Do you tell player's what the DC is for a check?

[Jemal]

It depends... If the character would know the outcome of their action immediately or very soon afterwards anyways, you might as well. On the other hand, if you say "Roll a spot check" with no DC, they'll know they failed it if they roll and you don't tell them anything special. (Which is why i routinely call for 'random spot checks' to throw players off.)

In general, if they shouldn't KNOW whether or not they succeeded, don't tell them. Otherwise, it's harmless.

 

[Agamon]

Sometimes. Depends on the circumstance. Usually on skill checks they make themselves, usually not on saves.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This is pretty much my attitude--except there are some times when I don't tell the PCs the DC that Razz doesn't mention and there is one set of conditions where I will frequently tell the PCs the DC.

The time I don't tell PCs the DC? When it's a situation that the PCs may not be aware of. Rather making a habit of rolling random spot checks, I'm more likely to ask the PCs to roll a series of prepared spot checks. For instance, if the PCs are going to meet a character who is actually an undead villain in disguise, I will generally ask for three or four spot checks each at the beginning of the session and will check to see if they beat the villain's disguise check. If they do, I'll let them know when they meet him. If not, I describe the situation as though none of them penetrated his disguise (since none of them did).

The condition where I frequently tell the PCs the DC is spot checks to avoid surprise or to notice a hazard that is going to make itself immediately apparent whether they notice it or not. "Make a DC 25 spot check. OK, who made it? Everyone else is surprised as the hobgoblins leap up from among the bushes and look ready to unleash a hail of arrows."

I tell them the DC. It's realistic.

Anyone should be able to gauge their skill against the difficulty of a task, just like in real life. I don't withold from my players the difficulty of attempting what they want to do.

For example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAYER: "I want to make a jump across that chasm, how wide does it appear to me?"
DM: "About 20 feet."

*player looks over the Jump skill*

PLAYER: "I can clear that with a running long jump at DC 20 on my Jump check. With +10 to my Jump, I should be able to make that easily. I'll Take 10".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In real life, I know the limits of how far I can jump. I can tell whether or not I can make the jump, might make the jump, barely make the jump, or not at all. The same would apply to other skills such as Tumble, Craft, Appraise, or whatever.

I do roll some of their skill checks in secret, however, in which case I obviously do not tell them the DC of the check. Skills such as Listen and Spot I roll for them and they can gauge themselves on how tough the DC is. Well, since I roll Hide/Move Silently, it fluctuates so they can't truly gauge it exactly. As it should be. I do, however, let them roll Listen and Spot if they say they're doing it as a Move Action, since it's more of a player choice than a reaction to a situation the DM doesn't want the players to know about.

Spell save DCs and special attacks, yes. A character should be able to gauge the strength of an attack against him. He should be able to tell the difference between making a Will save against charm person at DC 14 or DC 20. They can come to whatever conclusion they want as to how the DC got to where it's at, but they deserve to know the DC.

 

[FireLance]

Never. We use action points and I don't want the PCs to know the target number so they can always know the best times to use the action points.

I know this is the recommended approach (and I admit that I have used it myself), but I am starting to wonder whether it is the best approach for all games. Some players might enjoy the added complication of reverse-engineering the DC from the first few successes and failures in order to decide when is the best time to use their action points, but I'm sure that other players might enjoy their action points more if they knew when using them will give them a good chance of turning failure into success. After all, the players will still be faced with the choice of using the action point now or saving it in case they need it for something more important later.

 

[arnon]

Like most here i guess:

Set skill check DCs: yes

Opposed checks (spot, bluff, etc.), AC, and Save: no.

 

[Deadguy]

I know this is the recommended approach (and I admit that I have used it myself), but I am starting to wonder whether it is the best approach for all games. Some players might enjoy the added complication of reverse-engineering the DC from the first few successes and failures in order to decide when is the best time to use their action points, but I'm sure that other players might enjoy their action points more if they knew when using them will give them a good chance of turning failure into success. After all, the players will still be faced with the choice of using the action point now or saving it in case they need it for something more important later.

I have a rather silly mechanism to put this into effect in my games. If a player rolls such that an Action Die could make the difference, I pause and ask them their total again. Then I say "Are you sure?" They know at this point that an Action Die might be worthwhile. It's still their own choice, and there are no guarantees. But this way spending an Action Point happens at a worthwhile time and can be worked into a story effect.

 

[Destil]

Depends on how many rolls.

For something common that affects a good number of PCs, like a color spray, I may say "everyone make a will save, DC 13. Who failed? You're stunned." Mostly to save time. Same with fireballs and such.

 

[Psion]

Generally, no.

Where action dice are involved, I might let them know they were close. Or I might let them know in descriptive terms if something is making a task more difficult than they expect.

 

[moritheil]

Generally no, but if you're dealing with 10+ players and cohorts it might be good for your sanity to simply say, "Everyone who beats DC X hears such-and-such."

Also, I would be more careful about it if action points, luck feats, etc. are being used, for obvious reasons.

 

[RFisher]

Telling them the DC in such situations as that takes away a lot of the suspense. "Will I make it? Can I make it? etc

I've found telling them the DC often heightens the suspense for my group. When the DM doesn't tell us the DC it doesn't feel very different than when the DM just rules on something without a roll. There's more of a disconnect between the roll & the results. When the DM tells us the DC, however, it's entirely clear that the outcome is all on fortune. When the die stops, everyone immediately knows the outcome. When we don't know the DC & we have to wait for the DM to speak the verdict, it messes up the timing of the suspense/reveal.