Checks rolled for the players

[SnowleopardVK]

Other than that, tell your player it's a commonly accepted form of play that perhaps he isn't aware of due to his inexperience. Just like everyone in the thread said, I've seen this as a part of GM'ing in every edition of D&D and used by every GM I've ever played with (rolling secretly behind the screen, for npc's and pc's). I've never heard of anyone ever having a problem with this. Your player isn't just the odd-man-out in your group as concerns this, he's the odd-man-out in the entire roleplaying community.

Thanks for the page numbers. I do think those will help.

I'm not going to risk suggesting he's inexperienced to his face though. I'd never hear the end of it and it'd just end up being more trouble for me. He's actually the most experienced player in the group by nearly ten years (which I never would have guessed from the way he plays).

 

[Mark CMG]

From my PoV, as a DM I would have to say in this particular instance, having them roll would have been OK and I probably would have had them do so; reason being, success or failure in this case would not have been an unknown.

This confuses me. If the group is looking for someone they can only identify by the accent, unless you have them roll for everyone they meet (and make sure they meet enough people so that it helps hide the one person they are hoping to identify), I would think you let the cat out of the bag if you have them roll to recognize the accent of just the one person. If they all fail, does the GM then disallow them to interact with the person as if they could identify him by the accent?

 

[Pilgrim]

double post

 

[Pilgrim]

This confuses me. If the group is looking for someone they can only identify by the accent, unless you have them roll for everyone they meet (and make sure they meet enough people so that it helps hide the one person they are hoping to identify), I would think you let the cat out of the bag if you have them roll to recognize the accent of just the one person. If they all fail, does the GM then disallow them to interact with the person as if they could identify him by the accent?

Sure, I guess in some instances it could. But, unless the players are actively on the look out for something, randomly asking for a skill check doesn't necessarily give anything away.

I've asked my players to give me rolls based off of X Attribute or Skill a number of times, without any indication what it is for. If all rolls fail, we just continue on with whatever is going on. If any pass, then I slide a note to those players with pertinent info or if enough players at the table make it I just announce it, then keep going.

Sometimes the skill check is relative to the NPC they are speaking to, sometimes it involves something going on in the environment around them, having nothing to do with the NPC to whom they're speaking.

It's just a matter of situation.

 

[Mark CMG]

Sure, I guess in some instances it could. But, unless the players are actively on the look out for something, randomly asking for a skill check doesn't necessarily give anything away.

I'm surprised that your players just roll and ignore that they had to roll. In about thirty-seven years of GMing, I've rarely had a player roll in such circumstance (where I don't tell him why) and not obsess on it. Plus, if they're actively looking for something (like a guy with an accent), and you make them roll for something, it can be pretty obvious what's up, particularly if not much else is happening or could happen. I suppose if you have them roll dice every few minutes or so for all manner of other things, or just to hide the important rolls, it might avoid making it obvious. Still, it's all so much easier to roll the die behind the screen and keep the game moving. Just asking them to roll once (which would make it obvious) takes more time than just rolling as the GM. Sorry for rambling. I'm just working through this to try and see that option as vable and not making any headway.

 

[El Mahdi]

Yeah, I think it's nigh impossible for a person to not wonder "what did I miss" in such situations (asking for a check). Unintentional as it may be, it most likely puts players in a metagame mindset that damages the session's suspense of disbelief.

However, slightly off topic but still addressing the OP ( @SnowleopardVK ): there's another consideration here. If there's a piece of information that's crucial to the campaign/adventure, it's something you don't want to leave to the randomness of dice rolls. If this person the group is looking for is important to the adventure, then tell them - no rolls necessary.

Some good advice from the 4E DMG:

4E DMG, pg. 26

The Information Imperative

If there's information the PC's absolutely must have in order to continue the adventure, give it to them. don't make them have a chance to miss the information by failing a skill check or not talking to the right person or just not looking in the right place. The players should be able to uncover important information by using skills and investigation, but for crucial information, you need a foolproof method to get it into the player's hands. Tell them.

Or use the rule of three: for every crucial piece of information the PC's need to find, make sure you have three different clues available in your environment that can lead them to it.


Also, I found the stuff I was looking for earlier (that gives the GM license to roll in secret):

3.5E DMG, pg. 18

Rolling Dice

Some die rolls, when seen by a player, reveal too much. A player who rolls to see if her character finds a trap and sees that she has rolled very pooorly knows that the information you give her as a result of the roll is probably unreliable. ("Nope. No traps down that way, as far as you can tell.") The game is much more interesting when the player of a character tryin to hide or move silently does no know whether the character has succeeded.

In cases where the player shouldn't know the die result, you can make the roll, keeping dice behind a screen or otherwise out of sight. While this takes some of the fun of rolling dice away from the players (and let's face it, that really is a part of the fun of the game), it helps you to maintain control over what the player knows and doesn't know.

Consider making checks involving the following skills for the player where he or she can't see the result: Bluff, Diplomacy, Hide (Stealth), Listen (Perception), Move Silently (Stealth), Use Rope (CMB), Search (Perception), and Spot (Perception).

Do this on a case-by-case basis. When possible, always let players make the rolls themselves. When it would increase suspense to keep them in the dar, roll the dice yourself.

*(itallics) = Pathfinder equivalent

Pathfinder, pg. 403

Rolling Dice: Some GMs prefer to roll all of their dice in

​

front of the players, letting the results fall where they may.
Others prefer to make all rolls behind a screen, hiding
the results from the PCs so that, if they need to, they can
fudge the dice results to make the game do what they want.
Neither way is the “correct” way; choose whichever you
wish, or even mix and match as feels right for you.
The only time you should not reveal the results of a die
roll to the player character is when knowledge of the roll’s​

result would give the player knowledge he shouldn’t have.

​

​

A good example of this is saving throws against effects that
the player shouldn’t necessarily realize his character has
been exposed to (such as a disease or a subtle, long-acting
poison), or a Perception check to spot a secret door that an
elven PC might notice just in passing.​

​

There you have it, the choice is officially yours.


*Bet you never expected to see 3.5E, Pathfinder, and 4E all quoted in the same post...

 

[Michael Silverbane]

*Bet you never expected to see 3.5E, Pathfinder, and 4E all quoted in the same post...

I'm pretty sure that breaks some sort of rules. Maybe forum rules, maybe edition war rules, or maybe the rules of right behavior. But something's broken, for sure.

 

[Mark CMG]

Bet you never expected to see 3.5E, Pathfinder, and 4E all quoted in the same post

I think I hear thunder in the distance. What hast thou wrought?

 

[El Mahdi]

I know! Next we'll have cats and dogs living together and mass hysteria!


By the way, is having my 4E books touching my 3E books on a bookshelf tantamount to crossing the streams...?

 

[IronWolf]

*Bet you never expected to see 3.5E, Pathfinder, and 4E all quoted in the same post...

it just proves we can all get along when need be!