Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Grassy Gnoll" data-source="post: 6728865" data-attributes="member: 6788652">If the game is heavily investigation and interpersonal relationships (ie more so than a 'typical', for what worth that word is, campaign), then die rolling out of combat simply replaces the die rolling of combat in a more combat-oriented game.To me, I can see how this would work, but if playing a campaign that followed a less combat-oriented approach, I'd honestly expect to see less die rolling, rather than the same amount just for social/interaction/exploration. I'd expect a more RP focused game where the players' in-character words and deeds had more of an effect than the dice. Thus, the issue is less one of keeping the roll secret and more one of ask the player to describe/RP what they're doing/saying, and ask them to make a roll against a DC or an opposed roll that you establish in your mind with a modifier plus or minus dependent on their description/RP.This cuts both ways of course and requires the DM to RP very effectively. By which I mean convincingly - the npc liar shouldn't be played as a cartoon liar that the players irl think "dodgy" but have to abide by the fact that their characters think he's a top bloke thanks to that natural 1.And this is the crux, I think. To answer the original question, yes, I believe they are entitled to see their own rolls. They are not, however, entitled to know the DC they are rolling against, nor the stat block of the npc they encounter.Making it work, in a RP heavy game really does require the suspension of meta activity (John fails his perception check with a 1, so everyone else then checks that same bit of room til there is a failure of an "acceptable" level "which means there must be nothing there after all".That's the keeping-the-finger-in-the-fighting-fantasy-gamebook approach to RPGs which I personally dislike a lot.</blockquote>

Verification