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

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

You could design a DM screen with a slot facing the players, that goes into to a chute that ends in a tray on the DM side. So when the situation calls for a secret roll, the player puts their most trusted dice in the slot and hopes for the best, while only the DM sees the result.

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

Well, if they are suspicious after a roll, it means the mystery is achieved!

And if they're overconfident on a high result, that's ok (the character knows they did their best ever) but only until when the DC was even higher and they are in for a nice surprise!

Just don't tell them the DC.

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 don't usually give false information on failure, but rather no information. This is at least the case when information is "one piece". One option here to give them a single plain wrong answer could be to decide in advance a middle-range "death number" which, if it happens to be the natural dice roll, results in a lie.

For example, you could decide that the "natural 13" is the death number. Rolls below DC give no information, rolls above DC gives correct information, but neither apply on a natural 13 which instead give false information. Change the death number each time, but keep it fairly in the 10-15 range.

When information is complex, I may use "degrees of success" on a check so that I give them partial information depending on the result. In this case it is also easy to swap one or more of the "information pieces" into a lie, so that the results are mixed.

 

[GMMichael]

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?

So I misread this earlier (but my solution stays the same). I thought Hawk said that rolling off-screen wasn't possible, but it now looks like "making the PC's roll is a pain because all the bonuses are tied into a player-facing mechanism which isn't concealable."

Rolling the DC allows the PC to roll normally but generally reduces the PC's knowledge of the quality of the outcome to when the PC gets an extreme roll, like 1, 2, 19, or 20 (and even those aren't guaranteed).

PC rolls low to determine nature of a scroll: DM could roll lower, but player gets a bad feeling anyway.

PC rolls high to see "anything" in the shadows: DM could roll higher, but there is definitely some cobblestone and a roach. Player gets a bad feeling.

So you see, either way, the player gets a bad feeling. A win for the DM, if you ask me. Even better is when a PC says something like, "I roll perception to see if there's a monster in the shadows," and the DM says, "what's your modifier?" and then ignores the result of the roll.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I'd like to clarify a few things to help contextualize why the approach I described in the OP works for my table.

So one of the things that I like to implement is degrees of success/failure. If the failure is only by a couple, or closer to a roll of ten, then yea, a player may just get a "You don't really get any useful information." But if the failure is spectacular, then yes, I think it is warranted to get misinformation.

For my table, misinformation is not an issue. The way I run my games, and with the things my players enjoy, misinformation can serve a couple of purposes. First, it encourages more engagement with the setting and NPCs. If there is the possibility that you are getting misinformation (whether wrong or intentionally misleading), it encourages players to seek out multiple sources to better understand what is more or less likely. This leads to more opportunities for role play and problem-solving.

Another place this helps is with intra-party role play. If two players get differing accounts, that encourages the players to discuss which might be more likely. By keeping the mystery as to which is more likely (by hiding whether a player rolled very high or very low), it can prevent metagaming and encourage a deeper in-character discussion. Not that I am opposed to metagaming, but I think it's more interesting if you are role playing a perspective that you actually believe as a player, rather than sensing is likely wrong but finding a way to do it because it makes sense for the character. In my experience, this has encouraged engagement.

Another aspect of this approach is that it aligns with my personal style as a DM in setting scenes. People looking at the same things can create different understandings, with different degrees of success. Ptolemy and Copernicus both looked at the motion of the stars and came to very different conclusions with high degrees of confidence, but one was right and the other wrong. To me, this kind of interaction should be possible in-game as well.

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

DCs are set prior to the roll and kept secret. And we use roll20. So if I want to roll a secret check, I have to click/make sure I'm in whisper mode, find and open the player's character sheet, find the relevant skill, roll it, and hope that I actually had whisper mode on and didn't reveal the roll to the player. With my version, I have the DC, I call for the roll, and secretly make a d4 roll (which I may use real dice, but I prefer to whisper a d4 roll to myself). It's fewer clicks and less looking around than the other way. And mentally, it's fairly easy for me to invert the axis of the dice and modifiers.

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.

For my table, this is where trust among players comes in. I play at a table where I have worked very hard to build trust that I am not fudging rolls. I don't like fudging rolls, because that is our group's social contract. This may not work at tables with a different social contract or less trust. But for our table, it works.

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

Yes, but then what's the point of using the VTT? Space on my computer desk is already at a premium. Plus, I would still have to ask for the player's modifier, and the player misses out on a chance to roll themselves.

 

[Blue]

Eh, I find this is actually the opposite of the direction I want. To me, I know when I I burn something cooking, flub a critique so it comes out harsh, to just blank on coming up with an appropriate joke for what just happened or remembering a piece of trivia. I assume that the characters also can tell this.

So if the characters are aware how well they did at something, then I can either give them a narrative about how well the roll was, or just let them see the roll. One of these takes up a lot less session time, so I use it a lot more often.

Only in the cases where you wouldn't want a player to know that a roll had been made at all, which requires that the character isn't doing anything actively in the first place, could I see this. But it seems like hoops to jump through for the small amount that both of those are true, I instead just trust my players to RP.

 

[bsss]

I don't know if I agree with the premise that the result of the roll should be ambiguous after the roll is resolved. I also try not to ever roll for the PCs. To maintain ambiguity or lies in the results, I would just rule that anyone trained in, say, Arcana gets their passive Arcana or take 10 or whatever nomenclature result by default, and the target DC remains unstated. That keeps the uncertainty alive and still allows for the character to excel at knowledge by bumping up their skill in it.

Untrained/woefully low skill compared to the difficulty? "You have no clue what this does, at a glance."
Trained, decent but not quite enough skill? "Looks like a healing potion."
Trained, beating the DC by a minor amount? "It looks like a healing potion, but something is different about it."
Trained, nailing the DC by a cromulent amount? "This is meant to look like a healing potion, but you're pretty sure it's actually magically poisoned."

Save the check --- which ought to take some time, maybe an action if you're in combat --- for "I know I want to inspect this further" and then the PC's pass/fail is unambiguous; "you don't learn anything more" vs. "oh yeah, that's definitely a healing potion... that'll also enfeeble you for an hour."

Alternatively:

I instead just trust my players to RP.

The majority of the time my players have rolled a 1 and I go "oh yeah, definitely not trapped, that is the safest door in a dungeon you've ever seen", they lean into it and open that door with reckless abandon. They're on board with the contract that they know something their character doesn't, but the character is aiming to do a thing.

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.

I do think this sounds pretty fun, though.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Eh, I find this is actually the opposite of the direction I want. To me, I know when I I burn something cooking, flub a critique so it comes out harsh, to just blank on coming up with an appropriate joke for what just happened or remembering a piece of trivia. I assume that the characters also can tell this.

Sure, but I also imagine we've all taken tests that we were confident about and ended up getting a poor grade. Or for sure knew that someone we cared about returned our feelings, only to learn they couldn't feel more differently. The system that I proposed is not used universally. But in matters of knowledge, perspective, insight, and research, where there is room to be confidently wrong, I've found it to be a helpful mechanic.

So if the characters are aware how well they did at something, then I can either give them a narrative about how well the roll was, or just let them see the roll. One of these takes up a lot less session time, so I use it a lot more often.

How often do your players ask, "Can I roll insight to get a sense of their motivations/trustworthiness?" Because mine do that a good amount. Sure, it is completely valid to let them roll openly and tell them straight. But I think it is equally reasonable to let them wonder in the same way their characters might wonder. They may get a sense about the NPC and be pretty confident about their assessment, but that doesn't mean they are right.

Only in the cases where you wouldn't want a player to know that a roll had been made at all, which requires that the character isn't doing anything actively in the first place, could I see this. But it seems like hoops to jump through for the small amount that both of those are true, I instead just trust my players to RP.

I disagree. A character may not be actively doing something. But that doesn't mean the player isn't actively wondering about something. Insight as a great example of something that is done passively, but can be actively requested for by a player. Or as a DM, I can say, "Hey, roll insight." Then they get information based on the roll and what might be reasonable given the context, but the player gets to determine how they use it without necessarily having a metagame sense of the accuracy of the information.

The majority of the time my players have rolled a 1 and I go "oh yeah, definitely not trapped, that is the safest door in a dungeon you've ever seen", they lean into it and open that door with reckless abandon. They're on board with the contract that they know something their character doesn't, but the character is aiming to do a thing.

My players do this too. I'm not saying it's wrong. But it can also break immersion, and sometimes breaking immersion can be jarring or undesirable. I tend to like my games to be as immersive as possible, and my players tend to enjoy it too.

 

[Lanefan]

Sometimes if I want a roll from someone but there's reasons to hide the existence of and-or reasons for that roll I'll just get every player at the table to roll, and only pay attention to the roll made by the player of the character in question.

Another thing I do once every few sessions is pick a (sometimes random) player and ask for a d20 roll. The player rolls, I say thanks, and we move on. Sometimes the roll is relevant in the moment (in which case on a good roll I'll narrate whatever a good roll produces), other times it isn't i.e. it's a fake.

It also helps that in our system sometimes you need a low roll (perception is roll-under) and other times you need a high roll (e.g. a saving throw against something you don't know about), which really helps to keep them guessing as they don't know whether that high roll was a made save or a blown perception.

Most of the time, though, if a roll is hidden I'll just do it behind the DM screen; and as I'm always fidgeting with my dice anyway it's hard for the players to tell if I'm rolling for anything relevant or not.

 

[soviet]

I like to use something I called a Deferred Conflict.

Basically, instead of having the player roll the dice when they take the action, they roll the dice when the consequences would be known. This lets you combine the excitement of resolving the situation 'live' and in the open while still maintaining the suspense of the unknown.

For example:

The character tries to persuade the guard who saw her sneaking into the castle that she's the secret lover of the Marquess and here with his permission. Do they believe you and keep quiet, or do they go round the corner and raise the alarm? You play out the conversation and then the guard nods and leaves. DON'T ROLL NOW. Wait for the character to carry on further into the castle, where there are more guards and fewer exits, and then have them make the roll. Did he really believe you, or not?

The character studies the ancient tomb for traps from the entranceway. You tell them the DC, they tell you their modifers, and they describe their approach. DON'T ROLL NOW. Play out the character stepping gingerly to the dias, tapping on the tiles ahead of them, listening for mechanical noises, looking for scuffs or tripwires on the floor. Then, when the character gets to the actual trap, tell the player 'there is a pit trap here' and then have them make the roll to see if they saw it.

The character tries to forge a magic sword that will emit a circle of protection against the demon the group is trying to summon. The player describes what they do, you tell them the difficulty, they tell you their modifier they have to their Forge Magic Item skill or whatever. They forge the sword and as far as they know the circle spell was successfully embedded. But you DON'T ROLL NOW, you wait until the acual demon is here and the circle is tested for real.

Clearly there are ways to overdo these things, or run them as a 'gotcha' and trap the PC into an unfair situation. Don't do that, or at least not without the player's consent.

These apply sometimes and not others. Sometimes you want to have the guard react to the attempted bluff immediately, or you want to showcase the PC's trapfinding skill in a full survey right from the entranceway, or you feel that the PC would know (or be able to test) if the circle was fully embedded before it was needed. OK.

 

[el-remmen]

I like to use something I called a Deferred Conflict.

Basically, instead of having the player roll the dice when they take the action, they roll the dice when the consequences would be known. This lets you combine the excitement of resolving the situation 'live' and in the open while still maintaining the suspense of the unknown.

I was coming to say that this is another way I handle it when I remember to (old habits and the fun of the secret roll cup die hard), esp. for stealth rolls. I don't have them roll when they start to be stealthy, I have them roll when there is a chance someone might see them or knows to look for them.