Pre-Rolling Certain Opposed Checks

Satyrn said:

Yes, we do like to roll dice. That's actually why I don't like your OP's options 1 and 2 very much either, but would be totally fine with giving them a go because it could prove to be good enough.

But as a DM, my solution to the stealth example in your quote is to have the player wait to roll the dice until there's a moment when they are about to get spotted, not when they start hiding. This way, the player learns, his character learns, and I learn how well he's hidden at the moment it truly matters.

Click to expand...

I've already implemented that for Stealth; I just included it as an apt example for those who don't do it that way. Can't really do that with Insight though.

MechaPilot said:

I've already implemented that for Stealth; I just included it as an apt example for those who don't do it that way. Can't really do that with Insight though.

Click to expand...

I suppose that depends on how we think about it. In case you're not following all the posts in the concurrent thread on Insight checks to determine truthfulness, one of the things I mentioned might be useful here:

iserith said:

Getting back to telling truth from lies, here's how I view this as a DM: A lie in a social interaction challenge is similar to a trap in an exploration challenge. If you're telegraphing traps in an exploration challenge, you should be telegraphing lies in a social interaction challenge. Players engaging with NPCs and always trying to discern their truthfulness is the same as players searching for traps everywhere - they are trying to avoid gotchas. Consistent telegraphing takes that away since a truthful NPC will not be telegraphing lies.

So, if an NPC is lying, telegraph it by having the NPC give information that contradicts information the PCs have previously gathered. Have them change their mannerisms, display body language, or the like. The players may think, based on the DM's description, that this NPC is probably lying. Just like they may think the scorched floor in front of the dragon statue suggests that the statue is probably trapped. Rather than give away the game, all this does is invite further exploration and social interaction - searching for and figuring out the trap or trying to see what the NPC is lying about and why - to verify their assumptions. Which is what we want, right?

Click to expand...

I would say that may blunt any concern over hiding Insight checks from players, unless you can think of other situations where it's ideal for them not to know the result.

MechaPilot said:

I've already implemented that for Stealth; I just included it as an apt example for those who don't do it that way. Can't really do that with Insight though.

Click to expand...

There are times when it won't work for stealth, too. Like, if the DM decides that a guard who spots a hiding character is going to pretend like he doesn't, that stealth check in the moment will give away more information than you want to.

So those are the times when I'd go to the guard rolling against the character's passive Stealth, and just accept that the player doesn't get to roll the die this time. It's a corner case that shouldn't come up too often - but if it does hopefully I figure out way to make it work with the player rolling instead.

Of course, for those rare times, instead of using a passive score your options 1 or 2 will work fine, too. It's just not my preference as a DM.

As a player, now that I know that the pre-rolls would be a backup instead of your go-to, that you'll be looking to create ways for me to roll the dice, I'd be cool with either option 1 or 2.

iserith said:

I suppose that depends on how we think about it. In case you're not following all the posts in the concurrent thread on Insight checks to determine truthfulness, one of the things I mentioned might be useful here. . .

Click to expand...

I don't telegraph traps, unless they're lethal (and then, only because character death just bogs things down).

Ugh, all that seems not only time consuming, but too close to railroading.

I don't see how any of it a concern, I don't ask for die rolls until they actually mean something. So by the time a player is making a roll, they have already decided what they are doing or have done.

As pointed out, you don't make a stealth roll when you start acting stealthy, you make the roll when their is something to determine. 'The sneaking character has moved close enough to the orc outpost they might be heard, now you make a roll and see if they were heard.'

Again, you only make rolls when their is an uncertain outcome. And, imo, I almost always use passive perception for NPCs when characters are being stealthy, etc.

I’ve used this after another DM used it on me. He just asked for five rolls and applied them as needed.

I quickly dropped it when I was DM as it wasn’t worth the hassle.

As player I didn’t care either way that this was used. As a DM I just found this to be yet another thing to track.

If the result doesn’t have immediately obvious consequences I usually don’t see a point in the roll in the first place.

For the people suggesting there is no reason to hide rolls, how do you deal with things like searching for traps? The player thinks there is a trap, and rolls to search for it. Don't they learn some meta knowledge if they see the result of the roll? If they roll high and the DM says they don't see anything, they will trust that info far more than if they hear the same thing after rolling a 2.

Springheel said:

For the people suggesting there is no reason to hide rolls, how do you deal with things like searching for traps? The player thinks there is a trap, and rolls to search for it. Don't they learn some meta knowledge if they see the result of the roll? If they roll high and the DM says they don't see anything, they will trust that info far more than if they hear the same thing after rolling a 2.

Click to expand...

First, the player can't decide to "roll to search for it." The DM's the only one who can decide if there's an ability check, after the player has described an action along those lines that has both an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure.

So let's say there is no trap. The player describes the search. The DM then narrates the result that there is no trap found without a roll, perhaps noting the time it takes to search (and all that may entail).

Let's say there is a trap. The player describes the search. The DM determines the outcome of the search is uncertain and (most importantly) that there is a meaningful consequence of failure. Meaning, that if the player fails the roll, something happens. The rules suggest "progress combined with a setback" as an potential adjudication for a failed check, which might mean for example that the trap is found, but the character's foot is on the pressure plate, setting up the next complication in the scene. "What do you do?"

That is the key distinction here. Something must happen. If the player rolls poorly and the DM just says "You don't find any traps," then you are right in thinking that the player may decide the roll carries with it some information that might be useful. If you have the character's effort end up putting him or her in a spot, then now the action moves forward without any of that "metagame thinking" influencing the remainder of the interaction.

"Metagaming" as some call it is almost entirely the fault of the DM and can be prevented via the adjudication process (and by changing up monster stat blocks).

My main concern would be, since the rolls are known ahead of time, behavior might be altered to line up certain checks with certain rolls, in order to get a more desirable result, however unintentional.

Counter example: what if a player made a bunch of rolls ahead of time, recorded them, and just had them on a sheet in front of them. They know their mission is to sneak into guarded area by a market, and convince a noble inside that they're in danger. They see their next rolls on the list are 3, 17, and 18. Given this information, they might be tempted to choose to attempt to fast-talk a merchant on the way out of a piece of fruit, knowing they'll fail and it'll be of little consequence, in order to know they'll have good rolls for their next Stealth and Persuasion checks. A good player would never intentionally do this, but the tempting option is still there, as is the possibility of feeling like they might be accused of doing so if they get particularly lucky.

A way to get around this might be to put the paper in an envelope, and slowly slide it out to reveal the next line as needed. Someone who is really good at memorizing strings of numbers might still be in danger of remembering the pattern, even if you start with the first 1d8 or so ignored to have a random starting point.

One alternative, if you want the ability for players to roll and randomly determine events, but not have enough information to know whether that passed or failed, a modification of #2 might work. Determine a random order of the numbers 1-20, then make a 1-20 table for them on an index card, then consult that when the player rolls. If you're worried about them learning that a 13 on the die is usually a failure and a 5 is usually a success, make multiple cards, flip to the next when used, and periodically shuffle. Actions are still declared and committed to before a check is made, the results are still determined randomly by the player on a fair die roll, but they can't presume how successful it was just on the number before you have a chance to narrate the outcome.

"As a player, how would you feel about this practice? What would be your concerns if it were implemented at your table?"

I would simply tell the GM "just choose the outcome you want, saves time and hassle." if this were suggested. It seems very much designed to move more power to the GM blind-to-player-side and so let's stop pretending and just hand it over, accepting that on occasion the GM will let us make rolls that matter but the rest of the time it's the GM choosing.

"As a DM, what do you think of the idea?"

As a GM, not bringing value to my table. I see zero value in telling a player their experienced thief has no idea if they are being quiet or noisy or an investigator if they got a clear and thorough read of a scene or an experienced tracker if they are confident that a gang of orcs trekked thru here or not or an experienced guide if they are aware that they are definitely in track or if its iffy, signs unclear, landmarks vague.

In my games, I have the d20 roll itself reflected and described narratively in terms of the bits and fluff of a scene that tells you how well it seems to go. We have seen it done for ages right? Player rolls a two the attack may be described as wildly off, or slip on floor or something else which shows how it wasnt close. But a roll that misses by one we describe as glancing off Shield, clipping some fur.

I do the same for every roll for ability checks too.

A high roll gives you a narrative that sets up a hood effort and good circumstances. A low roll gets a description that shows poor circumstances unclear signs, inconclusive tests.

So you roll low on your stealth check, you hear a twig snap as you move in, or you realize the ground clutter or loose creaking floorboards are not very promising.

That moment of realization of course does not have to wait for a guard to be right there before it occurs. It's likely over much of the house or the dry ground clutter is fairly widespread - unless they swept it all up and stacked it in piles around the guards - lol.

So, having that poor result happen during the times even whrn guards are not there to hear provides info, intel description that the character can use.

Sure they can decide to press on, maybe thinking their roll of 5 plus their skill is enough. Maybe they decide instead to setup a series of fake creaks to draw the guard away from his position at a key moment. Maybe they just use fake after fake yo get the guard bored so much he starts ignoring them. Maybe they decide to switch to magic to get around the circumstance.

In other words - maybe they make informed decisions based on experience and early results rather than blind guesses only made at the risk/crisis momdens.
.
Simply put - I find the more info the *characters have by dint of their aptitudes* the more engaged and considered and interactive and active the players become in the scenes and challenges.

The more I drive mechanics to blind uninformed mystery resolutions, the less they are because I have mechanically cast them in the passive participant in the scene.

All that said, knowing I rolled a 3 or 1 rolled a 17 or 1 rolled a 12 does not tell them the result... there is the matter of the DC plus all the non-DC issues. Maybe the guard has a passive 15, maybe a 7. Maybe there is an invisible imp familiar sitting guard duty with clear view - no stealth check matters. Maybe there is a spell or alarm. Maybe the orc shaman used Pass Without Trace. Maybe Hallucinatory Terrain is creating false landmarks across the valley.

I get a lot more dramatic fkavor and engagement since I removed any GM rolls and allow (require) the players to make every die roll and I describe the d20 roll narratively (and allow it to be used in decision making as a degree of confidence if they wish.)

But that's me and my group. Likely not gonna be everyone's cup of grog.