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

[Bawylie]

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.

Building off that, I feel there's a bit too much concern over the number on the die as opposed to the result of the action.

D&D had a binary fail/succeed setup. So if the DC is 10, an 11 and a 17 are equally successful. As 1 and 9 equally failures. But we intuit more success with a higher number (and we have a critical at 20).

So we have a weird situation where, unless the die result is particularly important, the only information it imparts is success or failure. (13A and *world make specific results slightly more important).

So on this matter, I don't care if players always see their results or not. By default, bc idc, I always show. If I were to fudge dice, or something like that, I'd be more inclined to hide some. But as it is, the only thing the die is telling is whether the action succeeded or failed. Which I'm about to announce anyway. So, whatever tension is to occur happens anyway before the die is cast.

Anyway, no harm in showing always. Some harm in not showing could be (justly or unjustly) perceived, particularly if you're known to fudge dice. But all that's a side issue as to whether or not the action succeeded or failed, which in the end, is all that matters about the roll.

Edit: to clarify. I always show PC rolls. I often withhold DM rolls simply bc they occur on my side of the screen. This isn't important though, just curcumstantial matter of location. If I play w/o screen, my rolls are unhidden.

 

[Mercule]

I'm surprised at the intensity of discussion here.

There's an ongoing tension between the "GM controls" and "players control" camps. While very few people are (probably) at either end, things often get strawmanned.

The GMs are often painted as controlling of the choices of their players and/or prone to railroading their players or otherwise being on a power trip. The reality is that they just want to be viewed as a stakeholder in the entertainment value of the game and feel that the additional workload that a lot of GMs carries, as well as the traditional role of rules arbiter necessarily give them a position as first among equals, at minimum.

The players are often portrayed as trying to overshadow other players, rules-lawyering, or otherwise disruptive of the game unless they get their way. In truth, most players just want to have fun at the table, and would be just as happy playing in a published module as in a meticulously documented custom setting. They see everyone at the table as an equal owner. (I think. I fall into the GM camp, but recognize that there's legitimacy to the other, so don't stone me.)

The worst of either camp are cheaters, prima donnas, or otherwise socially stunted. They're the outliers, though. Most folks are just trying to figure out how to have fun with friends. The Internet makes all opinions more extreme, though, and people automatically put on their asbestos skivvies when walking into some topics.

 

[Creamsteak]

My players would hang me if i even tried

On this note there is a running theme that no-matter what game I am playing or running, everyone wants to kill me. I'm always the target. It's alright to gang up on me. It doesn't matter if it's a competitive board game or a role-playing game... the goal at the table is kill me. It's a vicious cycle, because those games where I do still triumph over everyone are sweet and glorious... thus inciting more contempt for me and perpetuating it all.

 

[iserith]

Sure. Any time the dice are rolled, that's information. Heck, even the sound of rolling dice can be information (cue up the old, "As a DM, I occasionally roll dice for no reason, so that players don't assume every dice roll is meaningful" anecdote).

More importantly, assume for a second you tell a player to roll dice based on some social encounter where the result is not immediately obvious. The player will know the result of the roll. Now, there will be some indeterminate cases (rolled a 12, or a 14, or an 8, depending on the situation). But let's say the player rolls a 1, or a 20 (or some other suitably high or low number). The player (not the PC) now has information about the results of the action.

People can reasonably discuss whether or not a "good" player can ignore that information while roleplaying. Or whether or not it removes the immersive experience. However, it is hard to dispute that this is information that the player now knows. In my experience, it is difficult to cabin information gained - not impossible, but difficult, both for the player, and for the table.

Okay, that's what I thought you meant. I think that the act of die-rolling imparting "metagame" information is an outcome that stems from particular approaches only. It's just not an issue for me due to how I judge and adjudicate and, as a result, I don't have to worry about players using or ignoring that information when making decisions.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[iserith]

Well, I respect your approach, and do not deny that it is viable, but I disagree when someone says that any approach allows the game to ignore metagaming issues (as opposed to, say, minimizing them).

Let's take an example-

A player is attempting to "pool the wool over" an NPC. You roleplay, and then decide a DC check is appropriate. The player rolls a 1 (or, with advantage, a 1 and a 2). You then roleplay the reaction of the NPC. Now, the player should know, based on the roll, that he didn't succeed. So even though you have a variety of options as to how to roleplay the reaction, the player and the table know that regardless of the reaction, the actual check wasn't successful.

Isn't that predicated on the idea that the result of the adventurer's action isn't obvious? I just make it obvious. "The NPC hears you out and gives you the hairy eyeball. 'I was born during the day - just not yesterday...' she says." Or "You didn't sell that whopper as well as you could have and your approach falls short of your goal." Or "He wants to believe you, but needs more proof. What proof can you provide to complete the deception?"

In my game, the stakes are always clear. You make your goal and approach known and if I think the outcome's uncertain, you'll roll knowing the stakes. I'll either tell you them directly or they'll be obvious due to the context of the scene. That we rolled isn't going to tell you anything more than I've already told you.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[wedgeski]

This seems pretty easy to me. I'm a bit taken back by some of the extreme reactions in this thread.

I checked with my players before the current campaign started, and I now roll behind the screen on most occasions when the PC's cannot be absolutely sure of an outcome.

"Best you can tell, he seems to be telling the truth."

PC knows he has excellent Insight, and like many people would, trusts his instincts even though he may be wrong. The other person might be a great liar, or the PC simply rolled poorly, or some other effect might be in play.

This air of uncertainty certainly makes my job easier, and the players seem happy with it. If they kicked up a fuss, I'd drop the idea.

(Note that I do not adjudicate 1's as critical fails on ability checks, like I know some people do.)

 

[the Jester]

I prefer to adjudicate differently than you suggest above so that it does not create an opportunity for "metagaming." Then I don't have to rely on the players to "not metagame." It's entirely in my control.

Player: I search the chamber for secret doors.
DM: Okay, tell me how you go about that and how much time you spend in the effort.
Player: I'm pretty sure there must be a secret door in here, so I'm scouring the walls, ceilings, and floors carefully. I try to do it as quickly as possible so that we don't linger too long here.
DM: So you start to search the chamber. Let's see a Wisdom (Perception) check - DC 15.
Player: *rolls* Darn it, I rolled a 4!
DM: Darn indeed - you find the outline of a door in the wall, but it's not clear how it opens. You hear footsteps coming down the hall... you lingered here a bit too long, as you feared. What do you do?

So they never miss a secret door?

I much prefer the possibility that secret doors actually work and keep their secrets, you know, secret, but this is very much a playstyle choice. (There's the classic Prince Thrommel in ToEE thing, of course; that's probably a large part of where my approach comes from.)

 

[iserith]

Maybe. An easy example would be intimidate. Right? You either intimidate a creature, or you don't.

But what if intimidate isn't so easy? What if you tried to intimidate a creature, and you fail spectacularly, and the creature pretends to be intimidated, because the creature is going to sell you out? How are the players supposed to react when the creature is intimidated despite the "1"?

"You've definitely made better efforts at intimidating your foes. By that standard, this attempt fell short. But the necromancer throws his hands up in front of him and declares that he doesn't seek to join the ranks of the dead just yet. What do you do?"

This assumes the character's goal and approach to intimidate the NPC was articulated clearly and the DM thinks there is uncertainty as to outcome, plus we agree on the stakes. I don't just ask for an "Intimidate check" simply because the players says "I try to intimidate him..." or "I make an Intimidate check."

And, to use the example from the OP, what if you're running more of a mystery campaign?

What do you mean?

Again, if what you're doing works great for your table, then that's fine! Some people prefer playing in a world where every action has immediate and obvious consequences determined by the die roll. Other prefer playing in a world where the consequences might play out a little more ... slowly. There is no right answer- but it is wrong to assume that what works for one table, must work for all tables. Your approach absolutely would not work at my table- which is okay.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing anyone's approach. I am suggesting that particular techniques like secret rolls, rolling dice for the players, making extra rolls that don't count, or having "anti-metagaming" social contracts are techniques used to fix issues that arise as a result of a DM's approach. With a different approach, those fixes are not necessary.