D&D 5E Hidden Player rolls?

[Nemio]

Would it be best to hide certain rolls players make to avoid metagaming?

Perception : "Well, I rolled low so we're going to get ambushed."
Insight : "I rolled low but I still don't believe this person."
Stealth : "Great, I rolled low so they're going to detect me if I go ahead."
etc.

The PC handles all these situations to the best of his/her abilities, he/she doesn't know if he/she did great or not.
But the players know and it might impact the game.

How do you handle these situations?

 

[Agamon]

I tend to only ask for roll once it's impact is about to become evident. Stealth rolls aren't made until there's someone to hear it. Perception the instant something happens to require it.

If the result is less obvious (say, an insight roll to see if someone is being truthful), then a little bit of self-awareness isn't a bad thing. "He might be lying, but I really have no clue," is a perfectly fine thing to think.

 

[Gilwen]

depends on the situation. I may use passive checks. I have used secret rolls for the players before to make certain scenes a bit more tension filled, don't over use this. Generally though I'll just have them roll and we'll RP it out, since generally if they are rolling dice then they have committed themselves to an action. It's not roll the dice and then do something if I like the result.

Gil

 

[Boarstorm]

This is somewhat tangential to the thread, but...

Have you ever had a player roll low on an Insight check and as a result believe with all his heart that the NPC was plotting betrayal?

I'm not sure if that's good roleplay or metagaming.

 

[Li Shenron]

I roll hidden Perception/Insight/Remember checks very often.

I am not completely convinced by passive perception (mostly because of the upper limit), but I will use it in 5e and see how it goes.

Stealth is not that bad: it's ok IMO for the characters to know they aren't succeeding at being silent or hiding (i.e. accidentally stepping on something, make an object fall, suddenly realize you're out of the cover), and you still don't know how your opponents have rolled.

If you have problems with Insight, try to simply make the outcome of a low roll so that the PC just doesn't get it, rather than switching the result. For example, if an NPC is lying and the PC rolls low, don't get the habit of saying "he sounds honest" (or "he sounds like he's lying" when he's not), but instead just consistently say "you can't tell if he's lying or not". Granted, you will skip some occasional funny troubles, but at least they can't cheat.

 

[jrowland]

This is somewhat tangential to the thread, but...

Have you ever had a player roll low on an Insight check and as a result believe with all his heart that the NPC was plotting betrayal?

I'm not sure if that's good roleplay or metagaming.

I, for one, don't use Insight as a truth-detector. I do let players use it to get some insight into the NPC. I the context of a player not believing the NPC then calling for an insight check, success might be "they seem agitated by your questioning. They clearly don't like it" or "They seem distracted, not really focused on you as if something else is on their mind" where failure might be, respectively, "They seem to dislike YOU. He keeps looking at your clothes as if you are beneath him." and "The seem a bit soft in the head. Maybe he's drunk".

I use it to "read" people, not to detect lies. All the subtle clues of body language, intonation, eye-contact, etc you simply can't get Role-playing it.

To the OP: Rolling in the open is ok at my table. My players enjoy the RP challenge of a bad roll. "I rolled a Nat 1 insight? oh crap. ok, DM, my character not only thinks the guy is drunk, but is mentally ill and drunk!". You know your players best, but in 5th edition, try awarding an inspiration for those who embrace the failed roll ...

 

[jadrax]

I, for one, don't use Insight as a truth-detector. I do let players use it to get some insight into the NPC. I the context of a player not believing the NPC then calling for an insight check, success might be "they seem agitated by your questioning. They clearly don't like it" or "They seem distracted, not really focused on you as if something else is on their mind" where failure might be, respectively, "They seem to dislike YOU. He keeps looking at your clothes as if you are beneath him." and "The seem a bit soft in the head. Maybe he's drunk".

I use it to "read" people, not to detect lies. All the subtle clues of body language, intonation, eye-contact, etc you simply can't get Role-playing it.

This.

 

[jgsugden]

As a DM, you need to judge when it is best to have the roll take place. However, I expect it to be common for parties to have one PC with an insane passive perception... making a lot of the rolls go away.

 

[Nemio]

Thanks for the advice so far everyone.
I will be playing with 5 new players so they might have some trouble seperating player knowledge from PC knowledge.

Or I might just be underestimating them

 

[1of3]

I roll hidden Perception/Insight/Remember checks very often.

I am not completely convinced by passive perception (mostly because of the upper limit), but I will use it in 5e and see how it goes.

My only problem with passive perception is comparing Passive Perception to static DCs, as suggested in the Starter Box. I'd rather make it an actual roll, so even terrain features and items "hide" against passive perceptions. Then, in my experience, it works alright.