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

[the Jester]

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.

Well, as one of the guys who likes secret rolls, I'm afraid I have to dispute your theory, at least inasmuch as it applies to my group. I'm totally with you on the middle point- "Is there a need for dice at all?". But we differ on what constitutes that need. I feel that uncertainty improves the game; it certainly does for me as a player, and when I'm DMing, the fact that the pcs don't always know for sure seems to enhance things for both myself and my players. So sometimes the need to throw the dice arises because there's a chance of failure, but sometimes it arises because the players don't know whether there's a chance of failure. For example, I still roll a d20 if they search for secret doors where there aren't any.

I also don't often have players say things like, "I use Persuasion to try to talk her into letting us see the prince..." Instead, since 4e, I've tried hard to encourage them to tell me what their characters are doing, and then let me tell them when to roll a check. So it's "I try to talk her into letting us see the prince by showing her the note from the spymaster", to which I might respond, "Make a Charisma (Persuasion) check". But I usually don't make rolls on social interactions until someone says or does something significant enough to affect the way an npc sees them or interacts with them. You don't get to roll a Persuasion check to try to talk down a price just because you BS with the smith for ten minutes.

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.

I don't see that this has anything to do with secret checks. To me, "I rolled a 20 on that search check, so I know there's not a secret door here" is the exact opposite of immersion. Which isn't to say that your playstyle is any less valid than mine or any less fun at your table; we just have different preferences.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[iserith]

Here is the essential divide that you missing. The task resolution mechanic is supposed to resolve an uncertain situation to a certain one, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the success of failure of the same is immediately apparent to the player.

And when you leave the result unclear, you invite that uncertainty and, in some cases, create an opportunity for "metagaming" that some choose to fix with secret rolls or via a social contract against "metagaming."

"I roll to hit." Either you do, or you don't.

Not necessarily. The rules provide options for "success at a cost" when missing an attack roll.

Just like the rules provide options for "progress combined with a setback" when it comes to failing an ability check.

Immediate results and consequences. But the results of a "success" or a "failure" can be *exactly the same* in appearance in some situations (especially social interactions with NPCs). Now, whether you want allow that divide to be immediately known to the players by the dice mechanic or not is up to the table.

You are simply re-defining the problem. As I stated, you approach *would not work* at my table. You avoid metagaming by "resolving uncertainty" by simply arbitrarily assigning automatic success and failure based on descriptions, and then describing success and failure based on other descriptions. Which is fine! Others choose not to do this, and can avoid metagaming by other means. But if you think about it- how is the approach of just giving an automatic success (and, as you note, "telegraphing" the failure to find a secret door) any less fudge-y than the secret mechanics that you have complained about, other than shifting the fudging to the narrative aspect?

As I stated earlier, this is just a conversation about DM and player trust. If the players trust you, then they trust you to adjudicate the actions fairly, regardless of whether you roleplay them, adjudicate them based on narrative, roll it behind a screen, or have them roll it with unknown DCs and modifiers. It's all the same, in the end, because good tables are good, and bad tables are bad. I know, profound, isn't it?

The fictional circumstances are the agreed-upon reality. The task resolution mechanic exists outside of that. You can't "fudge" reality. You can only describe it adequately or not.

As well, it is possible to examine different approaches without assuming the people examining them are making some kind of statement about how it's wrong to play that way. It would all save us some time typing if we didn't have to constantly say "It's my preference, therefore it can't be wrong!" or "This is just my analysis - play how you like!" That is self-evident. The topic was about secret rolls by the DM on behalf of the players. I'm examining why DMs feel the need or desire to do this by taking a look under the hood at how they adjudicate. Those who are on the fence about it may decide that changing the way they adjudicate is preferable to the alternative (and beneficial in other ways, too).

 

[discosoc]

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.

It's not an example I have a problem, but I used it because I've seen it come up *a lot* at gaming tables, so I figured it was an easy one to use as an analogy. My point still stands: players don't always need to know that a roll is being made.

 

[iserith]

Well, as one of the guys who likes secret rolls, I'm afraid I have to dispute your theory, at least inasmuch as it applies to my group. I'm totally with you on the middle point- "Is there a need for dice at all?". But we differ on what constitutes that need. I feel that uncertainty improves the game; it certainly does for me as a player, and when I'm DMing, the fact that the pcs don't always know for sure seems to enhance things for both myself and my players. So sometimes the need to throw the dice arises because there's a chance of failure, but sometimes it arises because the players don't know whether there's a chance of failure. For example, I still roll a d20 if they search for secret doors where there aren't any.

Is it possible to have a feeling of uncertainty in the game without said uncertainty reinforced or established by a task resolution mechanic meant to resolve uncertainty?

I think so.

I also don't often have players say things like, "I use Persuasion to try to talk her into letting us see the prince..." Instead, since 4e, I've tried hard to encourage them to tell me what their characters are doing, and then let me tell them when to roll a check. So it's "I try to talk her into letting us see the prince by showing her the note from the spymaster", to which I might respond, "Make a Charisma (Persuasion) check". But I usually don't make rolls on social interactions until someone says or does something significant enough to affect the way an npc sees them or interacts with them. You don't get to roll a Persuasion check to try to talk down a price just because you BS with the smith for ten minutes.

Cool, cool.

I don't see that this has anything to do with secret checks. To me, "I rolled a 20 on that search check, so I know there's not a secret door here" is the exact opposite of immersion. Which isn't to say that your playstyle is any less valid than mine or any less fun at your table; we just have different preferences.

That's the opportunity to "metagame," right? Created by the DM's method of adjudication in my view.

At my table, if there's no secret door in the room, then the character doesn't find one after adequately searching, no roll. You would have never rolled that "20" at my table and taken no hit to your "immersion."

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[the Jester]

That's the opportunity to "metagame," right? Created by the DM's method of adjudication in my view.

At my table, if there's no secret door in the room, then the character doesn't find one after adequately searching, no roll. You would have never rolled that "20" at my table and taken no hit to your "immersion."

See, to me the opportunity to metagame is the fact that there was no roll.

The crux of the way I look at it is this: If I, personally, was in a ruined castle in Europe somewhere and I searched around for secret doors on a lark but didn't find any, how sure would I be that there weren't any?

 

[Bawylie]

See, to me the opportunity to metagame is the fact that there was no roll.

The crux of the way I look at it is this: If I, personally, was in a ruined castle in Europe somewhere and I searched around for secret doors on a lark but didn't find any, how sure would I be that there weren't any?

But you're not doing that, you're playing a game. Say your character does search a ruin for secret doors (telegraphed or otherwise) and without me asking you to roll, I inform you of your failure to find any.

Can you still be sure, via metagaming, there are none? Perhaps you're searching the wrong place or wrong time. Perhaps the doors are visible to those with dark vision only. I mean, there's a number of reasons you could conceivably fail to find any, apart from "there are none."

So what does the no-roll failure really say? That your attempt to find secret doors didn't succeed. That's all.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[iserith]

*whoosh*

Unkind.

A person described what they do. You decide the result based on your interpretation, without dice. Whether you want to or not, you will fudge. The players miss a secret door. You "telegraph" that they missed the secret door. You have fudged.

You are not omitting secret rolls, my friend. You are just making most of them in your head, and then narrating the results. I don't have a problem with that. That's, as you put it, cool cool.

But don't try to tell people that use secret rolls that your approach is somehow different. Whether you are rolling in your head, or behind a screen, you are doing the same thing.

I'm not certain you're familiar with what "telegraphing" is based on your usage. If you're referring to the example I cited from a recent adventure I ran for my group, you may have misinterpreted my meaning. I telegraphed the existence of the secret door when I described the environment. They did not interact with the clue that telegraphed its presence and did not search the chamber for secret doors in general. Thus, they never found it. You may have taken it to mean I indicated they missed a secret door after they left. I did not. Please tell me if I'm reading you correctly.

As far as the "fudging" goes, one of the basic roles of the DM is to listen to what the player wants to do and then decide if it succeeds, fails, or if there's an uncertain outcome and thus a check. If there is a check, the player rolls it and then the DM narrates the result of the adventurer's action based on that result. There isn't any fudging going on here. This is just the basic resolution process.