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

[Warbringer]

entitled - no.

Know the roll, but not the outcone - sure (DM doesn't have to tell you what you need to roll)

 

[Mark CMG]

What I'm asking is: How does letting them try when the outcome is always going to be failure benefit them, the DM or the game?

As I just mentioned, there can be some circumstances where simply telling them one particular approach is impossible would discourage them from trying other approaches. Of course, you do understand that my method doesn't preclude a GM from sometimes doing things with a simple narrative. However, your approach takes my method of resolution off the table entirely. I prefer more options on the table when GMing rather than fewer.

 

[Sunseeker]

As I just mentioned, there can be some circumstances where simply telling them one particular approach is impossible would discourage them from trying other approaches. Of course, you do understand that my method doesn't preclude a GM from sometimes doing things with a simple narrative. However, your approach takes my method of resolution off the table entirely. I prefer more options on the table when GMing rather than fewer.

Wait wait, we're talking about two different things. I wasn't saying "Arcana won't open the door." I was saying "The door is beyond any skills of yours to open." The fact that you can't bash the door down isn't the same as the door being impossible to open at all. We're not even talking about the same things here.

I was talking about an obstacle where there is no chance of success through any means. You're talking about an obstacle that precludes success through certain means. But isn't that true of all obstacles? Only certain methods are available to begin with? Arcana won't help you track a wolf, but neither will Survival tell you how to activate a magical rune.

I was talking about an object which has no resolution. You're talking about an object with selective methods of resolution. We're not even on the same page here much less even reading the same book. Jesus no wonder I had no clue what you were going on about.

As an aside: tough beans some methods don't work. I'm going to be honest with a player that the giant stone door can't be opened with arcana. If that means they're so discouraged as to be unwilling to try anything else, then hot doughnuts this guy is easily defeated.

 

[Mark CMG]

Wait wait, we're talking about two different things.

In a way. In that you're bringing up specifics that favor your method for a GM to adjudicate a situation and I am suggesting that my method leaves open the possibility of using your method while still allowing my method which allows for a broader range of circumstances.

As an aside: tough beans some methods don't work.

I guess that's one way to see it.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Well, the situational secret rolling implies that your players will metagame rather than roleplay the result of the roll

That can be dealt with by defining failed results as "You don't know" rather than "You think the opposite."

For example, the vizier has a deception roll of 17. If the player rolls over 17 for their insight, tell them "You are pretty sure he is lying", otherwise tell them "You can't tell either way."

The possibility of metagaming comes up when on a failure you tell the player "You are pretty sure he is telling the truth". Players might go, "oh, I rolled a 2 and the GM tells me the vizier is telling the truth, that means the vizier is really be lying."

Additionally - the GM might not even ask for a roll. Some things automatically succeed and some things automatically fail. Rolling should only happen when there is a chance of failure *and* a cost of failure.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

That does not make any sense to me. The very fact that you, the DM, is rolling for me suggests that there is something fishy and that whatever result you say cannot be trusted. Or are you rolling for me all the time? Otherwise: where is the difference?

I'm having a hard time figuring out what about "being surprised with the outcome of a scene can be fun, cool and some people enjoy it a lot" is so difficult for you to understand. I've found that my players enjoy it and I also enjoy it a lot. Saying "I sneak past the orc soldiers" without actually knowing if they're going to find me until it's time to roll the initiative improves the game to me.

Maybe you're not thrilled about it, but it has nothing to do with bad DMing, it's just your personal taste. Nobody here is advocating that the DM should use that to fake the results. If you don't like being surprised by the outcome of your actions, more power to you, but other people may want something else.

 

[Goolpsy]

hmm people seem very set in their ways and distrusting of others When I play, I do so with the best of my friends and we always have a great time.

As for the topic: (Disclaimer -because apparently necessary: This is my own view and what we found creates the best experience overall)
Are the players entitled to see all their own rolls? No
Is it best for the game to see all DM rolls? Definitly No.

As I see it, dice rolls are there for dramatic resolution. Make them too mundane and it feels like a drag, at the same time they do not have to always be 'existence altering'.
The main question to ask yourself is, what would give the best effect?

Things like attack rolls should always be rolled by the player. It is those moments where hit or miss makes a huge difference or even as you roll damage after a critial, that keeps everyone at the table at the edge of their chairs.

As for hidden player rolls, most of it have been resolved, in 5e, by your passive abilities.

As for hidden DM rolls; Imagine you venture a dungeon and the DM makes a dice roll behind his screen. In that moment everyone has total focus, and await the unprovoked results. Is it a trap? is it wandering monsters? This can be used to even greater dramatic effect, by not telling the players anything (Either because you rolled in advance, or you did it to make them tense).
Imagine how dull a thriller would be, if treebranches could only blow against the window when the protagonist can see it's just a branch.

I think for most of us, Roleplaying is not about rolling all dice in the open World of Warcraft style. It is about telling and taking part in the same story, whichever way that makes it more immersive.

 

[Mercule]

For the original question, I'd say "No" in an absolute sense, but "Maybe" for any given table. Let me elaborate....

Do I trust my players to not metagame? Yup. On the flip side, they trust me to treat them fairly. It's all about what the players want from the game. I've gotten been told to pass more notes because the players wanted to keep a sense of mystery about things. They just find it more fun. Fortunately, I tend to agree. So, yeah, I hide rolls from them: stealth, perception, knowledges, sometime even saving throws ("am I or am I not a werewolf, now?"). That's the game my group, as a whole, wants to play.

Really, it's like watching a detective movie. Some movies show both the hero and the villain, such that the audience has all the information long before the sleuth. Others will hide information from the viewers, such that the "big reveal" is guaranteed to catch the audience by surprise and impress us with the cleverness of the protagonist. Still others at least make the clues available to the audience, even if they aren't called out directly, such that watching the show is something of a participatory experience. Each has its fans -- most people like two styles, if not all three.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having every die roll in plain sight. It's a totally valid experience. If you're doing it because the group doesn't trust the GM, then there are issues at play, but that's not inherent in the "open" play style.

There's nothing wrong with the opposite, either. I've ran a WoD game where the players didn't even see their character sheets for a year. I stated the characters up based on the prelude and gave the players a short write-up. I spent XP based on what they'd used and/or what they studied in character. I rolled all the dice. It was a good way to introduce a new group to the system and keep the mystery that goes with a slow reveal of the supernatural world. Again, if it's a GM power trip or because he doesn't trust the players, then there's a social issue.

Most games exist on a spectrum, though, just like most dramatic shows. Some "meta" elements are open and others are secret. When running published modules, I've made reference to "the edge of the map" when we've decided that it's beer and pretzels (thus, I'm not creating new areas). I've also passed notes that read "Nope. Detect magic doesn't show anything." My main rule of thumb is that anytime the PC wouldn't know whether they succeeded until it bit them in the butt (stealth, perception, knowledge, insight, deception, etc.) happens behind the screen. That's the way almost every GM I've ever run with has done it.

Notes are more of an art. I've figured out how to use a soft voice and weave commentary into the players' conversations in a way to account for character madness, possession, or even when one PC is picking another's pocket. Most of the time, I do that to augment any note passing. I'd really love to have someone come and watch a session, sometime, though, to see just how many secrets I hide in plain sight.

What I'm asking is: How does letting them try when the outcome is always going to be failure benefit them, the DM or the game?

In a word: immersion. Some players like having to figure out the right answer on their own. If you eliminated everything that doesn't work, it's the same as telling them what will work, which reduces it to just checking the boxes and rolling the dice. For myself and at least one of my players, one of the big reasons why we play TTRPGs instead of (just) video games is that a video game often has a "tell" on what actions are acceptable.

 

[Sunseeker]

In a word: immersion. Some players like having to figure out the right answer on their own. If you eliminated everything that doesn't work, it's the same as telling them what will work, which reduces it to just checking the boxes and rolling the dice. For myself and at least one of my players, one of the big reasons why we play TTRPGs instead of (just) video games is that a video game often has a "tell" on what actions are acceptable.

But you don't need the dice for that. A player can, as I noted above simply say what they're going to do (which is what I require of my players before they roll the dice) and I can simply tell them the outcome. Letting them roll the dice leaves that slim hope that a higher number will cause them to succeed, which just results in more rolling and more of me having to tell them, "no, it didn't work", then comes the inevitable nat 20 on the skill and they assume it must work because a nat20 means "you win" and I have to once again tell them that no, it had no effect.

At some point you either have to say "*skill in question* won't work at all." or you have to let them keep rolling until boredom and futility set in.

If your door has no tells then I can understand why players are going to roll themselves into a pit.

A heavy steel door has a tell, it's right there in the name. "Heavy steel door". Just as much as "door with magical runes" or "door with big obvious keyhole".

You inevitably will have to tell them what does or does not work. The alternative is an obstacle which cannot be overcome. In which case the only thing to figure out is that you just spent a whole lot of time figuring for nothing.

 

[Mercule]

But you don't need the dice for that. A player can, as I noted above simply say what they're going to do (which is what I require of my players before they roll the dice) and I can simply tell them the outcome. Letting them roll the dice leaves that slim hope that a higher number will cause them to succeed, which just results in more rolling and more of me having to tell them, "no, it didn't work", then comes the inevitable nat 20 on the skill and they assume it must work because a nat20 means "you win" and I have to once again tell them that no, it had no effect.

It's a judgement call. See the rest of my post.