D&D 5E Skill Check Rolls

[Warmaster Horus]

One thing I'm always trying to deal with as a DM are skill check rolls where I want there to be uncertainty about the outcome.

Take an Insight check during a conversation with an NPC, for example. If the PC doing the check rolls badly, they know they failed, and if they roll really well, they know they've probably succeeded. Some DMs like to obfuscate this by rolling FOR the PC, but that takes the player out of the spotlight too much for me. I want the PC to roll AND maintain a sense of uncertainty.

What I'd like to try is something where we BOTH roll a check, the PC in the open and me (the DM) in secret. If the rolls don't match even/odd (I roll even, they roll odd or vice versa) the higher roll stands. If the rolls do match even/odd (I roll even, they roll even, etc), the lower roll stands. This means if they roll a 20 I can't trump it with a 1, or if I roll a 20 and they roll a 1, they get the 20.

Do you think this is a valid mechanic or is there a flaw in game flow, math or the like to consider?

Or should this be more of an Opposed Roll situation?

 

[Astrosicebear]

This is more a matter of the metagame bleeding into the roleplaying. You can try to easily solve this by rewarding inspiration when players roll low on such checks, and roleplay accordingly. Conversely, Ive seen all too often where other players jump in, knowing the roll was low, and try to roll to get a better result. Dissuade this by informing the players that any subsequent rolls will have disadvantage.

 

[drowdude]

It seems to me that your method is still effectively taking the player out of the equation for the most part. Since you are rolling in secret, the only time they have any sense of having accomplished anything with their roll is if it happens to be a 20.

If it is an important conversation/interaction and your players can't be trusted to keep the metagame out of how they roleplay, you should really just roll in secret (since really, that is effectively what you are doing anyways).

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Good suggestions! I like the Inspiration perk and Disadvantage penalty idea a lot! Keeps it simple for me.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Also, dont forget that a low insight roll is a perfect opportunity for misinformation, or red herrings.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Go with the opposed roll. That way, if the player rolls low, then they might still succeed if you roll even lower. It keeps all of the uncertainty, without also invalidating the player's die roll half of the time.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Yeah I like the opposed roll option

 

[Riley37]

If you go with Opposed Roll, then apply the NPC's CHA modifier. Still, if the player rolls 1-5 then they know the info from Insight is unreliable, and if they roll 15-20 then they can be confident unless they know the NPC has high CHA (which is a reasonable guess if the NPC is a king, a successful merchant, a troubadier, etc.).

As a player, if I get to design my character for high Insight (or choose other abilities instead), and if I choose what my PC says and when I pay extra attention for Insight - then that's enough choice for me. Whether I roll the d20 or the DM rolls, is not a big factor in my sense of control, because I don't choose die roll results anyways.

Though I'd be happy to roll the d4 for Guidance...

 

[GMMichael]

Rolling on the GM's side of the screen is best.

Saelorn's got the next best: roll for the NPC, and the result sets the DC.

Finally, you can let the PC roll (for effect), and just compare the PC's Insight bonus to the difficulty (see the table). IF the PC's bonus exceeds the difficulty, AND he wants to roll, then you can let him auto-succeed.

 

[the Jester]

One thing I'm always trying to deal with as a DM are skill check rolls where I want there to be uncertainty about the outcome.

>snip<

Or should this be more of an Opposed Roll situation?

First of all, Insight checks should almost always be opposed IMHO.

Secondly, Insight is one of those things that should almost always be rolled by the DM for exactly the reason you're having this conundrum, again, IMHO.