D&D 5E How do you roll, DM?

[Rhenny]

Most games/campaigns I roll in the open, but once in a while my players say they like hidden rolls so I’ll switch. I do whatever the players prefer.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Question to the tables who do all open rolling...

How do you handle the metaknowledge a player gains by knowing if they rolled high or low for a skill?

For example...there is a HUGE difference in feel at the table when Sarah rolls a 17 with a +5 perception and announces a 22 followed by the GM saying "You don't notice anything out of the ordinary" and the GM rolling for Sarah behind the screen and announcing the very same thing.

I like to GM roll some things like this for just this reason....and it allows me to change up the verbiage to suit the situation.

You are certain there isn't a trap.
You are fairly sure there isn't anything in the casket.
You don't hear anything odd.
You think you may have heard footsteps, but they might have been yours.
You are certain there isn't a trap (when there is!).

 

[delericho]

When playing face-to-face, I roll in the open.

While all games are online only, both I and my players are effectively rolling in secret. Not because of a desire to obfuscate, but just because of the setup. (Incidentally, pretty much all of us are still using physical dice despite the remote play.)

 

[delericho]

Question to the tables who do all open rolling...

How do you handle the metaknowledge a player gains by knowing if they rolled high or low for a skill?

Same way I handle the metaknowledge gained from them having read the books, having played for years, or having listened in to a conversation their character wasn't there to hear - I trust my players to play in good faith, and beyond that I don't worry about it. If they get the occasional benefit from that, it's not a huge deal - there's always another monster out there to balance the scales.

 

[Imaculata]

Question to the tables who do all open rolling...

How do you handle the metaknowledge a player gains by knowing if they rolled high or low for a skill?

For example...there is a HUGE difference in feel at the table when Sarah rolls a 17 with a +5 perception and announces a 22 followed by the GM saying "You don't notice anything out of the ordinary" and the GM rolling for Sarah behind the screen and announcing the very same thing.

This is the classic example of knowing that a trap is there, because the GM asked for a perception check. The obvious solution to this is to not ask for a perception check, unless the player declares an action first. When the players enter a corridor that contains a trap, I'll foreshadow the trap first with the description of the corridor. This is the most important part. Something may seem off to them, such as unusual drag marks on the floor, or a blood stain on the wall. This will prompt the players to be suspicious, but they don't yet know of what. It might be a trap, but it doesn't have to be. They will need to investigate to find out. It motivates the players and their characters to take an action to find whatever is there. As they declare an action to search the walls and floors, that is when I call for a perception check.

The foreshadowing is very important. It means that players never have to search every corridor they go through, because I always give them a clue when something is amiss.

Now, if they roll low, they still don't know that they missed a trap. They just know that they failed to find whatever might be there, based on my description. But they would get the same outcome if the GM rolled instead, because it would be the same description of the situation either way. The players don't have to pretend that the corridor is safe just because they didn't find anything. I already gave both the players and their characters enough reason to suspect danger and they are allowed to act on it. Meta knowledge thus becomes a none-issue.

I don't give my players false information when they fail their roll. If they are looking for a trap, and don't roll high enough, I tell them that they were unable to find anything. I don't tell them there is no trap, because there is, but they simply were unable to find it.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

This is the classic example of knowing that a trap is there, because the GM asked for a perception check. The obvious solution to this is to not ask for a perception check, unless the player declares an action first. When the players enter a corridor that contains a trap, I'll foreshadow the trap first with the description of the corridor. This is the most important part. Something may seem off to them, such as unusual drag marks on the floor, or a blood stain on the wall. This will prompt the players to be suspicious, but they don't yet know of what. It might be a trap, but it doesn't have to be. They will need to investigate to find out. It motivates the players and their characters to take an action to find whatever is there. As they declare an action to search the walls and floors, that is when I call for a perception check.

The foreshadowing is very important. It means that players never have to search every corridor they go through, because I always give them a clue when something is amiss.

Now, if they roll low, they still don't know that they missed a trap. They just know that they failed to find whatever might be there, based on my description. But they would get the same outcome if the GM rolled instead, because it would be the same description of the situation either way. The players don't have to pretend that the corridor is safe just because they didn't find anything. I already gave both the players and their characters enough reason to suspect danger and they are allowed to act on it. Meta knowledge thus becomes a none-issue.

I don't give my players false information when they fail their roll. If they are looking for a trap, and don't roll high enough, I tell them that they were unable to find anything. I don't tell them there is no trap, because there is, but they simply were unable to find it.

Your setup isn't any different than how I do it. When we get to the part of the game where players are actively making perception rolls (versus me using their passive perception scores) they already have a reason to be suspicious.

The meta knowledge comes when the player knows they rolled a 3 when they searched a door for a trap. Maybe a great player will then roleplay that correctly and play as if they assume the door is safe, but in my experience that's when players start doing things "just in case" that they normally wouldn't do if the roll had been a 17.

For my table, a secret roll and appropriate descriptions lends to anymore natural reaction by the players.

 

[iserith]

Question to the tables who do all open rolling...

How do you handle the metaknowledge a player gains by knowing if they rolled high or low for a skill?

For example...there is a HUGE difference in feel at the table when Sarah rolls a 17 with a +5 perception and announces a 22 followed by the GM saying "You don't notice anything out of the ordinary" and the GM rolling for Sarah behind the screen and announcing the very same thing.

I like to GM roll some things like this for just this reason....and it allows me to change up the verbiage to suit the situation.

You are certain there isn't a trap.
You are fairly sure there isn't anything in the casket.
You don't hear anything odd.
You think you may have heard footsteps, but they might have been yours.
You are certain there isn't a trap (when there is!).

First, the DM should only call for an ability check when the task (goal and approach) described by the player has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. If those two conditions do not exist, then there is no roll.

If the check succeeds, the goal is achieved. For example, "There is a trap on the door. What do you do?"

If the check fails, the rules provide two ways to narrate the result of a failed check: The task fails. Or the task succeeds but with a setback. For any failed check wherein there might be a disconnect between the number on the die and what the DM says, if the DM instead narrates the result as progress combined with a setback, then there is no issue. For example, "There is a trap on the door and your efforts have set it in motion. What do you do?"

 

[nevin]

My job is to keep the narrative flowing. I make mistakes just like anyone else. If I do and my rolls are hidden I can "miss, reduce damage or even fumble if necessary" to keep from wiping my party or having to do a reset. I'll also be honest I sometimes fudge rolls to make the game more fun for players having bad luck. Only a very few players can have fun when random luck completely turns on them. The Narrative and Fun trump the dice

 

[Imaculata]

The meta knowledge comes when the player knows they rolled a 3 when they searched a door for a trap. Maybe a great player will then roleplay that correctly and play as if they assume the door is safe, but in my experience that's when players start doing things "just in case" that they normally wouldn't do if the roll had been a 17.

For my table, a secret roll and appropriate descriptions lends to anymore natural reaction by the players.

There is no "correct way to roleplay it". The player failed to find something, but the corridor is still as suspicious as before they started searching it. I did foreshadow the threat after all. I don't tell my players the corridor is safe, when it obviously is not. I tell them that they couldn't find a trap and that's it. How they act upon that knowledge is entirely up to them. They could proceed, or they could avoid the corridor. Both are valid choices.

My job is to keep the narrative flowing. I make mistakes just like anyone else. If I do and my rolls are hidden I can "miss, reduce damage or even fumble if necessary" to keep from wiping my party or having to do a reset.

Why would you want to keep a party from wiping?

 

[nevin]

This is the classic example of knowing that a trap is there, because the GM asked for a perception check. The obvious solution to this is to not ask for a perception check, unless the player declares an action first. When the players enter a corridor that contains a trap, I'll foreshadow the trap first with the description of the corridor. This is the most important part. Something may seem off to them, such as unusual drag marks on the floor, or a blood stain on the wall. This will prompt the players to be suspicious, but they don't yet know of what. It might be a trap, but it doesn't have to be. They will need to investigate to find out. It motivates the players and their characters to take an action to find whatever is there. As they declare an action to search the walls and floors, that is when I call for a perception check.

The foreshadowing is very important. It means that players never have to search every corridor they go through, because I always give them a clue when something is amiss.

Now, if they roll low, they still don't know that they missed a trap. They just know that they failed to find whatever might be there, based on my description. But they would get the same outcome if the GM rolled instead, because it would be the same description of the situation either way. The players don't have to pretend that the corridor is safe just because they didn't find anything. I already gave both the players and their characters enough reason to suspect danger and they are allowed to act on it. Meta knowledge thus becomes a none-issue.

I don't give my players false information when they fail their roll. If they are looking for a trap, and don't roll high enough, I tell them that they were unable to find anything. I don't tell them there is no trap, because there is, but they simply were unable to find it.

In the few very high level games I've run I've occasionally thrown in traps that can't be detected unless someone decides to use a ring of xray vision or something. I set the activation parameters and if they trigger it they trigger it. While you'll get some grumbling it is kind've fun after playing at that level for awhile to shock the party with a surprise trap. I had one party completely unravel on me. It took them the entire game session to get thier groove back. So much fun...

perception rolls are a pain for one reason. If you roll them all the time to keep the players numb to you asking them then it bogs the game down. If you only ask when something is going on event the best players are going to meta game at least a little and look for more than they intended. I've flirted with rolling my players perceptions myself unless they specifically say they are looking for something, I've just never pulled the trigger because I'm not sure about it.