D&D General A Way for Players to Roll Hidden Checks

[Hawk Diesel]

Something I have previously struggled with as a DM is how to hide the success or failure of a check from the players. Obviously, there is the hidden roll where the DM makes the roll on the player's behalf behind the screen. But in my experience, it's more fun for the player to roll their own dice. Also, if you are on a VTT, it's a pain as a DM (at least for me) to roll for the player and keep it hidden. But allowing the player to roll can ruin the fun of a check. For example, if a player rolls low on an Arcana check to determine the nature of a scroll, they are gonna assume that the info you give them is suspect. Meanwhile, a player rolling high on a perception check is going to maintain confidence that when they don't see anything in the shadows, there really isn't anything there. So how do you allow the player to roll, while maintaining the mystery of the check?

My solution, randomly invert the scale. Prior to calling for the roll, I secretly roll a d4. Evens, the scale is normal. Rolling a 15 is a 15. But if I roll odds, the scale gets inverted. A 20 is treated like a 1. Modifiers also get inverted. A +3 modifier becomes a -3, and vice versa. Now, if a player rolls high, they can't automatically assume the the information the DM provides is accurate. Likewise, the player can also get a better sense of their character's confidence in the check. Checks closer to 10 are lower confidence, but checks closer to 1 or 20 are higher confidence, even when they may be completely wrong.

Of course, this isn't meant for checks where success or failure is obvious. If you make an athletics check to clear a ravine, you know if you made it or not. But for information given to your players that could plausibly be uncertain, I've found this to be a fun system. The mystery is maintained, but the players still get to control rolls relevant for their own PCs.

I'm interested to hear people's thoughts, whether others have encountered this issue in their own games, and if there are alternative ways people have tried to address it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My preferred solution is to not use hidden checks, and to not have mechanical situations where the player knows the truth but the character cannot.

So a weak Perception check (say, rolling a 9 vs DC 10 to 15) would produce ignorance, or two+ conflicting pieces of information that the party has to try to reconcile (and for which none may actually be correct). A genuinely really bad Perception check means the players do learn something....and that something is bad.

This often requires some adjustment of GMing practice, but not dramatically. That is, for "ignorance" to be a meaningful failure result, sometimes ignorance means they don't know a good/beneficial thing is there, other times, they don't know a bad/harmful thing is there, and plenty of times they don't know that there's nothing to see/find/know/etc.; you need to be willing to ask for checks, or to furnish opportunities where players would likely do something that requires a check, when there isn't actually anything there to check for. An excessive concern with efficiency--with only asking for checks when there's something worth detecting/knowing/etc.--contributes to the "aha, we failed, so we know we cannot trust whatever he said" problem.

 

[GMMichael]

My solution, randomly invert the scale. Prior to calling for the roll, I secretly roll a d4. Evens, the scale is normal. Rolling a 15 is a 15. But if I roll odds, the scale gets inverted. A 20 is treated like a 1. Modifiers also get inverted. A +3 modifier becomes a -3, and vice versa. Now, if a player rolls high, they can't automatically assume the the information the DM provides is accurate. Likewise, the player can also get a better sense of their character's confidence in the check. Checks closer to 10 are lower confidence, but checks closer to 1 or 20 are higher confidence, even when they may be completely wrong.

If this works for you, go for it. But it sounds like a lot of work to me. You might try turning your DC into a roll instead.

Secretly rolling a d4 doesn't seem any better than secretly rolling the PC's check or secretly choosing a DC.

 

[aco175]

Secretly rolling a d4 doesn't seem any better than secretly rolling the PC's check or secretly choosing a DC.

This is a bit like what I was thinking. Sure the player is the one rolling the die, but the want behind it is useless. The DM could roll the d4 in the open, but then the players know the success. Otherwise the roll could be assumed to be fudged anyways for the DM outcome.

 

[el-remmen]

For in person games when I want a secret roll but many players (understandably) want to feel like they have some control (even if that sense is an illusion and it makes no difference to the result), I have them roll in a cup and tell me the modifier. I look in the cup. Add the modifier, and then give a little shake and give the back the die.

It is not often, but my group loves it when the secret roll cup (really a tiny flower pot I had lying around) is bust out.

 

[sevenbastard]

Also, if you are on a VTT, it's a pain as a DM (at least for me) to roll for the player and keep it hidden.

Can't you just roll a real dice off camera?

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

I've got a better way.

Take two dice. Throw them at opposite sides of the room. You and the DM have to get up and get the die and announce what it landed on. The one the player picks up is the one that actually counts; throwing the die for the DM is just a distraction tactic.

 

[Wolfram stout]

I've got a better way.

Take two dice. Throw them at opposite sides of the room. You and the DM have to get up and get the die and announce what it landed on. The one the player picks up is the one that actually counts; throwing the die for the DM is just a distraction tactic.

Ohh how about the both count. If the player picks up a dice first it’s made with advantage if the DM picks up a dice first it’s with disadvantage?

 

[occam]

Of course, this isn't meant for checks where success or failure is obvious. If you make an athletics check to clear a ravine, you know if you made it or not. But for information given to your players that could plausibly be uncertain, I've found this to be a fun system. The mystery is maintained, but the players still get to control rolls relevant for their own PCs.

I'm interested to hear people's thoughts, whether others have encountered this issue in their own games, and if there are alternative ways people have tried to address it.

I've done one of two things in the past (although, both methods were for in-person gaming):

1. Have the player roll their dice in a tray or other container where they can't see the results.
2. At the beginning of a session, have players roll a bunch of results in advance (e.g. d20s in D&D). The GM writes down the results for each player, in an order different than how they were rolled. Then when a secret die roll is required, the GM takes the next result for that player off the list. The advantage of this method is that the player doesn't even know when a die roll is called for, to avoid the "The GM's having us roll dice, my character is going to draw their weapons and look around extra good" situation. (For D&D, the introduction of Passive Perception greatly reduced the incentive for this method.)

 

[Koloth]

Some VTTs allow the player to roll hidden where only the GM sees the result. Or both the GM and player but not the rest of the party.
For an at the table answer, use a dice tower where the player drops the dice into the tower but the output tray is GM view only.