Hidden Rolls

[PlusSixPelican]

Why would a DM hide rolls from players? I mean, some stuff I can get, but I want to know if enemies made their saves (and what the roll was) as someone who pretty much always plays casters. Thoughts?

[ksbsnowowl]

The DM screen, whether physical or metaphorical, exists for a reason.

[Rahdjan]

Hidden die rolls make for a better story, gives the DM some leeway. Your character doesn't know what saves are or that dice are determining something so why do you need to know the numerical results?

[Barsoom]

Your character doesn't always know if the enemy made their save. Cast a Charm Person on an enemy? Firstly, you won't even know they're affected until their turn in the initiative order rolls along. Second, if they end up being unaffected, you don't know if it's because they made their save, or are immune in the first place (undead in disguise, etc?).

My question would be, why would the DM ever want NOT to hide their rolls?

[dascarletm]

Mostly it is so the players can't meta-game. Even if you are good at not meta-gaming, sometimes you'd rather not know so that your choice of action can't be called it.
Example:
Zone of Truth.
If you don't know the enemy made the save or not, you taking precautions like asking control questions doesn't seem suspicious.

[Krobar]

When I DM I hide every roll.

You don't need to know upfront if an enemy makes his save. You get to figure that out during play.

[some guy]

My question would be, why would the DM ever want NOT to hide their rolls?

Excitement and joy. Seeing the DM rolling high makes a battle suspenseful and exciting, seeing the DM rolling low brings joy to the players.

[Callin]

Yea I dont see why you need to know what the rolls are. At the table I play at the only time the DM rolls infront of us is for dramatic effect.

[Keneth]

For the same reason you're not supposed to see monster stat blocks. It's not your business to know. It only promotes metagaming.

[dascarletm]

For the same reason you're not supposed to see monster stat blocks. It's not your business to know. It only promotes metagaming.

But how will I know how many Shivering Touches to prepare?

[Barsoom]

But how will I know how many Shivering Touches to prepare?

I guess you'll have to develop Uncanny Forethought (http://dndtools.eu/feats/exemplars-of-evil--64/uncanny-forethought--3009/) to take care of those things.

[Viachi]

Well, you know if you roll super low on anything (say a 3 on a search check) that there is something and you're just not getting it, and you just want to meta-game. If the DM makes a hidden roll its easy for your character to act appropriately to the failure, and either move on with the story in a creative direction or to give you the surprise/disadvantage your roll indicates your character deserves

[Spuddles]

Spellcasters should know if their target failed a saving throw or not. There are a handful of rules in splat material that suggests that that is the default rule.

Skip Williams also claims it is a rule:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050426a

See the end of the article

[dascarletm]

Spellcasters should know if their target failed a saving throw or not. There are a handful of rules in splat material that suggests that that is the default rule.

Skip Williams also claims it is a rule:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050426a

See the end of the article

I recall reading that if it is a targeted ability you know, but if it is an AOE you don't.

[eggynack]

There's a decent amount of rolls for whom hiding the result leads to better gameplay. There are some above, but here's a quick list.

Disable device, because if they failed to disarm the trap, the player knowing that the trap isn't disarmed could cause them to not open the door or chest.
Listen, because just knowing there's a listen check will cause the player to know that there's something to listen to.
Hide, because there's no reason for the character to know whether they've succeeded at hiding.
Search, because you don't want the player to know if it's the low result or the lack of treasure that caused failure.
Use rope, because if they do badly at tying up the enemy the first time, then they'd just know that they failed when the roll comes up low.
.
Finally, it's beneficial from a game perspective to minimize diminished verisimilitude on the player's end. Die rolling creates an added layer between action and reaction, and that layer isn't felt as much on the DM's end, because their doings are inherently artificial.

[KillianHawkeye]

As a DM, while it's all well and good for the players to know if a monster made or failed their saving throw, I don't necessarily want them to know how big their bonus is. If the players find out my monster can make the save even if he rolls a 4, that tells them something they shouldn't really know and it will cause them to stop targetting that save sooner rather than later. Same thing with a monster's attack rolls and armor class.

[turbo164]

Monster barely passes a fort save: "The Orc roars in pain as his flesh bubbles, but stays attached to his bones."

Monster easily passes a fort save: "The Bugbear continues charging you, not even slowing down."

Barely reflex: "The Owlbear shuffles awkwardly to the side, losing half of his feathers but avoiding the worst of the attack."

Easy reflex: "The Drow leaps aside before the fireball has even left your hand."

Barely will: "The Lizardfolk shakes his head, hissing angrily, before glaring at you with renewed anger."

Easy will: "If the Tarrasque had an eyebrow, it would be raising it sarcastically right now."

Multiple close calls: "The bandit looks weary. He can't keep this up forever."

Multiple passes on 5+: "Roll Knowledge. You seem to recall that this monster is fairly resilient to this form of arcana."

Amusing natural 20/natural 1: Lift DM screen.

Highly dramatic it-all-comes-down-to-this roll: Stand, extend arm, drop die in middle of table.

(I also keep a chart of all of my player's spot/listen/willsaves in my notebook, so I can roll dice every time they walk around whether there's something hidden or not. Asking them to do it takes time and leads to metagame moments when the only one who rolls above a 9 is the Sorc.)

[Scorponok]

Maybe I am doing it wrong, but I DM and allow the players to see my rolls. Hilarity often ensues, as sometimes a plot element can be totally ruined due to the DM rolling low. This makes me have to scramble to salvage the story, and more often than not, it turns out even better than I anticipated.

As a newbie DM, the players long ago killed the idea that the story is entirely mine. Now, I think of it as several people coming together to co-write the actions of fictional heroes in a fantasy setting.

All the players are quite happy with this method.

[eggynack]

From a pure, "the players are able to do whatever they want to wreck my campaign" standpoint, I don't see how hidden rolls are worse. If the DM is cheating the players out of success to keep his plot running then you're right, but that's not what I'm talking about. The only difference between a game with hidden rolls and a game with regular rolls is that in a game with hidden rolls, the players can't always see the rolls. It seems obvious, but it means that the players can still one shot the big bad. They just can't necessarily see the dice that did it (This is a bad example. I'm pretty sure that players can always see their attack and damage rolls, but the point stands). Hidden information can have many positive benefits on a game, and in a game like D&D, which has passive rolls that are clearly visible to the players, that visibility can cause problems. It ends up like, "I am rolling a listen check. You don't hear anything." " I search the nearby bushes for the bandits that are obviously there, because it's the only hiding spot." It's just not information that the player should have access to.

[Ace Nex]

It prevents metagame. If you know he BARELY made the willsave on an 18 against your low level will save spell, you'll use a higher one, or if he makes the fort save of disintegrate on a 2, you're less likely to try it again.

[TuggyNE]

Your character doesn't always know if the enemy made their save. Cast a Charm Person on an enemy? Firstly, you won't even know they're affected until their turn in the initiative order rolls along. Second, if they end up being unaffected, you don't know if it's because they made their save, or are immune in the first place (undead in disguise, etc?).


Spellcasters should know if their target failed a saving throw or not. There are a handful of rules in splat material that suggests that that is the default rule.

Skip Williams also claims it is a rule:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050426a

See the end of the article


I recall reading that if it is a targeted ability you know, but if it is an AOE you don't.


Succeeding on a Saving Throw
A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.

Emphasis added.

So yeah, charm person always informs the caster whether it worked or not. (It doesn't necessarily inform you if it failed due to immunities, but because you can't even target a creature that is not Humanoid, you can tell the difference between a Dwarf and a shrunken Giant in disguise. Hurray for getting type mismatch errors at compile time! :smalltongue:)

[some guy]

Maybe I am doing it wrong, but I DM and allow the players to see my rolls. Hilarity often ensues, as sometimes a plot element can be totally ruined due to the DM rolling low. This makes me have to scramble to salvage the story, and more often than not, it turns out even better than I anticipated.

As a newbie DM, the players long ago killed the idea that the story is entirely mine. Now, I think of it as several people coming together to co-write the actions of fictional heroes in a fantasy setting.

All the players are quite happy with this method.

You're not doing it wrong. No one here is doing it wrong. I roll in the open, that's the right way for me. Others in this thread have hidden rolls, that's the right way for them.

[KillianHawkeye]

You're not doing it wrong. No one here is doing it wrong. I roll in the open, that's the right way for me. Others in this thread have hidden rolls, that's the right way for them.

I agree. There IS no right and wrong in this equation. Showing rolls may work fine for some DMs, while hiding them serves the purposes of others.

You are free to show every roll you make regardless of the fact that I disagree with your reasons for doing so.

[G.Cube]

It seems to me like what it mostly boils down to is if you can trust your players not to metagame, let them make the rolls, if you can't, make hidden rolls.

[rexreg]

as a DM, i use a Wall of Fear & Ignorance...er...DM Screen...

a) early on, i had a DM's Screen & used it because...1st. ed. & its myriad of tables...
b) later on, i tried rolling in the open & had a two-session string of %#%& rolls...12 1's in one night (a legendary achievement), no rolls over 10; the party didn't get touched by an opponent for 2 sessions...borrring...
c) the players' love the clatter of dice rolling behind a Screen when they have no idea why I'm rolling...mwahahaha

BUT, in the end, as other's have stated, there is no right or wrong way...part of what makes D&D so cool is Gygax's comment from early on (paraphrased) - there are no rules, only suggestions & guidelines...use/don't use whatever makes the experience the most fun...

[rot42]

There is a variant rule in Unearthed Arcana that might interest you that calls for the players to roll everything (roll to attack the monster's Will save, roll to defend against the monster's static attack ability). The statistics work out the same and the math is easy enough for the DM to work on the fly. The above mentioned metagame concerns apply, of course, but it might work for your table. Or you could always go full Paranoia by inverting the system to have the DM roll everything.

[rexreg]

rot42 stated, "Or you could always go full Paranoia by inverting the system to have the DM roll everything."

If one goes back to the old Basic Rules set the DM was called on to roll many player saves & thief-ly checks.

[SciChronic]

hidden rolls, especially when high level PCs are there, i feel is essential. Otherwise you have events where an endboss for a crawl fails a necromancer's death touch instantly turning it into an undead cohort because the DM happened to role a 1.

extremely anti-climactic and disappointing for the whole group

[eggynack]

hidden rolls, especially when high level PCs are there, i feel is essential. Otherwise you have events where an endboss for a crawl fails a necromancer's death touch instantly turning it into an undead cohort because the DM happened to role a 1.

extremely anti-climactic and disappointing for the whole group
I wouldn't classify this as hidden rolls, although it is a possibility from it. I'd classify it as altering rolls. Presumably, we should evaluate hidden rolls while assuming that the rolls in both cases remain the same. Moreover, if you want to play a game with random chance, then you have to accept that sometimes things will happen that you wouldn't have predicted. That's basically the whole point of rolling in the first place. Saying that a player's ability just doesn't work because you don't want it to doesn't make much sense.

[Keneth]

Saying that a player's ability just doesn't work because you don't want it to doesn't make much sense.

To be fair, that's within the DM's purview. But if you're gonna do that, you might as well just decide that the BBEG is immune to the effect, instead of rolling a die and then not accepting the result when you fail. That's just poor form if you ask me.

[eggynack]

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in saying that it makes no sense to invalidate a player's abilities. Really, it makes perfect sense. It's what video game RPG's have been doing since forever to make sure that boss battles remain dramatic. I agree on your point that the DM should install these immunities into the boss, instead of just saying that the player's abilities don't work. Indeed, what is the point of having abilities if they don't work when it actually matters? If I want to use a death touch on the final boss, I should be able to. If that kills the boss, then that's why I used the ability. If he appeared to be immune to the ability, then I'd probably have used something else. Having an ability that only works when it's convenient just feels like the DM is being a bad sport.

[TuggyNE]

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in saying that it makes no sense to invalidate a player's abilities. Really, it makes perfect sense. It's what video game RPG's have been doing since forever to make sure that boss battles remain dramatic.

Ironically, even in video games it's often neither sensible nor desirable; it can easily feel like the designers were cheating by just saying "nope, you can't do that, or that, or that, because otherwise that would be Too Easy. Earn your fun!" :smalltongue:

[Sugashane]

Mostly it is so the players can't meta-game. Even if you are good at not meta-gaming, sometimes you'd rather not know so that your choice of action can't be called it.
Example:
Zone of Truth.
If you don't know the enemy made the save or not, you taking precautions like asking control questions doesn't seem suspicious.

Exactly why I do it. I will roll a lot over the course of a game, most of the time (>80%) its for no other reason, not even with paired dice.

I had an issue where a player would see me roll and then would begin the search, spot, listen checks all until he was getting an 18 roll or higher on each, because apparently he decided "out of the blue" that he needed to check every rabbit hole, tree branch, and fist-sized rock within a 50 ft radius. He would literally drag the game out like this. So now, after implementing a lot of empty roles, players like this get left behind the rest of the group, so the game has become much more seamless.

As for attacks, I show them, but I already have their AC's noted and the group knows I'm honest and I'm lucky to have an actual mature group (only one guy is... slightly off?), so if I say they get hit, lose a skill check, etc they accept it. For most everything they would be aware of though, I roll out in the open, just as I require them to do.

Though I must say, I love the theatrical nature Turbo has pointed out. I may steal some of these for exactly those purposes. I try to paint the scenery and embellish accordingly through what I say, but anything to add to the drama of major battles is nice.

[eggynack]

Another way to avoid metagaming that I see tossed around a lot is having pre-rolled dice. Before the game, you roll the dice a whole pile of times and write down the results in order. Whenever you need a die roll that should be made in secret, you just consult the sheet to find out what the player's roll is, and cross it out to prepare for the next roll. As long as the DM doesn't metagame by planning things around future dice rolls, it should be fine. He can also use some method to hide all the dice rolls, and reveal them as the game goes on. That's a bit more complicated though. It seems like a rather elegant solution to the whole kerfuffle.

[Keneth]

As long as the DM doesn't metagame by planning things around future dice rolls, it should be fine.

I find myself unable to do that, my brain automatically optimizes any set of numbers according to the situation, so I would be metagaming either way if saw the rolls beforehand. Instead, I use a custom-made dice roller on my laptop when I don't want to roll actual dice.

[RegalKain]

I think I've weighed in on this one before, and it's a hard topic honestly, other then the DM saying " I'm the DM so we do it this way." You'll generally have players who don't enjoy having things rolled for them, or having hidden rolls.

I tend to do alot of rolling as a DM, mostly because it keeps players in suspense, they aren't sure of what's happening. At the same token, my players generally trust me, and we've had moments before of" Ok Regal you're cheating man, roll in the open." This particularly came up in a session of BESM, where I was critting at an unusually high-rate, I rolled in the open at their request, and in two turns the entire party was dead, because I could no longer "hide" the rolls from them that I was fudging in their benefit.

It's a tough call to be honest, do what works best for your table, remember D&D, and most P&P systems give you rough rules and a rough outline, that are open to interpretation, whatever makes the game more fun for your table, is what should happen period. As players and a DM, if you agree something in the book is stupid and you don't want to do it that way-don't simple as that.

[eggynack]

I find myself unable to do that, my brain automatically optimizes any set of numbers according to the situation, so I would be metagaming either way if saw the rolls beforehand. Instead, I use a custom-made dice roller on my laptop when I don't want to roll actual dice.
Yeah, that works too. Using an online dice roller of any kind sounds about like what I would do, and the back of my laptop makes a good DM screen. Still, if the paper is difficult to see between rolls, and you don't memorize all of the numbers, it has a chance of working. It's definitely a problem, but I could see it working somehow.

[ericgrau]

The magic rules actually say you're supposed to know when a target fails his save. But you aren't supposed to know the specific number, or any clues about it like did he roll high or low when he passed his save. And there are many other things you aren't supposed to know at all.

[Eurus]

It prevents metagame. If you know he BARELY made the willsave on an 18 against your low level will save spell, you'll use a higher one, or if he makes the fort save of disintegrate on a 2, you're less likely to try it again.

That, pretty much. You should know if they made their save or not against a targeted spell, it's specifically a rule. But if you see what they actually rolled for it, it makes it easier to metagame a guess as to their modifiers (and by extension hit dice/ability score/class/etc).

I mean, you don't have to hide rolls. I generally don't. But it's certainly a valid option, and getting offended by it seems pointless.

[dascarletm]

hidden rolls, especially when high level PCs are there, i feel is essential. Otherwise you have events where an endboss for a crawl fails a necromancer's death touch instantly turning it into an undead cohort because the DM happened to role a 1.

extremely anti-climactic and disappointing for the whole group

Some of the most memorable and awesome moments is where a boss gets one-shot. (as long as it isn't too often)

[DiscipleofBob]

I hide my rolls from my players when I DM, and I admit to occasionally fudging some rolls. I do this in two occasions.

When the encounter I have set up is just being roflstomped by the players, I'll let the enemy land a crit or two. Not enough to seriously hurt the players, and not enough to severely drain their resources, just enough so that they feel like they're not wasting their time and having fun. Conversely, if an encounter I plan is far more dangerous than I expected (either I misjudged the strength of certain monster abilities or the players just happen to roll poorly), I may turn a few crits I roll into misses. Not enough that I'm just handing the encounter over to the PC's, player deaths are still player deaths, but a TPK due to ****ty rolls or a GM oversight is not fun.

[eggynack]

I can understand changing rolls if the initial rolls would lead to a large quantity of PC death. Players get attached to their characters, and in some games there is an intended low lethality rate. On the other hand, I don't really understand changing the rolls against monsters. The enemy, whether monster of the week sized or major villain sized, are intrinsically disposable. It's certainly an inconvenience for the DM to have to come up with something new, but dying is the enemy's job.

The difference between the two, as I see it, is thus: The players are expected to come up with something unexpected. Their role is to foil the DM's plans to a certain extent, and using something that the DM didn't anticipate is a pretty major aspect of the game. The DM shouldn't take that volition away from the players by changing dice rolls to suit his needs. Similarly, the DM should come up with unexpected problems for the players. If an encounter does something that the players didn't expect, then that's the mark of a good encounter. If the player's plans just worked all the time, then that would be boring. The DM shouldn't alter rolls in this case either, because the only unexpected factor should be the actual encounter. The unexpected factor shouldn't be that the enemy monster resisted an attack that he shouldn't have been able to. The only case where a DM might want to change rolls is when the things the DM does have an outcome that is unexpected relative to himself. If the monster was supposed to just annoy the players a bit, but he accidentally one shotted the whole team, then that was likely a mistake on the DM's part and should be rectified.

[TuggyNE]

The only case where a DM might want to change rolls is when the things the DM does have an outcome that is unexpected relative to himself. If the monster was supposed to just annoy the players a bit, but he accidentally one shotted the whole team, then that was likely a mistake on the DM's part and should be rectified.

That right there is a really solid heuristic for dice fudging: only fudge if something you did turned out in a way you didn't expect that messes up the player characters more than intended.

[Snails]

As a DM, while it's all well and good for the players to know if a monster made or failed their saving throw, I don't necessarily want them to know how big their bonus is. If the players find out my monster can make the save even if he rolls a 4, that tells them something they shouldn't really know and it will cause them to stop targetting that save sooner rather than later. Same thing with a monster's attack rolls and armor class.

Your point makes sense, but that idea cuts both ways.

It can be dramatically useful to the DM for the party to see the enemy succeed with a save or to hit roll with a natural 4. That is a hint they may or may not understand what they are up against.

One feature of 3e is that the combats can be incredibly fast paced relative to earlier editions. That makes it hard for the players to notice they have bitten off more than they can chew until it is too late.

[eggynack]

I probably wouldn't hide the rolls for saving throws to begin with, unless there's a massive and serious effect that that knowledge would have. It reduces the verisimilitude a little, seeing dice rolls, but there's a suspense to watching dice rolls, seeing the result and immediately feeling the triumph of success or the sadness of defeat. You could say that in real life warriors don't roll dice at their enemies, but you don't have a sword in game either. Rolling the dice for an attack, or watching the DM roll dice for the save, is about as reasonable a facsimile that we can obtain for the immediacy of combat. Hidden rolls should only be used on passive abilities, or abilities where the character wouldn't know the result in game. If the wizard throws a fireball at his enemy, he's going to see the flames consume him, or otherwise see him jump up above the flames. If the enemy's defensive capacity is a closely guarded secret, like if it's a recurring villain, I can see hidden rolls being halfway valuable. That's not how it should be in the vast majority of cases though.

[nyjastul69]

It could be worse. When I started playing dice were kinda hard to come by and the DM had the only set. He rolled all the dice behind the screen, including ours. We never saw a single roll.

[Maginomicon]

All of the above is why in my main campaign I use the following UA variants:
Bell Curve Rolls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm)
Variable Modifiers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/variableModifiers.htm) (I call it "pressing your luck" and it's optional)
Players Roll All The Dice (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/playersRollAllTheDice.htm)
Death And Dying (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/deathAndDying.htm)


Do these variants mix the game up so much that it feels like it's not quite D&D anymore? (forsooth the wailing and gnashing of teeth of longing for a d20) Yes. So what? I consider it far more fair for an average roll to be far more likely than a fringe roll (on either end of the spectrum), and if they don't like how often they roll 10s and 11s, they always have the option to "press their luck" and use a variable modifier.

[Sith_Happens]

One more situation that hasn't been mentioned yet where hiding the roll is desirable: Is someone is Scrying the PCs, you probably don't want the players to know that one of them just rolled a Will save out of nowhere, failed it (they do get to know if they succeeded), and are suffering no apparent effects for doing so.

[molten_dragon]

Why would a DM hide rolls from players?

I hide rolls for two reasons.

One, because I don't want players metagaming about some things, like what the monster rolled to succeed (or fail) his saving throw, or what numbers I'm rolling to get that 30 to-hit roll.

And two, because I fudge numbers from time to time. I mostly let the dice determine the outcome, but sometimes that isn't very fun. For example, if the PCs are fighting some big climactic fight against the enemy they've been after for 5 sessions, and the fight ends in 2 rounds because he keeps rolling ones, it's a bit of a letdown. Or when the party gets ambushed and one of the enemies gets lucky and crits the sorcerer twice, which I know is going to kill him before he even gets to act.


I mean, some stuff I can get, but I want to know if enemies made their saves (and what the roll was) as someone who pretty much always plays casters. Thoughts?

While I can understand why you as a player would want to know that, that's definitely metagaming. Saves are binary, so your character would really only know whether someone failed or succeeded. Not how close they came.