PDA

View Full Version : Knowledge-type Skills



Razanir
2014-07-04, 08:08 PM
So I saw the 5e pdf... Page 2, and I already take issue with it. The DM had the player roll Investigation. I would sooner have rolled it covertly, and not let him know what he got. Knowing he got a 7 leads to metagame knowledge that they very well could still be creatures. What do other people feel about this? Do you think players should be able to roll their own Sense Motive, Spot, Listen, Knowledge, etc., or do you think the DM should keep those secret?

Thrudd
2014-07-04, 08:19 PM
So I saw the 5e pdf... Page 2, and I already take issue with it. The DM had the player roll Investigation. I would sooner have rolled it covertly, and not let him know what he got. Knowing he got a 7 leads to metagame knowledge that they very well could still be creatures. What do other people feel about this? Do you think players should be able to roll their own Sense Motive, Spot, Listen, Knowledge, etc., or do you think the DM should keep those secret?

I agree, it makes more sense to keep all those rolls secret. Hopefully the DMG, when they finally release it, will have this advice. Though it should really be a basic assumption of the game that the players are informed of as well. "The DM will roll certain skills for your characters, when the success or failure of the roll might give you information your character should not have (such as whether or not they have failed to notice something hidden)."

Jeraa
2014-07-04, 08:19 PM
So I saw the 5e pdf... Page 2, and I already take issue with it. The DM had the player roll Investigation. I would sooner have rolled it covertly, and not let him know what he got. Knowing he got a 7 leads to metagame knowledge that they very well could still be creatures. What do other people feel about this? Do you think players should be able to roll their own Sense Motive, Spot, Listen, Knowledge, etc., or do you think the DM should keep those secret?

The DM should roll them in secret. As you said, the player knowing the result can lead to metagame thinking. A good player should be able to separate his own knowledge from that of the character, but if the DM rolls certain checks in secret, there is no chance of metagame thinking.

But I do know that some players dislike that very much, preferring to roll their own checks. So it is an issue that every group needs to decide on their own.

Slipperychicken
2014-07-04, 09:38 PM
The DM should roll them in secret. As you said, the player knowing the result can lead to metagame thinking. A good player should be able to separate his own knowledge from that of the character, but if the DM rolls certain checks in secret, there is no chance of metagame thinking.

On the other hand, rolling in secret can enable the GM to ignore the result and say whatever he wants.

Jeraa
2014-07-04, 09:44 PM
On the other hand, rolling in secret can enable the GM to ignore the result and say whatever he wants.

Which I also consider a good thing (usually). Others may feel differently.

valadil
2014-07-04, 09:45 PM
If it's page 2, you're still in intro territory. New players haven't seen how the game works yet. Establishing that you roll the die to determine success is more important than the subtleties of metagaming at this point.

Razanir
2014-07-04, 10:34 PM
If it's page 2, you're still in intro territory. New players haven't seen how the game works yet. Establishing that you roll the die to determine success is more important than the subtleties of metagaming at this point.

Well they still could have picked a less controversial example...

EDIT: Also, follow-up question. Would it be fair to preroll a bunch of numbers to make checks more covertly? Like generate a massive list of d20 rolls with random.org, then go down the list as you make secret checks.

Jeraa
2014-07-04, 10:40 PM
Well they still could have picked a less controversial example...

EDIT: Also, follow-up question. Would it be fair to preroll a bunch of numbers to make checks more covertly? Like generate a massive list of d20 rolls with random.org, then go down the list as you make secret checks.

Sure. Though I would be more likely to just assume that the players rolled a 10 on the die, and cut out the roll entirely.

Slipperychicken
2014-07-04, 10:52 PM
EDIT: Also, follow-up question. Would it be fair to preroll a bunch of numbers to make checks more covertly? Like generate a massive list of d20 rolls with random.org, then go down the list as you make secret checks.

You could also use an online RNG, if your table has laptops.

TheCountAlucard
2014-07-05, 10:00 AM
The answer to both of these questions is going to depend on the game in question. You mentioned D&D 5e in the OP, but in games with dice pools like Shadowrun, WoD and Exalted, your skill test results will generally provide pretty consistent results, and typically have effects that can alter the outcome of the roll after it's been rolled (Spending Edge, certain Merits, the Third Excellency), so keeping the roll secret in those situations isn't kosher.

Those games also tend to differentiate themselves by not treating "skills" as an altogether-different system from "combat."

NikitaDarkstar
2014-07-05, 02:40 PM
The answer to both of these questions is going to depend on the game in question. You mentioned D&D 5e in the OP, but in games with dice pools like Shadowrun, WoD and Exalted, your skill test results will generally provide pretty consistent results, and typically have effects that can alter the outcome of the roll after it's been rolled (Spending Edge, certain Merits, the Third Excellency), so keeping the roll secret in those situations isn't kosher.

Those games also tend to differentiate themselves by not treating "skills" as an altogether-different system from "combat."

The same thing goes for earlier editions of D&D too. There are some feats, items etc. that allows you to re-roll failed checks, thus keeping them secret really isn't fair. But as others have said it's something that each group will have to decide on. For example the group I normally play with have no issues with making rolls openly and even sharing certain info out-of-character in our normal back and forth banter and joking around simply because none of us have an issue with keeping that knowledge strictly OOC. Other groups may prefer if the DM keeps his secretes to himself and assuming no-one has items, feats etc. that allows re-rolling failed checks, that he rolls things like will saves, spot, listen, etc. in secret simply because they have more fun that way. Yet other groups may prefer all rolls to be out in the open so no-one can fudge dice one way or another. But really, no way is wrong or better than another, it just comes down to what you think is more fun.

Jeraa
2014-07-05, 02:49 PM
The same thing goes for earlier editions of D&D too. There are some feats, items etc. that allows you to re-roll failed checks, thus keeping them secret really isn't fair.

WotC considered it fair. After all, they are the ones who wrote those re-roll abilities, and wrote in several skills that the roll should be done by the DM in secret.

Keeping certain rolls secret was the way the game was meant to be played.

Fiery Diamond
2014-07-05, 02:58 PM
WotC considered it fair. After all, they are the ones who wrote those re-roll abilities, and wrote in several skills that the roll should be done by the DM in secret.

Keeping certain rolls secret was the way the game was meant to be played.

"WoTC thought [something] was true/fair/the way things should work" is almost never a good argument. WoTC are cringe-inducingly inconsistent and notoriously oblivious to how their rules interact with each other.

NikitaDarkstar
2014-07-05, 03:07 PM
"WoTC thought [something] was true/fair/the way things should work" is almost never a good argument. WoTC are cringe-inducingly inconsistent and notoriously oblivious to how their rules interact with each other.

Pretty much this.

Slipperychicken
2014-07-05, 06:58 PM
"WoTC thought [something] was true/fair/the way things should work" is almost never a good argument. WoTC are cringe-inducingly inconsistent and notoriously oblivious to how their rules interact with each other.

It's not a good normative argument (i.e. How things should be). It is, however, a pretty good positive argument (i.e. How things are).


EDIT:
When the following exchange happens:


OP: "Why did WotC not give the Monk full BAB? / Why did WotC give the fighter no class features?"

Poster: "Because WotC overvalued BAB"

The poster is typically making a "positive" argument. That is, he's trying to explain the reason why WotC made that decision, rather than advocating for it.

HunterOfJello
2014-07-05, 10:27 PM
This reflects on an age old question of, "should players roll any of their own dice at all?"

If players are willing to roleplay and accept the fate of the dice, then it's fine for them to roll all of their own dice. If a player is not going to separate their player knowledge from character knowledge 100% (which most unfortunately will not), then the DM will need to choose to roll many of the dice behind the screen.

In situations like that, the DM would be best to obtain all the skill and ability info for every character, put it all on one sheet, and use it when necessary.

Human Paragon 3
2014-07-05, 10:34 PM
This is a matter of personal taste and always has been. I have my players roll knowledge and spot checks and tell me the results. If they spot something, good for them. If not, they know they failed and got no info, and act accordingly.

TheOOB
2014-07-05, 11:06 PM
I usually use passive values for stuff like that. Make the challenge roll against 10+their bonus rather than the other way around. That way there is some randomness, but they don't have any extra metagame knowledge

da_chicken
2014-07-06, 12:02 AM
We tend to do both secret and visible. Mostly visible, secret only when the DM thinks metagame information is important to keep a non-issue. Our group is generally mature enough to play it straight, and by requiring the roll you already give out a lot of the metagame information anyways. (Yes, you can roll for no reason to stop that, but it gets tedious.)

For rerolls or retries, the DM will give hints like, "You feel pretty spot on; you're sure you'd have seen it." Or, "You kinda got distracted by the druid's bitching; you think you could have missed it." Depends on the plot and situation. Well, just the situation, really.

Palegreenpants
2014-07-06, 10:51 AM
I've just started rolling checks 'behind the screen,' and I find it extremely useful, for reasons already discussed. I do find that there is a tangible line between seen and unseen checks, though. If a character is attempting something with easily defined failure or success outcomes, then they should roll the check themselves. If it is something they have no idea about, e.g., sneaking monsters, then I, the DM, utilize the appropriate passive skill.

Additionally, I tend to use hidden checks while dealing with metagaming players. It gives them less chance to screw with the rules, and more time being eaten by toads.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-06, 11:47 AM
If I have players that start "metagaming" on failed knowledge rolls, I take a page out of Dungeon World and make failed rolls have bad things associated with them, so that the knowledge isn't the actual reward. To use the example from the PDF, say as the DM I had it set up to be a 4 gargoyle fight that takes place when the players get close enough. The player rolls 7 from a distance, and they tend to metagame on this knowledge:

DM: "Yeah, those look like statues to you ... or not. As you look closer it looks like two of them are moving. In fact you're pretty sure that they are. It's just too bad that you didn't see the two bearing down on you from above. Roll initiative.

Thrudd
2014-07-06, 05:49 PM
We tend to do both secret and visible. Mostly visible, secret only when the DM thinks metagame information is important to keep a non-issue. Our group is generally mature enough to play it straight, and by requiring the roll you already give out a lot of the metagame information anyways. (Yes, you can roll for no reason to stop that, but it gets tedious.)

For rerolls or retries, the DM will give hints like, "You feel pretty spot on; you're sure you'd have seen it." Or, "You kinda got distracted by the druid's bitching; you think you could have missed it." Depends on the plot and situation. Well, just the situation, really.

I feel like the fact that sometimes you roll publicly and sometimes secretly is a sort of meta-game information which players will learn to recognize and anticipate. If the DM were to keep all such rolls secret from the beginning, the players would not know anything. Even better if you can do it silently, with a RNG program, so they do not get paranoid at hearing the dice (because they will soon learn to get paranoid just at the sound of your dice rolling back there, even if you don't tell them anything, especially if you don't tell them anything :smallamused:).

The maturity level of the players is irrelevant, even if they play along and don't have their characters take any actions in response to failed perception checks, they still know something is going on when the dice get rolled, you can't help it. Keeping player knowledge and character knowledge as close as possible is the goal, here, so they are making decisions based on what the character knows, not what the player knows or anticipates.

I just inform the players at the beginning: perception related checks are always rolled by me, in secret. I will keep a list of your characters' relevant abilities so I don't need to ask you for them during the game.