D&D 5E How do you roll, DM?

[Torquar]

In person I roll behind a DM screen, always have. When I run on Roll20, I roll openly.

 

[Lanefan]

"Succeeding with penalties" (or "progress combined with a setback") is a fail state for a check that did not succeed.

This, to me, is a part of how the game has become "easier" over time.

How?

Because 'succeeding with penalties' is still, in the end, succeeding; even though the roll says failure.

Succeeding, with or without penalties, is something that should only happen if the roll in fact says success. Failure means failure, end of story; though if that failure also happens to have penalties attached (e.g. you failed so badly on finding the trap that you in fact set it off, roll a save) that's fine too.

In broader terms, sometimes we all just have to accept and deal with the fact that there's going to be occasions when the dice just refuse to allow the story to advance; and in so doing also accept the frustration this causes in the players (and in the PCs).

But really this comes down to whether failure has meaningful consequences. If there are no meaningful consequences, there is no ability check in the first place. The character just succeeds or fails, no roll, depending on the approach to the goal in the given situation.

There's a flaw in that logic.

You say a check should only happen if failure has meaningful consequences. What about times when the meaningful consequences* are tied to success? For example, searching for a secret door behind which you-as-DM know there's a big pile of loot while the players/PCs have no idea what's there or even if there's a hidden door there to find.

From the players' position, failure almost always simply maintains the status quo without any consequences at all (in the PCs' eyes this is the case with most failed search checks) In other words, Nothing Happens. But you-as-DM know that success has meaningful consequences in that the PCs are going to gain a pile of wealth.

* - consequences that may or may not be known by the players/PCs at the time the roll is made.

 

[iserith]

This, to me, is a part of how the game has become "easier" over time.

How?

Because 'succeeding with penalties' is still, in the end, succeeding; even though the roll says failure.

Succeeding, with or without penalties, is something that should only happen if the roll in fact says success. Failure means failure, end of story; though if that failure also happens to have penalties attached (e.g. you failed so badly on finding the trap that you in fact set it off, roll a save) that's fine too.

In broader terms, sometimes we all just have to accept and deal with the fact that there's going to be occasions when the dice just refuse to allow the story to advance; and in so doing also accept the frustration this causes in the players (and in the PCs).

First, the rules of D&D 5e disagree with the notion that "succeeding, with or without penalties, is something that should only happen if the roll in fact says success..." So your argument is with the rules here. But I assume you're not actually playing this game anyway.

I would also find it strange to hear someone essentially argue that "you find no traps..." is necessarily worse than "you found the trap and your actions have set it in motion..." Or that "you find no secret doors..." is necessarily worse than "you find the secret door, but in the doing plaster falls from the wall and crashes to the floor, drawing the attention of a nearby monster..."

There's a flaw in that logic.

You say a check should only happen if failure has meaningful consequences. What about times when the meaningful consequences* are tied to success? For example, searching for a secret door behind which you-as-DM know there's a big pile of loot while the players/PCs have no idea what's there or even if there's a hidden door there to find.

From the players' position, failure almost always simply maintains the status quo without any consequences at all (in the PCs' eyes this is the case with most failed search checks) In other words, Nothing Happens. But you-as-DM know that success has meaningful consequences in that the PCs are going to gain a pile of wealth.

* - consequences that may or may not be known by the players/PCs at the time the roll is made.

There is no flaw in this logic. That's what the rules say to do. Moreover, context will tell whether there is or isn't a meaningful consequence for failure. If an offscreen consequence is determined to be the meaningful result of failure, then the DM narrating a failed check as progress combined with a setback is even more called for since not doing so means the players may have "meta-information" introduced into the game. Which I'm pretty sure some of you guys really don't like and mess with the dice a lot to avoid. I don't need to do that and all I have to do is what the rules say, rather than create table rules about fudging dice or phantom rolls.

 

[Hriston]

You say a check should only happen if failure has meaningful consequences. What about times when the meaningful consequences* are tied to success? For example, searching for a secret door behind which you-as-DM know there's a big pile of loot while the players/PCs have no idea what's there or even if there's a hidden door there to find.

From the players' position, failure almost always simply maintains the status quo without any consequences at all (in the PCs' eyes this is the case with most failed search checks) In other words, Nothing Happens. But you-as-DM know that success has meaningful consequences in that the PCs are going to gain a pile of wealth.

* - consequences that may or may not be known by the players/PCs at the time the roll is made.

See to me, this, what you've described here, is undesirable. The players don't know if there's a secret door. They look for one (hoping to find one?) which results in a roll. On a failure result, they don't know if there's a secret door. For me, this clunks, hard.

I never ever want to call for a roll one of the possible results of which is no change to the game state, which makes secret doors a little bit tricky. What's the meaningful consequence of not finding something you already didn't have? Things have to get worse on a failure, so I'll usually use time as a setback in exchange for finding/opening the door, resulting in a wandering monster check. How it works is I already telegraphed the existence of the door, and the players have described some action to further locate or investigate how to open it. The check decides if they succeed right away or if they succeed after ten minutes and a wandering monster check. It's clumsy in that it doesn't have much in the way of teeth. (There's only a 1 in 20 chance of an encounter.) But the risk is there.

This (your post) also reminded me of the Trick/Trap table (Table VII) of Appendix A: Random Dungeon Generation from the 1E DMG, something I've been using lately. The result of 1-5 (on a d20) is "Secret Door unless unlocated... Unlocated secret doors go to die 6, 7 below." The results of 6-7 is "Pit, 10' deep, 3 in 6 fall in."

 

[Imaculata]

I have to lean more towards Lanefan here. If you fail your search for a secret door, I don't think the outcome should be that you find it, most of the time. I get that success with consequences can be interesting (especially if it means setting off a trap), but with secret doors the most logical outcome of a failed search, would be that you are unable to find it. After all, you are searching for a hidden object and failing that search.


Of course there can be exceptions. I'm thinking of the scene from Indiana Jones and the last crusade, where his father accidentally opens a secret door, causing Indy to tumble down a flight of stairs that is revealed. To me it is all a matter of, "What is at stake?".

When a player tries to jump across a pit, then they are trying to reach the other side without falling in. Those are the stakes, and failure means those are things that could go wrong.

When a player tries to find a trap, they are trying to locate it without setting it off. But if you don't know where it is, setting it off is very much within the scope of things that can go wrong.

When you are looking for a secret door, you are trying to find out how to trigger it, preferably without taking all day, and without making too much noise. So those three things are the stakes. A failed check means you either don't find it, or you take very long, or you draw unwanted attention, or some other setback that seems appropriate given the way the door is hidden. If all it takes is leaning in a chair to open the secret door, then it seems reasonable that it might be triggered even though you failed to find it. Most of the time though, not finding it at all seems like the most logical outcome to me.

But to sit in Iserith's chair for a moment (and not leaning back), that may not be the most fun way to move the narrative forward. Sometimes finding a thing by accident can make for a more enjoyable story progression. I try to make none of my secret doors too important, so that missing one does not halt the plot or the fun. I prefer that my secret doors retain some of their sense of mystery by not always being so easy to find.

 

[Iry]

Most of my rolls are behind the screen. However, sometimes I reveal a roll. And during dramatic moments when the roll really matters, I roll out in front of everyone.

This. Rolling in the open for dramatic moments has a massive emotional payoff for my players, since I normally hide my rolls. I often reveal it when a monster rolls a Natural 1 as well. Mostly so they can see the monster is having a bad day.

 

[iserith]

I have to lean more towards Lanefan here. If you fail your search for a secret door, I don't think the outcome should be that you find it, most of the time. I get that success with consequences can be interesting (especially if it means setting off a trap), but with secret doors the most logical outcome of a failed search, would be that you are unable to find it. After all, you are searching for a hidden object and failing that search.

Okay, the player now thinks that because he or she had to roll at all, there is definitely a secret door there and wants to keep searching. Are you okay with that? Some people are very much against this "metagame thinking" hence why they institute table rules regarding hidden rolls and phantom rolls. I personally don't care how and why players make decisions for their own characters, so I can adjudicate as failed or progress combined with a setback. If I were someone who cared about "metagame thinking," I'd always resolve with progress combined with a setback.

Of course there can be exceptions. I'm thinking of the scene from Indiana Jones and the last crusade, where his father accidentally opens a secret door, causing Indy to tumble down a flight of stairs that is revealed. To me it is all a matter of, "What is at stake?".

When a player tries to jump across a pit, then they are trying to reach the other side without falling in. Those are the stakes, and failure means those are things that could go wrong.

When a player tries to find a trap, they are trying to locate it without setting it off. But if you don't know where it is, setting it off is very much within the scope of things that can go wrong.

When you are looking for a secret door, you are trying to find out how to trigger it, preferably without taking all day, and without making too much noise. So those three things are the stakes. A failed check means you either don't find it, or you take very long, or you draw unwanted attention, or some other setback that seems appropriate given the way the door is hidden. If all it takes is leaning in a chair to open the secret door, then it seems reasonable that it might be triggered even though you failed to find it. Most of the time though, not finding it at all seems like the most logical outcome to me.

As a side note, finding a secret door and figuring out how it opens are two separate tasks, both of which may require an ability check (DMG, pg. 104). The relevant checks are Wisdom (Perception) and Intelligence (Investigation).

 

[Imaculata]

Okay, the player now thinks that because he or she had to roll at all, there is definitely a secret door there and wants to keep searching. Are you okay with that? Some people are very much against this "metagame thinking" hence why they institute table rules regarding hidden rolls and phantom rolls.

I tend to foreshadow the presence of a hidden door, so meta thinking is no issue. The players will suspect something is there regardless of the outcome of the roll. They can keep on looking if they want, but it will cost them a lot of time if they keep failing the check

 

[iserith]

I tend to foreshadow the presence of a hidden door, so meta thinking is no issue. The players will suspect something is there regardless of the outcome of the roll. They can keep on looking if they want, but it will cost them a lot of time if they keep failing the check

If time actually matters because it's tied to wandering monster checks or a countdown to doom, it's therefore a meaningful consequence (just like not hitting a monster in combat is a meaningful consequence because it means they get to hit back next turn), so I think this is fine. After all, I don't care about "metagame thinking" in this way. Others, however, go to lengths to combat this with hidden or phantom rolls plus table rules about "metagaming." None of that is necessary in my view.

 

[EscherEnigma]

Back in college, most of my rolls were "hidden", but that wasn't so much because I wanted to hide them, but because I used a DM screen to reference tables, hang notes on, and so-on, and it's a hassle to roll dice outside the DM screen.

In my one in-person game these days, dice rolls are mostly "out in the open", but that's largely because I don't use a DM screen anymore, I use a laptop, and I'm not going to roll dice on my keyboard, I'm going to use my fancy super-cool-looking dice tower. That said, there are some rolls I would hide: mostly rolls where the player(s) shouldn't know what I'm rolling for at all.

So mostly things where the "outcome" of the roll wouldn't be something the PC would be able to observe. That is to say... the PC can observe someone making a save in most cases. They can observe the orc's swing at them. They can observe most combat actions. They shouldn't be able to "observe" a random enocunter or treasure roll, only the outcome which may happen some random time later.

But I don't do it much because --for the most part-- I'll plan those kinds of things ahead of time and roll before the game starts.

Overall though, I don't find the "mystery" adds much in most cases. Counterpoint: I also don't find rolling "in public" adds much in most cases either.