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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7797541" data-attributes="member: 4937">Rolling a stealth check prior to being in the presence of potential observers lets the player know the outcome of the check result if and only if such check is rolled in the clear and thus leaks metagame knowledge to the player. Since the player does not have perfect knowledge of whether he is being observed, the player shouldn't see the roll or necessarily even know that such a roll has been made at all. Hence, the use of DM screens since the very early days of RPGs.This approach of making rolls on a players behalf when the player's character couldn't know how well he was performing solves all problems and is the friendliest way to play for all parties. The player is not put in the position of needing to avoid metagaming, and as such their agency is not diminished. The GM is not put in the position of refereeing whether the player is metagaming, which means he doesn't need to act like a jerk nor accuse anyone else of metagaming . The player's emersion in the fiction is not harmed and their functional aesthetics of play such as challenge, narrative, fantasy, and discovery are unharmed by the process of play in a way that they would be overtly harmed if they rolled in the clear. The only goals of play that are supported by doing all rolls in the clear tend to be highly dysfunctional ones involving distrust, jealousy, and a desire to avoid challenge and discovery by receiving affirmation through unearned success (ei, cheating). Of course, there are plenty of times that a player's character would receive immediate impact as to whether or not they failed, and then it's a lot of fun to do those rolls in the clear and to let the player's do those rolls. But an enormous number of table problems can be avoided by doing certain classes of checks in secret.</blockquote>

Verification