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

[the Jester]

So what you are saying is that the party can be never sure about traps?

Yes, that is exactly right.

Is the trap-finding-skill the only skill in use with which the results are alway uncertain?

Not at all. You don't know whether you have successfully used Stealth to hide until someone either reacts to you or doesn't- and even then, they might spot you and not reveal that they did so. Conversely, if you think someone's hidden, you might not know whether you failed to spot them using a Perception check or whether they really aren't there at all. There are countless examples; trying to research something using Arcana and it doesn't succeed? Maybe you failed, or maybe it's simply not possible to research.

How about crafting a weapon? Do you roll the dice for the players as well, because, you know, the swords that weaponsmithing PC made can always brake, he can never be sure?

That's entirely different. The weaponsmith can be sure, because the weaponsmith can test his work. You can see the results. You're comparing that to something where there are no results to see if A. you fail, or B. there's nothing to see.

Does a rogue in your game world never actually have a chance of being absolutely sure that there is not a trap where he or she searched? After all, the DM rolling for search traps is stadard operating procedure and whatever the DM says the result is cannot be counted on. To me, that is a really weird concept.

That's correct.

I find the concept that a rogue could be absolutely sure to be really weird, especially because, in the history of D&D, it has always been assumed that this kind of thing is kept from the pcs- at least, in my experience. And it was explicitly called out that way frequently throughout D&D's history. For example, from the closest older edition PH at hand:

To find the trap, the thief must be able to touch and inspect the trapped object. Normally, the DM rolls the dice to determine whether the thief finds a trap. If the DM says, "You didn't find any traps," it's up to the player to decide whether that means there are no traps or there are traps but the theif didn't see them.

Emphasis mine.

And it does not lead to a better immersion at all. All it leads to is that several members of the group look for traps. Continiously. Because if 2 or 3 people do not find a trap, chances are much higher that there actually is no trap. The game turns into a trap-finding fest.

Since you don't play like this and I do, you'll have to take my word that you're totally wrong on this one.

Fortunately the rogue can do other things but find traps. Sneak attack and scout and maybe know his or her way around a city. But the last time I checked, the class chassis of the rogue securely included finding traps and being able to deal with them. Obviously in your game this is not the case, because the rogue can never be sure that he is actually proficient with this skill. He just never knows. Neither does the player of the rogue.

That's a rather silly assertion. Of course he knows that he's proficient. He just doesn't know whether he was successful.

Do you do the same things for perception as well, finding hidden things and people in general?

It depends on the circumstances. If they are in combat and a goblin ducks and uses the Hide action, the player gets to roll, because he knows there is something there. If he's searching for secret doors, I'll usually roll.

Because that decreases the amount of stuff the rogue can securely do in the exploration pillar.

No it doesn't. It just makes the rogue stay immersed in the game world, because- just like Indiana Jones didn't know if he missed a trap when he missed a trap- the rogue is never 100% sure. I assure you, since I have a great deal (decades) of experience doing this- it doesn't ruin the rogue, the game, traps, trapfinding or anything else.

I get the feeling the basic skills of my rogue are nerfed in your game. You can play with this setup, of course. But a nerf is a nerf.

They really aren't. I'm one of those DMs who lets the BBEG die without acting to a single save-or-die effect if the BBEG fails that save.

Now, I'll agree that the ability of the rogue to be certain about whether there is a trap is nerfed compared to the playstyle you are used to, but I would say rather that your approach is very soft and makes things too easy for the rogue. It's all a matter of perspective.

Comparing the general use of the trap-finding ability to reading an entire module and then having problems not basing decisions on that knowledge is taking the whole question too far. You are comparing apples and bricks.

Not at all. The comparison is between out-of-character knowledge ("I rolled a 3, that won't detect anything") and out-of-character knowledge ("I'm searching the table leg" *thinks: because I know there's a scroll tube inside it*). It is the same thing.

Oh yes, fudging is indeed a long standing tradition for many DMs. But it is a tradition that causes all kind of problems. And I have yet to experience a DM who does not fudge against the players. And it is always to make the game "more interesting" or "fun". Of course DMs fudge in favor of the PCs. But even that still amounts to taking away agency from the players. I rolled that 1, I have to live with it. That's what rolling the dice is for. What do you tell the players if you fudge against them? "Oh, the monster should not have hit you that hard, but I thought it would be more fun if it did and that's why I turned a 2 into a 14." Oh, you defeated the monster, but I fudged in your favor. Do not feel that you haven't earned that victory. It was just a little fudge....".
To each their own but I do find the game to be much less exciting if there is fudging involved.

Here we are in (almost) complete agreement- the only difference being that I would rephrase your second sentence to "But it is a tradition that causes all kind of problems for those of a certain playstyle."

As I've said, I am not much of a fudger. I think the last thing I fudged- about last Christmas- was a wandering encounter check. It was late, we were winding down, the dice said "nasty encounter"- I said, nah, it's too late, we're too close to winding down and too many of us have work in the morning.

I don't recall fudging an attack roll or save since.... hm... probably the middle of the 4e days. Though, obviously

It is also funny that you expect the players to trust in the result of you dice rolls for the players if they know you fudge (in their favor or against them). Sorry, but to me, this whole concept stinks.

I have found that most fudge-heavy DMs are also much more story-focused than I am (I'm very much setting/sandbox focused). I think they have to work harder to earn that trust, but players who are story-focused players appreciate the fudging if it keeps the story on track. I think. I know that most players I have played with expect the DM to fudge from time to time and don't seem to mind, but I also know that once someone has played in my game for a while, they tend to really appreciate the fact that I (generally) don't. There are no free victories or gimmes, but they also don't get screwed because "it makes the game more fun" (which I agree is generally the motivation for a DM to fudge).

I want the story of the game to emerge from the game, I don't want the game to emerge from the story.

 

[Rhenny]

I only read some of the responses in this thread so I apologize if this was mentioned already.

Hidden rolls basically require players to put complete trust in the DM. For the right group, complete referenceless DM narration can add to the immersion and storytelling aspects of the game.

On the other hand, if all rolls are hidden and only the DM uses them to narrate the action, a part of the thrill that players get from seeing their results making a difference is lost.

In my experience playing and DMing, most players want to see the dice and see how the die influences the narration.

Personally i rarely hide rolls. I usually only hide die rolls I make to determine random events/encounters or when I need help making a decision (I.e. If a creature should try to run etc.).

Are players entitled to see all rolls? That's completely up to the table, but deep down, I believe that if a DM wants to hide rolls, then players have no entitlement to see them.

 

[Shasarak]

I prefer to let the Players roll their own dice because I have other more important things to worry about during the game

 

[Mark CMG]

I want the story of the game to emerge from the game, I don't want the game to emerge from the story.

That's well said. I've often said that story is a byproduct of RPGs rather than an integrated feature. Story elements have always been an integral part of RPGs but a story only comes out of the game.

 

[thalmin]

As DM I usually make my rolls if plain sight, and the players roll their own nearly all of the time, but on rare occasion I roll in secret. On even more rare occasion, I make the player roll where they don't know their oen result. It has nothing to do with trust. It is for story. Likewise, if there is a mystery for them to solve or a twist in the story, it is not for lack of trust that I dont' spoil the solution. I don't want ruin the end for them. It with the same respect for each other that we don't discuss New movies until everyone has seen them.

 

[Andor]

Are players always entitled to see their own rolls?

Not only are players not always entitled to see the rolls, they are not always entitled to know a roll has been made. When trying to passively notice something hidden for example.

My solution is to hand out a 3X5 card at the start of each session and have each player fill it in with their characters name, relevant stats, and about 10 d20 rolls. When I need one, I use it and scratch it out. That way PCs get to employ their own dice karma, and I don't have to spill the beans about hidden rolls, or present my players with the temptation to use meta-knowledge.

 

[Psikerlord#]

To answer the OP: No.

sometimes a bit of uncertainty makes the game better, ime.

Caveat: how you run perception, investigation, insight, bluff, searching for secret doors, whether you allow attempting some things more than once etc.... all these kinds of things need to be discussed at least briefly in your session zero/intro houserules docs - to avoid disappointment/argument later!

 

[iserith]

Oh, I don't not trust my players, I just think that when players investigate if something is the truth or a lie it can be difficult to execute such scenarios in D&D as a DM. Players out of game have an idea at least as to their success based on the result they see. For some, I think it may be difficult NOT to metagame on some level in that situation, even if they have every intention not to.

To re-phrase myself based on what you have mentioned about tools; what do you think about the idea of situational secret rolling in social situations, where the DM deliberately rolls on behalf of the player/s concealing the results in order to build suspense?

The biggest stumbling block for many groups is Wisdom (Insight). An NPC is saying something to the PCs. One of the players says words to the effect of "I try to figure out if the NPC is lying."

The DM then asks for a Wisdom (Insight) check, perhaps opposed by the NPC's Charisma (Deception) check or just against a static DC the DM sets. The player rolls very low to which the DM responds, "He's telling the truth it seems..." or "You believe him." So now you have a player that sees a low roll and the DM telling him something that might well be contrary to the result. In effect, the DM has set up the conditions for the player to "metagame" and many groups just expect that player to play along with what the DM said despite the die roll's ominous result or else he or she is a filthy "metagamer." Repeated offenses might see the DM start rolling for the players behind the screen.

There is a way around this that avoids the issue altogether. The action taken is trying to figure out if the NPC is lying (or trying to discern the truthfulness of the NPC). So the failed check result is, very simply, "You're unable to do that unless something about the interaction changes." You're not telling the player what the character believes. You're not making any dubious statements about the NPC's truthfulness. You're just saying that what the PC tried to do didn't succeed. He or she is free to believe the NPC or not - examining the NPC's body language and mannerisms just didn't help.

If the DM does things that way, there is no opportunity for "metagaming" and no need to roll for the players behind a screen.

 

[iserith]

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong on multiple levels.

The best reason to hide rolls is when you don't what the player to know what he rolled. Searching for secret doors is a great example. "Darn it, I rolled a 4! I'll try again... a 12? Ugh, one more time... shoot, I still only have a 7! Let me do it again..." ad infinitum until "I scored a 15!"

No. Just... no. That's the worst kind of metagaming and is entirely solved if the DM rolls. Then the players can choose to try again or not, but it's not a metagame choice based on seeing their crappy rolls.

Assuming that the DM is trying to falsify results is just bogus. But the fact is, the DM gets to fudge anyway!

I prefer to adjudicate differently than you suggest above so that it does not create an opportunity for "metagaming." Then I don't have to rely on the players to "not metagame." It's entirely in my control.

Player: I search the chamber for secret doors.
DM: Okay, tell me how you go about that and how much time you spend in the effort.
Player: I'm pretty sure there must be a secret door in here, so I'm scouring the walls, ceilings, and floors carefully. I try to do it as quickly as possible so that we don't linger too long here.
DM: So you start to search the chamber. Let's see a Wisdom (Perception) check - DC 15.
Player: *rolls* Darn it, I rolled a 4!
DM: Darn indeed - you find the outline of a door in the wall, but it's not clear how it opens. You hear footsteps coming down the hall... you lingered here a bit too long, as you feared. What do you do?

 

[iserith]

I think the misunderstanding about the subject in this thread is that the sort of transparency and player control of dice rolls some folks are advocating isn't required for GMs to trust their players not to metagame but is only required if players don't trust their GMs. The folks who suggest this is a matter of trust are actually arguing against their own point.

Me personally, I don't care about "metagaming" at all. I make it none of my business how a player arrives at decisions for his or her character. Do whatever you want to do for whatever reason you want to do it. You're in complete control of your character. Do as you like, I say.

A secondary effect of my method of adjudication is to remove the opportunity for "metagaming" of the sort many people are concerned about in this thread.

As a DM, I also roll everything in the open for no particular reason other than Roll20 has it set that way by default. It's had no impact on the game experience outside of letting players know by example that I do not fudge.