Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 2811502" data-attributes="member: 9053">These are some good questions. Rolling checks secretly does create tension, but I also think it can be perceived as removing player "control" over events. I've also seen this as an opportunity for GMs to fudge results a lot, and that tends to annoy players to no end. Still, if you roll everything out in the open, you also have a problem of alerting everyone to the fact that something's going on when they shouldn't have a clue. I have used the technique of rolling for spot/sense motive checks when there is no threat or attempt to deceive going on before, but the longer I game, the more I think it's best to just get these things out in the open by discussing them openly.If the players are comfortable with it, I would have them make spot rolls in the first case, against a standard DC...having the bad guys all take 10. Depending on how the rolls ended up, I'd just let them set themselves up as either knowing or not knowing there was an attack coming.In the second case, I usually assume the player is taking 10 with their sense motive all the time, and give them a roll when they ask for it. If I'm trying to be deceptive, I'll have the bad guy roll his bluff against either TN. If the players start to ask for a roll all the time, I just switch to a take 10 for the bad guy all the time instead. It works out the same.For me, it's all about what the players want and expect out of a game, and how "mature" they're willing to be about the roleplaying. I put mature in quotes, since I don't think that's necessarily the right word, but it's the best I've got for it. What I mean is how willing they are to roleplay failing at something.</blockquote>

Verification