D&D 5E Are players always entitled to see their own rolls?

[iserith]

But let me ask you a question: If you are the DM and you want to play that way and roll secretely but the other players do not want you to but want to roll for themselves and actually see the result (and you know they would not "metagame") - would you DM for that group?

That's a fair question since [MENTION=6792106]Sezarious[/MENTION] opened the door to it. I'd like to see what people say.

 

[redrick]

That's a fair question since [MENTION=6792106]Sezarious[/MENTION] opened the door to it. I'd like to see what people say.

I think the answer to this is dependent on a much larger issue of group dynamics. To have or not to have hidden rolls is a pretty minor issue. I would never walk away from a group over an issue like that alone.

On the other hand, I might walk away from a gave a DM a really hard time about how he or she managed the finer points of the game's mechanics. Ultimately, that stuff is the DM's responsibility, and it is up to the DM to refine the specifics of their recipe for how they run a game that is as fair, immersive, challenging and enjoyable as everybody wants. If I suggested that a player roll was going to be made behind the screen, and a player said, "No way, I refuse to play that way," I would be concerned, because I don't want to have players constantly fighting me on how I mechanically run the game. At the end of the day, being able to be loose about the "method" and focus on the overall objective is much more important to me. As a player, I try to keep my mouth shut about that stuff as well.

Now, if I instituted secret rolls for certain things, and after a few sessions a player said, "You know, Red, that whole thing where you roll certain player checks behind the screen doesn't really work for me. Could you try and find another way to handle those situations?" I would probably say, "hell yeah, let's try something else. I'm not trying to make you play a game you don't like."

We rotate DM'ing responsibilities in my group, and these little variations come up all the time. I like to re-roll initiative every round. Another DM likes to read box text. Another DM likes to run a very liberal action economy. I roll most monster dice in front of the screen, and another rolls most of that stuff behind the screen. I never fudge dice, and hell, maybe the other DM's do. Some things get standardized as we, as a group, come to agree on a particular ruling, but we also all know that each DM is going to run the game the way he knows how to run it best, so we try not to backseat drive the whole time. If a group weren't willing to give me that trust and autonomy on tons of issues, I would walk away, yes.

 

[sunshadow21]

Soooo, um, can I just ask for final clarification from those who disagree with secret rolling. If you had a DM who you trusted who wanted to do secret rolling with you for something in particular, no funny business and was even willing to take photos of the rolls for you to see later, would you outright refuse to play, or just kind of grumble about it a little and give it a try? The goal of the DM was purely to try and enhance emersion in his own way.

I would make a character appropriate to that style of play. It's a perfectly appropriate solution, but it does make characters that rely on skill checks to be proactive instead of reactive much more difficult.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It depends on the circumstances. If they are in combat and a goblin ducks and uses the Hide action, the player gets to roll, because he knows there is something there.

Technically, in combat you only get an active perception roll when you take the search action. Otherwise, hide attempts are made vs passive perception.

 

[Umbran]

But let me ask you a question: If you are the DM and you want to play that way and roll secretely but the other players do not want you to but want to roll for themselves and actually see the result (and you know they would not "metagame") - would you DM for that group?

I would just take into account that there are certain things that are more difficult to pull off well, and plan accordingly.

If somebody asked me to DM and roll secret rolls for them, I know I would refuse and not DM for that group if they insisted on this.

I have found that a key to happiness in gaming is discovering how to find your fun, rather than have the rules or processes enforce it for you. It is sufficient for me that the rules go generally in a direction I like, such that individual fiddly bits don't make or break a game for me.

 

[TheFindus]

I would just take into account that there are certain things that are more difficult to pull off well, and plan accordingly.

What would be harder for you, the DM, in this group to pull off without secret rolls? And what would you plans look like? If I understand you correctly, you would succeed at pulling it off without the secret rolls? What makes it harder?

I have found that a key to happiness in gaming is discovering how to find your fun, rather than have the rules or processes enforce it for you. It is sufficient for me that the rules go generally in a direction I like, such that individual fiddly bits don't make or break a game for me.

It is very important to discover what one finds fun in gaming, I agree. After all, we usually spend many hours with our hobby and why waste that time? But there are rules that break the game with a specific gaming group for people. These rules enforce a play style that some just do not care for. And this secret-rolling-thing is a rule that breaks it for me because of the implied role of the DM and what he or she should be able to do. As I stated upthread, I strongly feel it is not the area of influence of the DM to roll for the players. The player owns that roll for his or her PC. Plus the other reasons I gave for disliking that process. Others may feel the same about things that I am not the least interested in to do the same for them.

 

[Mark CMG]

And this secret-rolling-thing is a rule that breaks it for me because of the implied role of the DM and what he or she should be able to do.

I don't think such an implication as you describe exists.

As I stated upthread, I strongly feel it is not the area of influence of the DM to roll for the players. The player owns that roll for his or her PC.

A GM rolls dice to adjudicate all situations where the rubber meets the road, which is to say when the character meets the setting, if the GM so chooses. At that point it is no longer a roll which solely affects the PC, so it is up to the GM to decide whether a roll of the dice should be in the hands of the player or the GM. That is the GM's purview.

 

[TheFindus]

A GM rolls dice to adjudicate all situations where the rubber meets the road, which is to say when the character meets the setting, if the GM so chooses. At that point it is no longer a roll which solely affects the PC, so it is up to the GM to decide whether a roll of the dice should be in the hands of the player or the GM. That is the GM's purview.

You can most certainly play that way. But a character meets the setting all the time during play. I cannot think of a meaningful roll in play that only affects the PC. Any roll also affects the setting. So what you are saying means that a DM can roll the dice for a player at any time, really, just because "the rubber meets the road" and that is the DMs purview. And where does this stop: Attack rolls? Saves? Class and Race? All these things interact with the setting. So with this reasoning, the DM could roll any of that and not let the player know the results!

Coming back to rolling in secret for the players in the situation mentioned in this thread:
Any DM I choose to play with will not have that power because the groups of players I usually play with will not give this power to him or her. And I as a DM would not want to play that way either. DMs, just like governments, need to be reigned in. Checks and balances. Too much power is just not healthy.

One comes across a multitude of playing styles in forums like this. And it is always good to read about how other people handle things - however different - because one can learn something new some of the time. Unfortunately, this is not one of these moments for me.

 

[the Jester]

That's a fair question since [MENTION=6792106]Sezarious[/MENTION] opened the door to it. I'd like to see what people say.

The bottom line for me (for my playstyle as a DM) is that the DM sets the rules. If the players don't want to play by those rules, it's not that I refuse to play with them, it's that they are declining to play with me. And it's not just about hidden rolls; it could be players who don't want to play 'Everyone Starts at 1st Level', or those who don't like a high fatality rate, or those not interested in a sandbox, or those who don't like my colorful critical hit rules, or those who don't want fumbles in the game, or.... etc.

I suppose it might be different if I had a dearth of players, but I haven't had that issue in a long time.

 

[redrick]

You can most certainly play that way. But a character meets the setting all the time during play. I cannot think of a meaningful roll in play that only affects the PC. Any roll also affects the setting. So what you are saying means that a DM can roll the dice for a player at any time, really, just because "the rubber meets the road" and that is the DMs purview. And where does this stop: Attack rolls? Saves? Class and Race? All these things interact with the setting. So with this reasoning, the DM could roll any of that and not let the player know the results!

If it honestly serves the purposes of the game, I would absolutely have a character's attack roll or saving throw rolled in secret. I have rolled player saves before.

At the end of the day, for me in my game, it's just not an issue that deserves an absolute position. I try to be consistent, because inconsistency is distracting and breaks immersion. I try to maximize player agency, while also trying to serve the needs of the game at any given moment. If players have a problem with the way a session went down, I welcome them to talk to me about it, and we can make changes. If players aren't enjoying my game, the next DM can step up a little sooner. But if hiding a player roll will make a particular element of gameplay work better, hell yeah, I'm gonna do it. I would expect the same of any DM.

Coming back to rolling in secret for the players in the situation mentioned in this thread:
Any DM I choose to play with will not have that power because the groups of players I usually play with will not give this power to him or her. And I as a DM would not want to play that way either. DMs, just like governments, need to be reigned in. Checks and balances. Too much power is just not healthy.

One comes across a multitude of playing styles in forums like this. And it is always good to read about how other people handle things - however different - because one can learn something new some of the time. Unfortunately, this is not one of these moments for me.

The "checks and balances" in our tabletop group are that DMs rotate. If a DM is not doing a good job, their tenure might get shorter. We've never had a player protest that something was done unfairly and had the DM say, "screw off." On the contrary, our sessions generally end with the DM saying, "was it ok that I..." and then all the players saying, "of course, dude, don't be afraid to say no to us! don't be afraid to lay down the law for us!"