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

[redrick]

I think the "lack of trust around metagaming" is sort of missing the point. I don't hide a roll because I don't trust my players not to metagame. I hide a roll because surprises are more fun if they are not spoiled. Now, most of my games aren't built around tons of surprises, but sometimes they are, and for me, it's not fun as a player to "role-play" surprise very often. I'd rather actually be surprised. It is more immersive, and it is more fun. So, if there are perception checks and insight checks that need to happen behind a screen to make that happen, I'm cool with it. For instance, I would have no problem with a table that always rolled insight checks behind the screen.

I don't see how you can't trust your DM to roll a check behind a screen, but still trust them to GM your game. If a DM wants to railroad a game just the way they want, they don't need to fudge an insight check behind a screen for that. They just change the DC. Or they just outlaw the roll altogether. Or give the character a magic item of truth-seemy-ness.

I did see an interesting mechanic in an OSR adventure called "Slaughter Grid". This adventure calls for player perception, trap check, etc rolls to be "over/under" rolls. Basically, whenever a check is called, the DM pre-determines (either by whim or a d2) that the roll be "over" or "under". They do not tell the player. It's using 1e style percentile checks, but the basic outcome is that you either treat the check as normal, or you invert the roll, where a 1 becomes a 20 and a 2 becomes a 19, etc. An average roll is always an average roll, but when you roll a 20, you never know for sure if you just blew that check out of the water --- or critically failed. It's kind of an interesting mechanic for a dastardly trap-laden dungeon. I haven't actually used it in play.

Anyway, in summary, a DM can call for a hidden check whenever it is appropriate to maintain a degree of mystery, hopefully to facilitate fun at the table. If the DM over-uses this technique, it could be frustrating for players, and if a DM uses cover of the screen to routinely fudge player checks, that DM probably has larger issues with ceding control of the story. (In a situation where a DM can deny a roll outright, set a DC on the fly, or ret-con in a rule-breaking magic item, I don't really understand why a DM would ever need to fudge a player roll in the first place. As the DM, you control the goalposts and can move them whenever you want, if that's really what you're into.)

 

[Mark CMG]

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.

It's cool that Roll20 makes sure you have those options.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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.

Yes, there is a lot of power in learning to say "you can't pinpoint any evidence that you're being deceived" rather than "you believe what you are being told".

It's also helpful to the DM because when a player is trying to assume they are being lied to, regardless of lack of evidence or the existence of evidence to the contrary, the DM saying "you didn't find evidence of deceit" is not suddenly on the defensive stance and false accusations of metagaming that many DMs saying "you believe the statements are true" end up in - in which, as usual, metagaming is done in a supposed attempt to avoid metagaming (because you can't say the character is acting on knowledge they don't have without first insisting that the reason for the character's current action is the player's knowledge that they rolled poorly, rather than the character's gut feeling that they are being lied to).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

To elaborate. On reading the post by Elfcrusher about Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation and insight rolls, between PC's and NPC's, might it be appropriate in a heavily investigative campaign with lots of role play, that the DM might record the above mentioned skill bonuses of each PC and actually role for them?

I'm not saying this would be something to use every time, perhaps when they were up against a particularly charismatic enemy, it could add an element to the game of uncertainty. After all, knowing your results can often allow you to figure out truth or lie via metagaming.

I like it better when players get to roll for themselves. I have a system which allows them to roll for themselves without actually knowing how good or bad the roll was. Basically, I secretly roll a d6, and on a 1-3 the player is trying to roll high and on a 4-6 the player is trying to roll low. When I call for a "secret Insight check" my players know to roll their die and report the result to me as die roll plus modifiers, e.g. "I got a 4 + 11." Then I use my secret roll to convert it into the right result, which could be 4+11=15 or 17+11=28.

 

[Umbran]

I had a DM that did this in a great way, and he only did it when the outcome of the uncertain roll would not be apparent to the character.

This is the case in which such a hidden roll is useful - when the result would not be apparent to the character.

5e has the concept of a "passive" check for just this reason - no die roll is required, so if the player misses, they never know.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think the best way to handle insight, as some others have suggested, is to:

... If success - tell the player they are confident the NPC is telling the truth/lie
... If fail - tell the player they cant work it out/get no clues/not sure. DONT tell them the opposite of what is actually true.

So the insight skill has no real downside. You will either get useful info or no info. You don't get misleading info. Exception: a natural 1 = tell them the opposite of what is true. Since this is so rare, it doesn't make the skills useless, it keeps them mostly reliable and worth investing in. But it also retains a small possible downside element.

I do get the player to roll the check secretly via FG and the dice tower (anything rolled in the dice tower only the DM sees the result). Or in person I'll roll it for them. I do this because otherwise just the result of the roll itself can tip off the player to something odd (eg player rolls 18, NPC rolls 19, both highly skilled - if player had seen the roll and got a "not sure" result with an 18, they would be very suspicious. But because it's behind the screen, they just get the "not sure" result and no inadvertent tip off).

I find this also works well for perception checks and looking for traps, secret doors, hidden loot and so on. Success = find it/confident there is nothing to find. Failure = not sure/cant tell. These checks are made in secret, again because otherwise a 19+3 (22) result vs a DC 24 trap might tip off there is something odd/raise suspicion, but without seeing the dice roll there is no "out of game/metagame" tip off. Again on a natural 1 you get the opposite of what is true (you're confident there is no trap here... boom! argh! surprise!). So the skills are mostly useful, and mostly reliable, but from time to time, you might get an unwanted surprise.

Note in our game you cannot retry the same check most of the time. There needs to be a change of circumstances before you can try again.

 

[iserith]

I think the best way to handle insight, as some others have suggested, is to:

... If success - tell the player they are confident the NPC is telling the truth/lie
... If fail - tell the player they cant work it out/get no clues/not sure. DONT tell them the opposite of what is actually true.

So the insight skill has no real downside. You will either get useful info or no info.

The DM can also adjudicate failure into progress combined with a setback. For example, you blow the check so you pick up on body language that indicates the duke is lying about his lack of involvement in a recent atrocity, but there is a moment there that the duke realizes the character knows he's lying - a potentially dangerous position to be in given the duke's clout.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The DM can also adjudicate failure into progress combined with a setback. For example, you blow the check so you pick up on body language that indicates the duke is lying about his lack of involvement in a recent atrocity, but there is a moment there that the duke realizes the character knows he's lying - a potentially dangerous position to be in given the duke's clout.

True, the "fail forward with a setback" tool is a useful option to have up your sleeve, and attaches a bit more risk to attempting the action. The PCs get that info they need, but it comes with a downside.

 

[robus]

Bah - I meant to give XP and mistapped

 

[UngeheuerLich]

One of my players asked me to roll some things secretely. He wants to be uncertain in investigation scenarios. I personally usually don't mind and roll sometimes in the open and sometimes beheind the screen. It really does not help the players if I roll openly because the often don't know what is a success for me and what is not. Sometimes It isn't even clear what I roll.