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

[Celtavian]

If your players agree to it and you can make it fun, I don't see a problem with it. If they don't agree to it, then you have a problem. No one is entitled to anything in D&D, but it is a cooperative game. There has to be agreement between player and DM for anything to happen, otherwise either party can not participate. If that happens, you can't even play.

 

[aramis erak]

To elaborate. On reading the post by Elfcrusher about Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation and insight rolls, between PC's and NPC's, might it be appropriate in a heavily investigative campaign with lots of role play, that the DM might record the above mentioned skill bonuses of each PC and actually role for them?

I'm not saying this would be something to use every time, perhaps when they were up against a particularly charismatic enemy, it could add an element to the game of uncertainty. After all, knowing your results can often allow you to figure out truth or lie via metagaming.

There are a great many cases where the rules make it explicitly clear that the player gets to know not just their own, but the GM's rolls, and then decide whether or not to apply a modifier ability, which then is followed by finding out the results.

I don't see any valid reasons that should not be the case in all rolls.

The default for the 5E rules is all rolls in the open, but roll totals not of need revealed by the GM, and results not of need revealed following the roll.

While hidden rolls have a long history — and compelling arguments can be made for their use — they are pretty clearly not intended to be part of 5E's design.

 

[Ristamar]

There are a great many cases where the rules make it explicitly clear that the player gets to know not just their own, but the GM's rolls, and then decide whether or not to apply a modifier ability, which then is followed by finding out the results.

I don't see any valid reasons that should not be the case in all rolls.

The default for the 5E rules is all rolls in the open, but roll totals not of need revealed by the GM, and results not of need revealed following the roll.

While hidden rolls have a long history — and compelling arguments can be made for their use — they are pretty clearly not intended to be part of 5E's design.

Under Dice Rolling in Chapter 8 in the DMG, it says rolling in full view is a good starting point, but I'd not call that default for all roles since it's clearly referring to player rolls in that particular paragraph. It then goes on to talk about DM rolls, both hidden and open, immediately after. The fifth bullet point even mentions rolling for players in secret "because you don't want the player to know how good the check total is."

 

[Sezarious]

I'm surprised at the intensity of discussion here. I've only ever had one bad DM in the past and my question was not meant to suggest that I lack trust in my players. To suggest otherwise only tells me that you may have had negative experiences with your DM's in the past, because I know that my players trust me completely If I wanted to roll on their behalf for the immersion. If they were really concerned about it, I would gladly photograph the dice results and show them when things were resolved in game.

In regards to why I think secret roles are just as effective or more effective than denying a roll in the first place, I always believe in giving a player the right to try, or to try again and again at the cost of time and possibly resources (with time comes hunger and thirst).

One of you mentioned that you simply disallow follow up roles for say, searching for secret doors? Before, it was indicated that if the player stands around trying again and again to succeed, it wastes time... Well maybe, unless such a simple situation, searching for something with a certain uncertainty is entertaining! Ok, so your characters might waste time in their minds, but you the player might be desperately hoping against hope for a secret door. Not finding anything after putting in so much effort might also be as rewarding story wise as the DM revealing that "You hear a click, after several hours searching the wall slides open in front of you"

Just another clarification. I don't botch results to go against my players. In fact, I'd find the insinuation a little bit insulting if I didn't think that the person who said so might have had some bad experiences with a DM in the past.

In regards to not even getting players to make a roll in the first place, the nastiest thing I did to them was have them come up to the BEBG drow sorceress who was true polymorphed into a prisoner they rescued. They didn't suspect her for a moment, only looking at her with a gem of true seeing. With her 20 Charisma, actor feat and +9 deception and the fact that they had just ripped a face hugger aberration out of her throat and the fact that they never once questioned whether she was safe, they did the unthinkable, they saved her by volunteering the teleportation circle coordinates of the elves she wanted so badly to destroy. The players role played their devastation on returning to the smoking ruins of the elves. The players themselves loved it. They were truly deceived out of game and in game and were completely caught off guard.

In saying all this, if one of the players had not trusted the sorceress and started questioning her, I was going to let them fight and possibly kill her then and there. I have no qualms with players being on the ball and destroying my bad guy's plans because it makes for GREAT story.

I'll have to look into the passive perception skill some more too . I like the idea of me keeping a tally on player hp, but not all the time, maybe when they're on another plane or something, where their senses are warped.

 

[Henry]

Our table will have some rolls by the DM on behalf of players in secret - the 5e Insight / Pathfinder Sense Motive skill is one example. If the DM doesn't want it made clear that an NPC is bluffing, rolling on behalf of the player as standard practice is to us a good idea. As a player, if I want to read someone to see if they are bluffing, and I make a 35, and I still get doublecrossed, I'm going to be more frustrated with the DM personally; if I get doublecrossed but didn't see the roll, a lot of things could have happened; they could be telling the truth, and not part of the doublecross, or they could be a phenomenal bluffer, or my character was slightly distracted and wasn't paying attention to the cues (low roll).

In other words, I the player am more genuinely surprised, instead of transferring, unintentionally, my frustrations to the GM instead of on the NPCs where it belongs. I can try to avoid metagaming, but I'm human; it's going to happen. I'm fine with not knowing.

 

[iserith]

After reading responses, I'm starting to wonder if the disagreement comes, in part, from the DM's position on the Role of the Dice (DMG, page 236). I see this as a basic difference between many DMs that can create different outcomes further down the line.

I'm more of an advocate of the "Middle Path," wherein the DM balances the use of dice against deciding on outright success and failure without a roll.

The impression I get from those who like secret rolls, social skills affecting PCs, or Investigation/Perception retries, is that an action calls for a roll just about all the time. Do a thing, make a check. Fail that thing, do it again if you like, make another check. Players, as a result, frequently ask to make checks or "use skills" as some say. Concerns over "Metagaming" arise here.

Whereas, for me, there is an intermediate step: Do a thing, DM judges whether or not the outcome is uncertain and, if so, make a check. The DMG says that "By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world." Concerns over "metagaming" don't arise as a result.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mercule]

I think the best way to handle insight, as some others have suggested, is to:

... If success - tell the player they are confident the NPC is telling the truth/lie
... If fail - tell the player they cant work it out/get no clues/not sure. DONT tell them the opposite of what is actually true.

So the insight skill has no real downside. You will either get useful info or no info. You don't get misleading info. Exception: a natural 1 = tell them the opposite of what is true. Since this is so rare, it doesn't make the skills useless, it keeps them mostly reliable and worth investing in. But it also retains a small possible downside element.

I've tended to go with the "fail by 5" rule, meaning that I give them uncertainty if the fail within five points, but misdirect them if they fail by more than that. That's consistent with things like climbing or disabling traps.

I might switch to your method (or maybe "fail by 10"). Unlike climbing and disarming, a misleading insight check isn't immediately obvious as having failed and the downside isn't some (even lethal) damage. Instead, it can potentially lead to an entire session (or more) being wasted with pointless activity. The knife cuts both ways, and I want PCs to be able to mislead and lie to NPCs successfully. I'll have to ponder it.

 

[iserith]

I think your post is exceptionally sensible in most cases. But it still doesn't fully answer the case presented.

Sure, as I said, it's only part of the disagreement. But I wonder if it doesn't get toward the heart of the matter. A fundamental difference that makes one table see things one way and another see things another way. There appears to be correlation. I'm just wondering if there's any causation.

A DM believes that some action has an uncertain outcome. A DM believes that, because of this, the outcome of the action should be adjudicated based on a die roll. However, the act of rolling dice (and the result obtained) is information. There are different ways to handle this. I think that a fair number of people have presented viable options for this scenario.

I think I understand what you mean by "the act of rolling dice is information," but I don't want to assume. Will you kindly explain what you mean by that?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*