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

[the Jester]

Really? Then why let the rogue roll the dice in the first place?

Usually in a case like this, the DM rolls.

What is the function of the rogue in a group if not be sure there is no trap (or be sure there is one) with a "critical" success?

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time taking this seriously. Are you suggesting that there is nothing that makes a rogue a valuable contributor to the party if he doesn't roll a natural 20 while searching for traps? Because I can think of tons of other functions for the rogue. Scouting ahead, sneaking away, trailing a mark, opening locks, skills in general (thanks to Expertise!), etc. In combat, you've got sneak attack.

Seriously, I have rogues in my campaign who have never checked for a trap, yet they seem quite functional and useful.

What exactly is that "something" that is lost?

Improved immersion. However good your pcs are at playing down what they know vs. what their characters know, it does make a difference, at least for every group I have ever been in. For example, if I play through a module that I've read, even if I consciously avoid acting on that knowledge, then I simply know too much about what is going to happen to enjoy that module as fully as if there were surprises in it.

That a DM cannot play a dirty move on the players even though they rolled high?

That's kind of out of line. The idea is not that the DM wants to "play a dirty move on the players even though they rolled high", it's that the players should not know how successful they were. Look at searching for a secret door- "I search for secret doors. Oh, I rolled a 7. I'll try again.".... vs.... "I search for secret doors." "You don't find any." It's not some big mean DM conspiracy to take advantage of anyone. It's improving immersion.

That his or her precious trap will not work?

Yeah, again, I think you're reading in here. I haven't read every post in the thread, but I think the general attitude of DMs who don't let the pcs know what they roll every time is more "You don't know the result" than "Yay, I can cheat!!"

Which brings us to...

We all have to live with the result of the dice rolls, don't we?

Absolutely not- if you're the DM. Fudging is a time-honored tradition. Not every DM does it, but almost every DM does it once in a while. And in my experience, it's almost always in a way that favors the pcs. Personally, I really avoid it; I don't think I have fudged since around last Christmas (and this is averaging 2 to 3 sessions per week since 5e launched), and I almost always roll in the open. Nonetheless, I roll things where the pcs shouldn't know the dice result out of sight, including many Perception and Insight checks and some other things.

If a player 'fudges', on the other hand, it's straight up cheating. There's a different standard because they are in a different role.

 

[TheFindus]

Because if the rogue rolled a 1, he should be just as certain that there are no traps in the hallway as he would be if he rolled a 20. But we're all human, and that's pretty much never the case.

That does not make any sense to me. The very fact that you, the DM, is rolling for me suggests that there is something fishy and that whatever result you say cannot be trusted. Or are you rolling for me all the time? Otherwise: where is the difference?

 

[Mark CMG]

(snip)

There are times when success isn't possible and the character won't know. There are times when success is more difficult and the character doesn't know. There are times when success is easier but the character won't know. There are times when the character will not be aware of what modifiers are at play and times when the character might be aware of some modifiers but not all of them. All of these make it best for the GM to roll certain rolls under all circumstances. As to what the player can know, that's up to the GM.

 

[Talmek]

I couldn't think of a situation where I would force my players to watch as I played some aspect of their characters for them. The whole situation feels...wrong. They have dice, they have their characters (created by their own hands and their own imagination), and for all intents and purposes they own them.

This is an extreme example, but if I were rolling for them and end up rolling a natural 1 in a diplomatic exchange and it degrades into combat where someone dies...who owns that? Do I own that because I took their dice rolls away from them? Do I just not count that roll because I rolled a 1 (but if they rolled it I would have counted it) and I don't want to cause a combat/dangerous situation?

Nah, for me there's too many potentially negative outcomes that would outweigh any potential benefits of my players being in control of their own destiny. There's enough "life" that we're all out of control of...at least give 'em that

 

[the Jester]

The only reason to hide rolls is when you want to tell the player something false on a fail. So just don't do that. Then you don't need hidden rolls.

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong on multiple levels.

The best reason to hide rolls is when you don't what the player to know what he rolled. Searching for secret doors is a great example. "Darn it, I rolled a 4! I'll try again... a 12? Ugh, one more time... shoot, I still only have a 7! Let me do it again..." ad infinitum until "I scored a 15!"

No. Just... no. That's the worst kind of metagaming and is entirely solved if the DM rolls. Then the players can choose to try again or not, but it's not a metagame choice based on seeing their crappy rolls.

Assuming that the DM is trying to falsify results is just bogus. But the fact is, the DM gets to fudge anyway!

 

[the Jester]

That does not make any sense to me. The very fact that you, the DM, is rolling for me suggests that there is something fishy and that whatever result you say cannot be trusted. Or are you rolling for me all the time? Otherwise: where is the difference?

Most DMs who roll for things like searching for traps do so all the time, even if there is no trap there. There's nothing fishy if it's standard operating procedure.

 

[Mark CMG]

Nah, for me there's too many potentially negative outcomes that would outweigh any potential benefits of my players being in control of their own destiny.

Players are in control of their actions which they bring to the table through voicing them. Sometimes those actions require dice rolls. Sometimes the players can be aware of the results of those dice rolls and sometimes they cannot. It is up to the GM to determine which dice rolls are ones the players can see and which they cannot. How those actions integrate with the setting, how the dice rolls are adjudicated, and what modifiers are at play are only wholly known by the GM. Sometimes the dice roll results are not meant to be apparent to the character or the player, but only to the GM.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong on multiple levels.

Why?

The best reason to hide rolls is when you don't what the player to know what he rolled. Searching for secret doors is a great example. "Darn it, I rolled a 4! I'll try again... a 12? Ugh, one more time... shoot, I still only have a 7! Let me do it again..." ad infinitum until "I scored a 15!"

Just don't allow that?

Player: "I want to search for secret doors."
DM: "Roll Perception."
Player: "4"
DM: "You don't find any secret doors."
Player: "I search again."
DM: "You still don't find any secret doors."

And if a player wants to continuously search for secret doors the passive perception applies anyway.

No. Just... no. That's the worst kind of metagaming and is entirely solved if the DM rolls. Then the players can choose to try again or not, but it's not a metagame choice based on seeing their crappy rolls.

I dislike metagaming myself but my players can't metagame because if they fail I just tell them they can't tell. If I say "There's no secret door" it can both mean there is no secret door or that they just didn't find the secret door. They still know as much as their character without the need to hide rolls.

Assuming that the DM is trying to falsify results is just bogus. But the fact is, the DM gets to fudge anyway!

The point is that the DM should not do this. There's no need to prevent the possibility, a good DM doesn't do it even though he could.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think the misunderstanding about the subject in this thread is that the sort of transparency and player control of dice rolls some folks are advocating isn't required for GMs to trust their players not to metagame but is only required if players don't trust their GMs. The folks who suggest this is a matter of trust are actually arguing against their own point.

 

[Sunseeker]

I always enjoy that look of realization in my players eyes when they roll a 19 in their best ability check and I tell them: "No, you do not succeed."

I have a simple rule at my table: Don't make me run your character. I'm doing enough things as DM that I really don't have the time to track your stuff as well.