is an important skill to know if you want to be a good DM. Has been that way forever, and it wont change due to some of the sooks in here.

With respect, but no.
Maybe for you, but certainly not for everyone.
You do not get to invalidate the experiences of all the people who DM differently to you.

We can be entirely honest and still DM well. Have done so since forever.
We just do so using a different approach and skillset, which you possibly won't learn otherwise. Yes, the learning curve can be steep, but to us is worth it.

Look, any tool can become a crutch if you cannot do without and if you don't try that's exactly what they become.
Now, there is nothing wrong with crutches, our ways have them too, but there is no need for 'salt' if others try to do without yours.

[Quertus]

Yeah, nah.

For all your salt, lying to players is an important skill to know if you want to be a good DM. Has been that way forever, and it wont change due to some of the sooks in here.

Murdering your guests, and serving them as food is an important skill for a host, and has been forever. If you want to be a good host, you need this skill, and that won't change based on a few sticks in here.

[Tanarii]

We can be entirely honest and still DM well. Have done so since forever.

I'd go further, and say honesty is a requirement, with some caveats.

Example caveats:
- NPCs can lie
- legends and lore are often full of bs
- characters might misremember info if you use "knowledge checks"
- illusions

But the GM represents the game world. That means giving accurate information whenever it's available to the characters. And the players have to be able to trust the GM won't just arbitrarily change the rules or scenario on them, especially sneakily and without informing them.

Which is why illusionism, quantum ogres, and fudging are just terrible. People that advocate for them have missed the entire point.

[EGplay]

@Tanarii:
Apparently, for some it isn't one.
And I can be fine with that (when uninvolved), as long as they can at least be honest about their dishonesty (to avoid morality clashes), and don't present it as the only option for DMs.

And yeah, NPCs can do whatever they like, they are not the DM.

[MrSandman]

This might be slightly off-topic, but what do we exactly mean by "being dishonest/lying" to one's players? Is it giving them false information? Fudging rolls? Using illusionism? All of the above?

[Keltest]

This might be slightly off-topic, but what do we exactly mean by "being dishonest/lying" to one's players? Is it giving them false information? Fudging rolls? Using illusionism? All of the above?

So, an example. A rogue goes to check a door for traps. He rolls decently, and the DM tells him "there are no traps on the door" verbatim. He opens the door, and triggers a trap. That would be lying, because the DM made a blatantly false statement to the player which lead to incorrect expectations. The correct way to do it would be to tell the rogue that they don't find any traps, presumably because it was a well hidden trap with exceptionally high DC that they didn't make. At that point the rogue can use their own judgment as to whether their skill was good enough to detect any traps with that roll.

Another example. The PCs are exploring a castle, and they through a door into a room. The DM tells them that its just an empty room with another door on the other side. As they cross the room, the DM tells them that somebody drops a bookcase on them. The DM lied to the players when he told them the room was empty when it in fact was not.

Stuff like that is lying to the players as the GM. When youre acting as an NPC or otherwise describing an in-world attempt to deceive people, that's fine as long as it doesn't spill over into the GM narrator chair.

[Koo Rehtorb]

So, an example. A rogue goes to check a door for traps. He rolls decently, and the DM tells him "there are no traps on the door" verbatim. He opens the door, and triggers a trap. That would be lying, because the DM made a blatantly false statement to the player which lead to incorrect expectations. The correct way to do it would be to tell the rogue that they don't find any traps, presumably because it was a well hidden trap with exceptionally high DC that they didn't make. At that point the rogue can use their own judgment as to whether their skill was good enough to detect any traps with that roll.

Another example. The PCs are exploring a castle, and they through a door into a room. The DM tells them that its just an empty room with another door on the other side. As they cross the room, the DM tells them that somebody drops a bookcase on them. The DM lied to the players when he told them the room was empty when it in fact was not.

Stuff like that is lying to the players as the GM. When youre acting as an NPC or otherwise describing an in-world attempt to deceive people, that's fine as long as it doesn't spill over into the GM narrator chair.

Honestly that just comes off as the GM being kind of clumsy with wording or something. It's bad, but probably not deliberately malicious. What I mean is a GM who says something like "I don't fudge dice" when they actually do.

[Keltest]

Honestly that just comes off as the GM being kind of clumsy with wording or something. It's bad, but probably not deliberately malicious. What I mean is a GM who says something like "I don't fudge dice" when they actually do.

I mean, that's not great either, but that's less to do with the game and more just generally a thing of social interaction.

[Malifice]

I mean, that's not great either, but that's less to do with the game and more just generally a thing of social interaction.

But isnt that ignoring the context of the social contract with the players and DM (and their expectations of the game), which varies from group to group?

Like; I get that you (and others) see DnD as a competitive endeavor against the DM, and would rather play in a game where the 'dice fall where they may' in a parody of Hackmaster (itself a parody). If the dice dictate 'story ending TPK' then that's just how things are.

Other people (and other groups) dont want to be beholden to gravity getting in the way of a fun time spent with mates playing a game and telling a shared story. They prefer a game where a story ending TPK doesnt happen simply because the dice say it does. Their social contract is that the DM has an obligation to moderate the game in this spirit.

I get that you prefer the former over the latter. But to call groups (and DMs) that prefer the latter to the former 'Scum' as some on this thread have done, or to decry those later groups as people having badwrongfun is juvenile in the extreme.

Different techniques and playstyles work for different groups. As long as you're conforming to the social contract and expectations of your own table, who are you to judge other tables?

[Quertus]

But isnt that ignoring the context of the social contract with the players and DM (and their expectations of the game), which varies from group to group?

Like; I get that you (and others) see DnD as a competitive endeavor against the DM, and would rather play in a game where the 'dice fall where they may' in a parody of Hackmaster (itself a parody). If the dice dictate 'story ending TPK' then that's just how things are.

So much wrong here. The GM should be a fair rules arbiter (or, better yet, the players should be the fair rules arbiters). The players are playing against the module; the players are role-playing the PCs; the GM is role-playing everyone else. The players' actions (and, to a (likely) lesser extent, the dice) should dictate the outcome, yes, including a potential TPK.

Anyone care to put forth a similar description of their preferences, so that I'm not speaking for everyone?

Other people (and other groups) dont want to be beholden to gravity getting in the way of a fun time spent with mates playing a game and telling a shared story. They prefer a game where a story ending TPK doesnt happen simply because the dice say it does. Their social contract is that the DM has an obligation to moderate the game in this spirit.

Other groups don't want to be beholden to sitting out for hours while the rest the players finish up Monopoly - their social contract is that the banker has an obligation to keep all players in the game until one player pulls a TPK.

I get that you prefer the former over the latter. But to call groups (and DMs) that prefer the latter to the former 'Scum' as some on this thread have done, or to decry those later groups as people having badwrongfun is juvenile in the extreme.

A banker who is an illusionist and tries to silently pull that **** at my tables (and probably at any tables) is cheating. Plain and simple.

Different techniques and playstyles work for different groups. As long as you're conforming to the social contract and expectations of your own table, who are you to judge other tables?

Personally, I'm judging people / actions, not tables.

I judge bankers who break the rules to make a "better" game to be cheating.

[Keltest]

But isnt that ignoring the context of the social contract with the players and DM (and their expectations of the game), which varies from group to group?

Like; I get that you (and others) see DnD as a competitive endeavor against the DM, and would rather play in a game where the 'dice fall where they may' in a parody of Hackmaster (itself a parody). If the dice dictate 'story ending TPK' then that's just how things are.

Other people (and other groups) dont want to be beholden to gravity getting in the way of a fun time spent with mates playing a game and telling a shared story. They prefer a game where a story ending TPK doesnt happen simply because the dice say it does. Their social contract is that the DM has an obligation to moderate the game in this spirit.

I get that you prefer the former over the latter. But to call groups (and DMs) that prefer the latter to the former 'Scum' as some on this thread have done, or to decry those later groups as people having badwrongfun is juvenile in the extreme.

Different techniques and playstyles work for different groups. As long as you're conforming to the social contract and expectations of your own table, who are you to judge other tables?

In short, no. The GM, in his role of referee, needs to be honest with his players. The fact of the matter is, there isn't any aspect of the ref role that actually requires or even particularly benefits from lying to your players. Its just totally unnecessary except to one-up them, and that turns it from a cooperative experience into an antagonist one.

Also, you seem to have totally misunderstood both my position on dice fudging (its a tool, with an appropriate way to use it) and whether that constitutes lying (it does not, by itself.) This is especially strange to me given that I have made relatively lengthy posts explaining my stance on both of these issues.

[Malifice]

Like I said, if it works at your table fine.

Just dont tell me how to run things at my table, or presume to know better than my players and I.

[geppetto]

Lol. You must be a hoot at parties.

Also, nah. Just nah.

Right? Nothing like insane moral absolutism and judgement over petty nothings. People like that manage to suck the fun out of anything and everything. IME they usually wind up kicked out of groups very quickly and then come and spread their negativity online because its the only place people will listen to them.

[geppetto]

I'd go further, and say honesty is a requirement, with some caveats.

Example caveats:
- NPCs can lie
- legends and lore are often full of bs
- characters might misremember info if you use "knowledge checks"
- illusions

But the GM represents the game world. That means giving accurate information whenever it's available to the characters. And the players have to be able to trust the GM won't just arbitrarily change the rules or scenario on them, especially sneakily and without informing them.

Which is why illusionism, quantum ogres, and fudging are just terrible. People that advocate for them have missed the entire point.

So lying to them when you think its okay is fine, but lying to them when someone else thinks its okay is evil badwrongfun and makes the gm a scumbag?

Yeah got it. We have a word for that. Hypocrisy.

I love the tool/clutch comparison too.

"So you have those boards you want to nail together and you think the hammer is the right tool for the job? Ha ha, amateur. I only use shovels for hammering, because evil bad people use hammers. But I suppose if you need the crutch of a hammer then you'll just never develop the super next level skill of using a shovel to nail those boards together like us morally superior elite GMs who never leave home without our trusty shovels".

[Koo Rehtorb]

So lying to them when you think its okay is fine, but lying to them when someone else thinks its okay is evil badwrongfun and makes the gm a scumbag?

If you actually can't tell the difference between portraying a character that lies, and actually lying as a real person, then that's........................... interesting

[EGplay]

So lying to them when you think its okay is fine, but lying to them when someone else thinks its okay is evil badwrongfun and makes the gm a scumbag?

Yeah got it. We have a word for that. Hypocrisy.

I love the tool/clutch comparison too.

"So you have those boards you want to nail together and you think the hammer is the right tool for the job? Ha ha, amateur. I only use shovels for hammering, because evil bad people use hammers. But I suppose if you need the crutch of a hammer then you'll just never develop the super next level skill of using a shovel to nail those boards together like us morally superior elite GMs who never leave home without our trusty shovels".

NPCs are not the DM, PCs are not the players. There is no hypocrisy in viewing these relations differently.
(In fact, I would make sure they're different and make clear they are.)

As to the example: you can hammer the boards together, or you can glue-and-screw them.
You don't need a hammer for the latter.

[Earthwalker]

Let me start by stating where I am coming from.
I really don’t think that GMs should be lying to players out of character. I could even say that as
no lying to them out of game.

Sure NPCs can lie (using the GMs voice)
Characters can have incorrect perceptions of the world (in the GMs voice)

But GM to Player shouldn’t need lying for the game to work.

But isn’t that ignoring the context of the social contract with the players and DM (and their expectations of the game), which varies from group to group?

How can I build a social contract with a GM that is lying to me?
Player: I prefer more open world nonlinear games, is that what you run.
GM: Yes (I don’t but I am sure I can fool his player into thinking it is)
Why is this a good solution over just telling the truth?

Like; I get that you (and others) see DnD as a competitive endeavor against the DM, and would rather play in a game where the 'dice fall where they may' in a parody of Hackmaster (itself a parody). If the dice dictate 'story ending TPK' then that's just how things are.
Other people (and other groups) dont want to be beholden to gravity getting in the way of a fun time spent with mates playing a game and telling a shared story. They prefer a game where a story ending TPK doesnt happen simply because the dice say it does. Their social contract is that the DM has an obligation to moderate the game in this spirit.

We have no TPKs in my FATE game. The reason. The rules state that you can only kill a player’s character if the player chooses to risk their life (As a personal choice in each given situation) The characters can lose, the characters can fail to get what they want. Its just that they cant die unless they choose to. Why is lying to your players better than this solution for the problems of TPKs ?

I get that you prefer the former over the latter. But to call groups (and DMs) that prefer the latter to the former 'Scum' as some on this thread have done, or to decry those later groups as people having badwrongfun is juvenile in the extreme.
Different techniques and playstyles work for different groups. As long as you're conforming to the social contract and expectations of your own table, who are you to judge other tables?

As I see it.

My style of GMs being honest about what their game is. i.e. not lying out of character. Has a positive impact on the gaming community as a whole. If we all did it then players would be able to find games they like.

Equally if the advice to GMs is lie to your players out of game. That has a negative impact as players can’t tell what kind of games they are getting into.

[Tanarii]

So lying to them when you think its okay is fine, but lying to them when someone else thinks its okay is evil badwrongfun and makes the gm a scumbag?

Yeah got it. We have a word for that. Hypocrisy.

Well, that's certainly a case of missing the entire point, but not quite how I meant.


Edit: however yes, I do get all moralistic when it comes to DMs secretly fudging dice, or secretly changing things to 'save' the party (or screw the party). And yeah, that makes my posts on the matter pretty heavy handed.

But there is a reason I feel that way. Because when it comes to light (and it will), it usually makes players feel like their efforts and time were ... less than self accomplished. It's not always a matter of removing player agency and making their decisions not matter, but it can easily feel that way.

Not everyone will feel that way, but many will. And if you, the DM, decide to make that choice on behalf of your players without letting them know that you're that type of DM, you risk invalidating all the time and effort they've put into your campaign.

[Aotrs Commander]

Edit: however yes, I do get all moralistic when it comes to DMs secretly fudging dice, or secretly changing things to 'save' the party (or screw the party). And yeah, that makes my posts on the matter pretty heavy handed.

But there is a reason I feel that way. Because when it comes to light (and it will), it usually makes players feel like their efforts and time were ... less than self accomplished. It's not always a matter of removing player agency and making their decisions not matter, but it can easily feel that way.

Speaking as a player (though rare when I get the chance), I don't care what you, as DM, do behind the screen - but I'll have a lot less respect for you as DM if you think that my time and effort and investment into my character is less important than the (mistaken) belief that I'll get some kind of nebulous sense of self-satisfaction out of my character dying just because you generated better random numbers than me, because at least the sanctity of the random number generators were preserved. (And consequently, I'm not going to put more than a token effort into my character, because - same as with authors and character deaths - if you don't care, why should I?) I don't play RPGs - not even CRPGs - for a sense of "pride and accomplishment" (sic). I am well aware that ANY success I have are because you the DM let me have them, either actively or tacitly.

(If I want some vague sense of competative achievement, I'll go play a wargame, since that is the one and only arena where I'm interested in "max difficulty with ironman on" equivilents and even then with the games I play its more like solving a puzzle than a competition.)

So personally, I will trust a DM who is willing to quietly fudge the dice behind the screen in the moment when absolutely necessary to make the game better for the players far more than one that makes the dice inviolate, doubly-especially so if on the mistaken impression I care about the RNG over the game; triply so if they are going to make sweeping generalisations (something which I try very hard to avoid, because varying preferences) that anyone not believing what they do is, as you said earlier, doing things that are "always bad for the group."

My not killing off one PC when I could have because the dice said so (on top of a poorly balanced module encounter) in about two-three years of gameplay time is not, in fact, tantamout to criminal activity, nor morally reprehensible.

(I'm a LE lich, if you want to accuse me of that, I can provide you with plenty more material of greater merit in that regard...)

I don't, particularly, have a huge axe to grind with how you run your game - after all, I'm very likely never going to play it and vice versa, so what would be the point - but I DO object to you telling me (and by extension, my group) that not only am I (and we) playing it badwrongfun, but objectively badly. (Especially in light of the aforementioned thirty years of contrary experience.)



DAMMIT, why do I let myself get drawn into these things when I should be quest-writing!

[Koo Rehtorb]

Speaking as a player (though rare when I get the chance), I don't care what you, as DM, do behind the screen - but I'll have a lot less respect for you as DM if you think that my time and effort and investment into my character is less important than the (mistaken) belief that I'll get some kind of nebulous sense of self-satisfaction out of my character dying just because you generated better random numbers than me, because at least the sanctity of the random number generators were preserved. (And consequently, I'm not going to put more than a token effort into my character, because - same as with authors and character deaths - if you don't care, why should I?) I don't play RPGs - not even CRPGs - for a sense of "pride and accomplishment" (sic). I am well aware that ANY success I have are because you the DM let me have them, either actively or tacitly.

You're playing the wrong game. If you don't want a game in which death is on the table, which is an entirely legitimate preference, then there are dozens, if not hundreds, of fine RPGs out there in which character death isn't a thing that can happen. No cheating required.