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

[Giltonio_Santos]

To me, it's not a matter of metagaming; I believe my players are mature enough to properly roleplay whatever they get from the dice. Still, I hide those rolls because I (and my players, also) like the surprise effect. How the players feel about the game is very important for me, and I know that something is lost in the moment where they are 100% sure that there's no trap down the corridor because they know the rogue rolled a 20. As always, YMMV.

 

[TheFindus]

Of course the players are entitled to see their own rolls.

The roll of the die resolves uncertainty. That's what it is there for, last time I read the rules. Not letting the players see their own rolls does not resolve uncertainty but creates even more. The players are left in the dark intentionally. If a DM makes the rolls for the players and does not tell them the result, he or she does not trust the players to play the game accordingly.
This kind of behaviour is absolutely bad DMing in my opinion and should be discouraged at all costs (for example by leaving the table and not returning). A DM who wants to roll the dice by himself or herself should play the game by himself or herself. No trust, no game.

 

[TheFindus]

To me, it's not a matter of metagaming; I believe my players are mature enough to properly roleplay whatever they get from the dice. Still, I hide those rolls because I (and my players, also) like the surprise effect. How the players feel about the game is very important for me, and I know that something is lost in the moment where they are 100% sure that there's no trap down the corridor because they know the rogue rolled a 20. As always, YMMV.

Really? Then why let the rogue roll the dice in the first place? What is the function of the rogue in a group if not be sure there is no trap (or be sure there is one) with a "critical" success? What exactly is that "something" that is lost? That a DM cannot play a dirty move on the players even though they rolled high? That his or her precious trap will not work? We all have to live with the result of the dice rolls, don't we?
This is really mindboggling to me.

 

[Shiroiken]

If you want to introduce uncertainty, there are two good ways to do it.

1) Hidden rolls, where the player doesn't know the result. This is not a bad thing assuming the players are fine with this. I was in a group that ran a game where the DM rolled everything, and the players knew nothing (not even current HP). The players had a great time, and I'm sad I missed it (my work schedule changed).

2) Use more Passive checks. Players earn no knowledge, and it speeds up the game by having only one roll, rather than two. This is my preferred method.

 

[Mark CMG]

If the players' characters should not be aware of the result, such that there are circumstances of which the characters would not be aware, the GM is the only one who should be privy to the result. The OP question might be better phrased to recognize that players' characters are interacting with a setting and as such the players really do not have an exclusive on any dice rolling. It is ultimately up to the GM who gets to see the result of any dice rolling because the GM is the adjudicator of circumstances in the game and the arbiter between players (through their characters) and setting.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

The only reason to hide rolls is when you want to tell the player something false on a fail. So just don't do that. Then you don't need hidden rolls.

 

[Ristamar]

I sometimes roll secretly for a player if he or the party wouldn't immediately know the result of their efforts. This typically only applies to Stealth checks when the rogue is scouting/exploring solo. Admittedly, there are other (and possibly better) ways to handle those situations.

 

[the Jester]

To answer the question in the OP, no, players aren't always entitled to see their own rolls. In fact, in the 1e PH, there was even a suggested variant wherein the DM tracked the pcs hit points and narrated damage rather than ever letting them know how many they had. So, entitled- absolutely not. And it often improves the game to keep the roll secret.

 

[RCanine]

Really? Then why let the rogue roll the dice in the first place? What is the function of the rogue in a group if not be sure there is no trap (or be sure there is one) with a "critical" success? What exactly is that "something" that is lost? That a DM cannot play a dirty move on the players even though they rolled high? That his or her precious trap will not work? We all have to live with the result of the dice rolls, don't we?
This is really mindboggling to me.

Because if the rogue rolled a 1, he should be just as certain that there are no traps in the hallway as he would be if he rolled a 20. But we're all human, and that's pretty much never the case.

 

[TheFindus]

If a players' characters should not be aware of the result, such that there are circumstances of which the characters would not be aware, the GM is the only one who should be privy to the result. The OP question might be better phrased to recognize that players' characters are interacting with a setting and as such the players really do not have an exclusive on any dice rolling. It is ultimately up to the GM who gets to see the result of any dice rolling because the GM is the adjudicator of circumstances in the game and the arbiter between players (through their characters) and setting.

Either the circumstances you are talking about make it impossible for the roll to succeed. Or they modify the result to a certain extent. In the former case, if the DM decides that no dice rolls are necessary then no dice are rolled. In this regard the players do not have an exclusive on rolling dice (they are not the ones who decide IF dice are rolled). In the latter case, the DM informs the player about the modifiers (and might or might not give a reason for them because the PCs do not know - this is without failing forward on failed result). But if only modifiers come into play the dice are rolled, and the players get to see the result.
As a practical question: what reason are you as a DM going to give me that I must not see the result of a roll? Are you expecting me (or any player) to be unable to translate the result of the roll into a believable roleplaying representation of what is going on in-game? Do you think that I cannot distinguish between what I know and what my PC knows?
Because this is what this boils down to. Trust. And if you do not trust me to play this right, I will not trust you to roll anything for me. But if the trust is there, you do not need to roll the dice for me.