Secret Rolls

[pwykersotz]

So, I just launched a new campaign. My experienced gamers are now level 1 again, and I'm looking to apply a lot of lessons I learned in the last campaign.

The primary thing I took to heart is that their meta-gaming is heavily ingrained from other DM's. They do their honest best not to, but when the wizard rolls a 22 survival check to know tracks go one way and the scout rolls a 9 to think they more likely go the other way...they generally take the path of the high roll as opposed to the person with the most clout in the matter.

To counter this a bit, I've been starting to do more secret rolls whenever I feel there is a good story to be had by keeping the immersion. To be specific, I have copies of their character sheets and I've been rolling the dice in their stead, applying modifiers as usual.

The problem I'm having with this is I want them to roll. I feel like I'm taking autonomy away from them by doing the actual rolling. It should be noted at this point that my players don't care about this as much as I do, and are willing to accept the current system. Still, I want to improve it.

Does anyone have suggestions for a method of secret rolling that lets the players do the actual dice rolling but masks it in such a way that they can't know how they did until the situation unfolds?

Edit: Please do not reply just to criticize the example, I'm on 4 hours sleep and it's one I made up on the fly anyway. :smallsigh:

[PaucaTerrorem]

Get a dice roller. The big boxy things. They drop the dice in, you look at them.

For the record I love when the DM does this. For the exact reasons you stated. The player shouldn't know how well they sensed motive or diplomanced.

[SinsI]

The primary thing I took to heart is that their meta-gaming is heavily ingrained from other DM's. They do their honest best not to, but when the wizard rolls a 22 survival check to know tracks go one way and the scout rolls a 9 to think they more likely go the other way...they generally take the path of the high roll as opposed to the person with the most clout in the matter.
Characters should know how good their checks are. A check of 9 means your scout found only a smudged footprint that can really go either way, but a check of 22 for your wizard means he has found two different drops of blood, one fresh, on older, that precisely allow to determine their order and thus direction of the tracks.

Otherwise it should be an Aid Another check, not two separate rolls.

[Chronos]

Some rolls should be secret. If you ask a player to make a Spot check, then regardless of the outcome, the player knows that there was something to be spotted. Much better, for immersion, to make the roll yourself behind the screen.

As a corollary to this, you should also sometimes roll dice behind the screen for no reason whatsoever, look down at the dice, and say "Interesting...", before possibly rolling a couple more dice. Keep them on their toes.

[HammeredWharf]

I try to get my players away from the "rolls have hit the fan" mentality. Many DMs only ask for rolls only in critical situations, but you could ask for a Spot roll to notice someone screwed up his dress etiquette or someone looks tired, etc. Of course, padding the game with pointless rolls is a bad idea, but giving the players minor clues and bonuses via minor rolls isn't. Combined with rolling for the sake of rolling, it prevents the players from metagaming the rolls' importance.

Also, generally failure is noticeable in D&D. There are some exceptions, but by the rules you should know when your Track check failed and be able to retry it after an hour of searching.

[pwykersotz]

I try to get my players away from the "rolls have hit the fan" mentality. Many DMs only ask for rolls only in critical situations, but you could ask for a Spot roll to notice someone screwed up his dress etiquette or someone looks tired, etc. Of course, padding the game with pointless rolls is a bad idea, but giving the players minor clues and bonuses via minor rolls isn't. Combined with rolling for the sake of rolling, it prevents the players from metagaming the rolls' importance.

Also, generally failure is noticeable in D&D. There are some exceptions, but by the rules you should know when your Track check failed and be able to retry it after an hour of searching.

Naturally. This isn't to derail them, it's only for points where I believe the fun will be overall increased with a certain sense of mystery. Usually I have no problem with them quantifying their own checks.

Any other suggestions for the method? The dice rolling box is a pretty good one, but based on our positions around the room, it would involve a lot of getting off the couch for dice rolls. Heaven forbid. :smalltongue:

[BWR]

In the case of the Survival thing, there's no need to keep to secret. There are no critical fails on skill rolls, and with a 9 is not bad enough to give you a false reading even if you house rule such a thing in your game.
Secret rolls are important when honest reactions from the players are important - Sense Motive versus a bluffing BBEG who the players don't suspect yet, Spot to notice a secret door to the villain's lair, etc.
Sure, players should be good enough roleplayers to avoid taking advantage of such OOC information, but honest reactions make it easier to roleplay.

Still, if you want to leave the players the control of rolling themselves, you can let them do that and keep rolls secret and without their awareness:
I keep a list of prerolled results for when I don't want to waste time rolling dice or worse, letting the players know that I'm rolling. Just ask your players to roll a set of d20 rolls each and use that when you need them.

[pwykersotz]

Still, if you want to leave the players the control of rolling themselves, you can let them do that and keep rolls secret and without their awareness:
I keep a list of prerolled results for when I don't want to waste time rolling dice or worse, letting the players know that I'm rolling. Just ask your players to roll a set of d20 rolls each and use that when you need them.

A pre-rolled list was my first suggestion. Then one of my players pointed out that they still know all the values that way, and that if they rolled low on average, it was liable to lead to an entire game of the character second guessing himself and feeling useless overall. It's still on the table as a solution, but it would need refinement.

[Magma Armor0]

If you want to keep your players on their toes, start "reversing" roll DCs. subtract their bonus instead of adding it, and if they get under a certain number, they succeed. thus a 1 is a good roll, and a 20 a bad one.
I wouldn't do this in combat, nor all the time, but it's the fix I found to deal with a party member who rolled a few too many natural 20s, if you catch my drift.

[pwykersotz]

If you want to keep your players on their toes, start "reversing" roll DCs. subtract their bonus instead of adding it, and if they get under a certain number, they succeed. thus a 1 is a good roll, and a 20 a bad one.
I wouldn't do this in combat, nor all the time, but it's the fix I found to deal with a party member who rolled a few too many natural 20s, if you catch my drift.

I can see how it fixes your particular problem, but it has no real effect on mine. I would need to arbitrarily randomize my DC's since I don't want them to know if they did good, bad, or mediocre by a die roll alone. That would be a TON of extra work.

Still, I appreciate the suggestion. :smallsmile:

[Afgncaap5]

What if you rolled a die secretly (like a 1d4) and then asked the player to make their roll four times. You'd then pick the die roll that corresponded with what your 1d4 was.

If they roll four 16s in a row it won't change much, but it could keep their autonomy without letting them really know what's what.

[pwykersotz]

What if you rolled a die secretly (like a 1d4) and then asked the player to make their roll four times. You'd then pick the die roll that corresponded with what your 1d4 was.

If they roll four 16s in a row it won't change much, but it could keep their autonomy without letting them really know what's what.

I certainly could, and it seems like one of the more solid options in terms of the mechanics, but it would take a lot longer than any of the others. Turning d20 rolls into 4d20 plus a GM secret roll is a lot of extra time added.

It's on the table though.

[atomicwaffle]

Instead of saying, "make a spot check" "Initiative" or "Reflex save", Just say "roll a d20". AFTER you get the number, THEN apply the relevant bonus, THEN make your roll. Of course you can't do this all the time, but players will fib less about there rolls if they don't know what it's for. And be creative with using d20's. Perhaps a monster attacks randomly. Highest d20 gets hit. Stuff like that.

[Afgncaap5]

Okay... what if we had every player make 36d20 rolls right at the start of the night, letting you make a 6X6 chart for each player. These 36 numbers arranged thusly give you the Aptitude Matrix for that player. After you have the 144 numbers (assuming 4 players), just make every player roll 2d6 for each roll, one d6 representing the Column of their Aptitude Matrix and the other d6 representing the Row of their Aptitude Matrix. :smalltongue:

This started as a joke, but the more I think about it the more I like it. A *crazy* amount of right-off-the-bat work, but you then have 36 pre-rolled numbers in their Aptitude Matrix. Each roll, they'd give you the coordinates and their skill modifier. (The best part: they don't know which spot in the Aptitude Matrix corresponds to which roll. Even if they remember the exact number of rolls that they made earlier, they won't know which box goes where.)

I'll just file this away in fun ideas that I should use but likely never will.

[pwykersotz]

Okay... what if we had every player make 36d20 rolls right at the start of the night, letting you make a 6X6 chart for each player. These 36 numbers arranged thusly give you the Aptitude Matrix for that player. After you have the 144 numbers (assuming 4 players), just make every player roll 2d6 for each roll, one d6 representing the Column of their Aptitude Matrix and the other d6 representing the Row of their Aptitude Matrix. :smalltongue:

This started as a joke, but the more I think about it the more I like it. A *crazy* amount of right-off-the-bat work, but you then have 36 pre-rolled numbers in their Aptitude Matrix. Each roll, they'd give you the coordinates and their skill modifier. (The best part: they don't know which spot in the Aptitude Matrix corresponds to which roll. Even if they remember the exact number of rolls that they made earlier, they won't know which box goes where.)

I'll just file this away in fun ideas that I should use but likely never will.

I wish there was a smiley for uproarious laughter. That's amazing. The title of Aptitude Matrix sold it. :smallbiggrin:

[jedipotter]

Does anyone have suggestions for a method of secret rolling that lets the players do the actual dice rolling but masks it in such a way that they can't know how they did until the situation unfolds?


Never tell the players the DC and more or less let them figure out the result by what you say.

The first part is easy. The character's see some boot prints in the mud, and the DM says ''Roll Survival check to track.'' And you don't say a DC. If the players ask, you can fill in details like ''the boot prints are deep and easy to see'' (low DC) or ''the boot prints quickly become lost in the uneven muddy ground'' (high DC).

Then the player(s) roll.

Then the DM will say the results, based on the DC. So if the DC was 12, then the roll of 9 would get ''the trail moves over to a puddle of muddy water and you don't see any boot prints around it'' (Fail). The 22 would get ''you get the trail to the puddle, and see the broken grass that they jumpped on to''.

And if the DC was 8, so both rolls made it, then the higher roll just gets more information, details and such. But the players have no idea if they made the roll or not, other then effects that happen in the game.

[TuggyNE]

Generally, skilled characters should have some ability to tell how well they did; maybe not within one point, but within five or so, because in most cases a professional will have a fairly good idea of the quality of work they're doing and the mistakes or gaps or missing information that they are having to deal with. I personally think, though, that while it is possible to devise some sort of means for expressing this (perhaps based on ranks?), it's not really worth the added hassle.

[pwykersotz]

Generally, skilled characters should have some ability to tell how well they did; maybe not within one point, but within five or so, because in most cases a professional will have a fairly good idea of the quality of work they're doing and the mistakes or gaps or missing information that they are having to deal with. I personally think, though, that while it is possible to devise some sort of means for expressing this (perhaps based on ranks?), it's not really worth the added hassle.

Agreed. It's just when metagaming hits that it gets less interesting.

On the topic of justifying secret rolls, I suppose I simply find that some scenes flow better without the interruption of checks (and the accompanying assumptions) from the players. They get less hung up on things they feel they might have missed, become more wary of potential dangers that they aren't sure if they're spotting, and generally immerse themselves in the situation a bit more. Highly circumstantial of course, but my players themselves tell me that they feel more immersed when this happens. My problem is I don't want to go into railroad territory when immersing them. The numbers on their character sheets should matter as well as their choices, and somehow I can't let go of the feeling that rolling for them is a step too far. I'm probably overthinking it, but I'm still going to look for a happy middle ground.

So far, my best option sees to be to bring a Yahtzee cup to game with a fistful of d20 in it, and have the players shake it up and dump it out without looking, then I'll tally the results as their secret rolls. Quick, easy to reference, they rolled it, and I don't have to slow down the game to ask for them to get up or roll 4x the amount of dice they ordinarily would.

[Mnemnosyne]

I can see how it fixes your particular problem, but it has no real effect on mine. I would need to arbitrarily randomize my DC's since I don't want them to know if they did good, bad, or mediocre by a die roll alone. That would be a TON of extra work.

Still, I appreciate the suggestion. :smallsmile:
Actually, it's pretty minimal work if you do it randomly.

Before the roll, flip a coin or roll a die or something and use it for 50% odds. If the roll is heads/high, then it's 'high roll is good'. If it's tails/low, then 'low roll is good'. Then you just need to flip the DC.

DC 20 = DC 1. DCs higher than 20 are negative (for easiest calculation, skip zero and go straight to -1) and DCs lower than 20 add the number they're lower than to 1. Therefore, a DC 25 check is a DC -5 check, and bonuses on that roll are calculated as negative numbers. A DC 15 check is a DC 6 check, and any roll of 6 or lower (counting the negative bonuses) is a success. If you have trouble figuring it out in your head, a printed reference table with the reversed DCs, 1-20, would make it easy, and above 20 it's just a matter of subtract 20 and add a negative.

[JimboG]

My group and I have generally always had a mutual understanding and agreement that there are many rolls that simply don't work if not kept secret. Perception, knowledge, diplomacy, survival, and just about any other rolls that reveal information should be kept secret, otherwise the players become instantly aware that you're intentionally leaving out information that exists. If the players know what their rolls are for something like looking down a cavern to make sure there are no baddies waiting, when they roll badly the best the DM can say is "There's nothing down there... as far as you know."

Also, by keeping those checks secret, you can also give them FALSE information that would have been incurred from a bad check, such as rolling for survival and getting lost on the wrong path. As far as the character and player knows they're following a trail to the best of their ability. If they knew they made a bad roll, then they know you're withholding information and will simply seek out another excuse to roll again to attempt a higher score.

[jedipotter]

Generally, skilled characters should have some ability to tell how well they did.

Well, I think this is shown in the roll. If you rolled high, you most likely made the check. Maybe. But you don't know for sure.

As the player does not know the DC, knows what they rolled, and then are told the results by the DM.....the player has to figure out if they made the check or not. I lot of the time it is obvious. Everyone knows if you made a Jump check or not. But ones like Bluff can be much more fun. The player knows they rolled a 30 total. And they know the guard let them through the gate.....but they are not 100% certian if the guard fell for the ''I'm looking for my lost kitten'' story, as they don't know what the guards Sense Motive roll was compared to their roll. They know the guard let them in, but don't know anything else for sure. And it is always possible the guard is just ''playing along'' and letting the character in, even though he does not think the story is true......

[Andezzar]

In the case of the Survival thing, there's no need to keep to secret. There are no critical fails on skill rolls, and with a 9 is not bad enough to give you a false reading even if you house rule such a thing in your game.
Secret rolls are important when honest reactions from the players are important - Sense Motive versus a bluffing BBEG who the players don't suspect yet, Spot to notice a secret door to the villain's lair, etc.
Sure, players should be good enough roleplayers to avoid taking advantage of such OOC information, but honest reactions make it easier to roleplay.Just don't give the players more information than the character would have. Even if they know that they rolled a 19 and added a +25 bonus from sense motive, don't tell them the opponent is not bluffing, tell them that they find no clues as to whether that person is bluffing. Now it is up to the players to decide whether the person is not bluffing or if he is similarly skilled at deception as they are at reading people.