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

[iserith]

So they never miss a secret door?

Sure - when they don't search for one or don't search in the right place. (There is no roll in either case.) In my group's current adventure, they have missed at least one so far and I even telegraphed it. They were more interested in other things in the scene and moved on.

In general, if they're at least searching in the area and have committed an appropriate amount of time and effort to the task, I will say their attempt has an uncertain outcome, ask for a roll, and narrate progress combined with a setback if they fail the check.

If they fail the check and I tell them there are no secret doors, then we're back to what lowkey13 is saying: That the call for a check is saying at a "metagame" level that there is a secret door. At which point, some DMs might consider kludges like saying "No metagaming!" or "No retries!" or start making those rolls for the players. I don't need to employ any of those if I just adjudicate as I described above.

 

[Bawylie]

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.

I think a lot of this stuff comes up in play, like a pipe springing a leak. And you want to patch the leak and get on with it. I get that. It makes sense. But then, instead of going back and replacing the pipe or whatever needs to happen to fix the problem at its root, some of us just continually rely on these patches as permanent solutions.

"How do you handle xyz?" With this patch.

"How about abc?" With THIS patch.

Again, I get it. I've done patching mid-game. Show must go on. But after that, I kind of want to go back and see what went wrong or where expectations and realities failed to meet and why. I want to refine my approach rather than rely on hot fixes.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

If the game is heavily investigation and interpersonal relationships (ie more so than a 'typical', for what worth that word is, campaign), then die rolling out of combat simply replaces the die rolling of combat in a more combat-oriented game.

To me, I can see how this would work, but if playing a campaign that followed a less combat-oriented approach, I'd honestly expect to see less die rolling, rather than the same amount just for social/interaction/exploration. I'd expect a more RP focused game where the players' in-character words and deeds had more of an effect than the dice.

Thus, the issue is less one of keeping the roll secret and more one of ask the player to describe/RP what they're doing/saying, and ask them to make a roll against a DC or an opposed roll that you establish in your mind with a modifier plus or minus dependent on their description/RP.

This cuts both ways of course and requires the DM to RP very effectively. By which I mean convincingly - the npc liar shouldn't be played as a cartoon liar that the players irl think "dodgy" but have to abide by the fact that their characters think he's a top bloke thanks to that natural 1.

And this is the crux, I think. To answer the original question, yes, I believe they are entitled to see their own rolls. They are not, however, entitled to know the DC they are rolling against, nor the stat block of the npc they encounter.

Making it work, in a RP heavy game really does require the suspension of meta activity (John fails his perception check with a 1, so everyone else then checks that same bit of room til there is a failure of an "acceptable" level "which means there must be nothing there after all".

That's the keeping-the-finger-in-the-fighting-fantasy-gamebook approach to RPGs which I personally dislike a lot.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

In general, if they're at least searching in the area and have committed an appropriate amount of time and effort to the task, I will say their attempt has an uncertain outcome, ask for a roll, and narrate progress combined with a setback if they fail the check.

That makes me wonder, are we maybe a little too ready to rule the outcome uncertain and call for a check? In a case where the player seeing his roll. might be problematic, we could just not call for a check, just consider how good the PC is at the task and decide one way or the other based on that and the needs of the adventure.

 

[iserith]

No offense, but ... you're just re-defining the problem. It's certainly easy to assume I play a certain way:
DM- What do you do.
PC- I intimidate him.
PC- Okay, I'll roll intimidate for you, and then fudge the dice so I can railroad you.

But that is not how our table plays.

I didn't say that was the case when it comes to your game. I'm speaking in general about how people in this thread are saying they play. "I use Insight" or the like. How am I redefining the problem?

As I've stated many times, the vast majority of the non-combat interactions at my table have *absolutely no dice rolling at all*, so I only roll dice when I am genuinely uncertain based on the encounter as to what will happen. To put it in your terms- I almost always decide based purely on roleplay- it's only when *I* am uncertain that I roll the dice. While this might be anathema to your table, its worked for my groups for, well, let's just say multiples of years. YMMV.

I'm not saying anything different. We appear to be in agreement on this point. It was my understanding you and I were discussing the approaches of other people in this thread. I was offering my approach as contrast to others, not to yours.

What I said- the OP was talking about an investigative campaign.

I'm not sure why the players should be given less certain results when resolving uncertainty simply because they're playing in an "investigative campaign." The task resolution mechanic is meant to resolve uncertainty as to outcome, not create more uncertainty in my view.

And I would posit that your approach creates problems in the interest of solving them, and would be completely unworkable at many tables. But I'm not criticizing you- just pointing out that your fixes are unnecessary.

Which problems are those?

 

[discosoc]

Players who see their own rolls are fine, but there are times when you don't even want them to know a roll is being made. It's like the classic scenario where they walk into a room and you have everyone roll "perception" and then everyone fails. They know something is there, but didn't see it, so everyone will try to come up with stupid ways to search the room without just coming out and saying that they are metagaming to find whatever it was they missed.

With social interaction, it can be the same way. Maybe an NPC is lying, but asking each player to roll "insight" basically tells them that something is off regardless of the check result. You want to be able to roll these things without tipping your hat. Some GM's pre-roll a block of numbers to reference before the session, and add the appropriate modifier when he needs a new "secret" roll. I personally use a dice roller on my phone for these checks (they really aren't common) since it's completely silent and doesn't signal that I'm actually rolling something. In both cases, you obviously need to know the players skill numbers beforehand, but that's something you should know as a GM anyway, IMO.

 

[iserith]

That makes me wonder, are we maybe a little too ready to rule the outcome uncertain and call for a check? In a case where the player seeing his roll. might be problematic, we could just not call for a check, just consider how good the PC is at the task and decide one way or the other based on that and the needs of the adventure.

I think the dice are probably overused at many tables in my experience. I've left games over how many times the DM will ask for checks, though generally that's because they're asking for checks without me having said what I want to do or asking for too many checks to resolve one thing.

I agree the DM could do as you suggest with regard to "problematic" rolls. I try to base whether or not a roll is called for based on the fiction and nothing else, however. It's easy when the player clearly states his or her goal and approach.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[iserith]

Players who see their own rolls are fine, but there are times when you don't even want them to know a roll is being made. It's like the classic scenario where they walk into a room and you have everyone roll "perception" and then everyone fails. They know something is there, but didn't see it, so everyone will try to come up with stupid ways to search the room without just coming out and saying that they are metagaming to find whatever it was they missed.

Again, this is an adjudication problem in my opinion. "Walking into a room" is most likely an action with a certain outcome i.e. you walk into the room. It does not call for a check, most certainly not a Perception check in my view. Assuming the PCs have previously established they are on the lookout for hidden danger while moving about and also haven't subsequently stated they are doing something at least as distracting as foraging, navigating, map-making or tracking, then such a situation calls for a passive Perception check, if the repeated action of trying to detect hidden dangers has an uncertain outcome.

With social interaction, it can be the same way. Maybe an NPC is lying, but asking each player to roll "insight" basically tells them that something is off regardless of the check result. You want to be able to roll these things without tipping your hat. Some GM's pre-roll a block of numbers to reference before the session, and add the appropriate modifier when he needs a new "secret" roll. I personally use a dice roller on my phone for these checks (they really aren't common) since it's completely silent and doesn't signal that I'm actually rolling something. In both cases, you obviously need to know the players skill numbers beforehand, but that's something you should know as a GM anyway, IMO.

More adjudication issues in my view. Consider this: Ask the player why he or she does not believe the NPC's story. If they can point to strong evidence of falsehood, then the character automatically succeeds, no roll. If they can't point to any evidence, then the character automatically fails, no roll. If they have some evidence and an opportunity to observe the NPC's body language and mannerisms long enough to possible determine the NPC's true intentions, then we can ask for a roll. A failed check means that the approach of observing the NPC during the interaction revealed no clues as to truthfulness one way or another. They'll have to figure it out some other way.

These are just the core resolution mechanics at work without applying additional "fixes" like rolling dice for players.