Players Hiding Rolls

[ProphetSword]

This mostly pertains to D&D. I've heard stories of players who hide their rolls, either behind a screen or under their hand or whatever.

In the 30+ years of DMing across multiple groups, I've had players attempt to do this. I immediately tell them that all rolls by players are to be visible to me or to other players at all times. If the roll is where we can't see it, it doesn't count. No exceptions.

Never had a player fight me on this. I probably tell them with enough authority that they know I mean business. I'm a fair DM and I want to the playing field to be fair to everyone.

My questions are:

Have you had a player try to do this?
Are you a player who does this?
Why do they do it?
Why do some DMs not stop this behavior?
Do you think it's okay or not?
What would you do if you encounter it?

You can answer all or none of the questions. I just want to know about other folks' experiences with this.

[Xyk]

The only justification I can think of for doing this other than trying to cheat is maybe trying to hide your abilities from your own party, which I don't really get. Maybe it could make the dramatic reveal of the powers more impressive, but it really just smells of cheating, which is ridiculous in a game like D&D.

[DigoDragon]

As a player, I've only hidden a roll as part of a joke, nothing serious. As a DM, I've never had a player purposely hide rolls for any serious action. My players understand that a Game Master needs to see the player rolls in order to properly adjudicate results.

Maybe the closest was one player who would use an opaque cup to roll for actions ahead of time, but not reveal the result until his action came up. The point was just a bit of suspense for his fellow players. He would reveal the dice on his turn. Actually, thinking about this, I think this was kinda cool to do. Saved a little time on rolls without influencing anyone else's actions by already determining his success or failure.

[Rysto]

Maybe the closest was one player who would use an opaque cup to roll for actions ahead of time, but not reveal the result until his action came up. The point was just a bit of suspense for his fellow players. He would reveal the dice on his turn. Actually, thinking about this, I think this was kinda cool to do. Saved a little time on rolls without influencing anyone else's actions by already determining his success or failure.

Unfortunately, this raises the possibility of the player determining whether to burn a resource or just use an at-will ability based on the roll. "I crit-missed on my attack roll? Guess I'm using a cantrip instead of spending a spell slot."

[Takewo]

Unfortunately, this raises the possibility of the player determining whether to burn a resource or just use an at-will ability based on the roll. "I crit-missed on my attack roll? Guess I'm using a cantrip instead of spending a spell slot."

Not as long as the player did not look at the dice before saying what their action was.

[Traab]

Yeah there is really no excuse for a player to hide their rolls other than cheating. The opaque cup thing doesnt count so long as he actually shows the result instead of just declaring victory or whatever.

[hymer]

Have you had a player try to do this?

Several. They don't any more when I'm there, because I told them to stop doing it.


Are you a player who does this?

No.


Why do they do it?

Well, I'm not a mind-reader, but 'to be able to cheat' is of course on the table. One did it without thinking that what he did looked suspicious. One has expressed annoyance that another player tried to calculate his character's capabilities from his die rolls. The rest I never asked, just told them to stop.


Why do some DMs not stop this behavior?

Some may prefer to avoid the confrontation. Some may no have thought about it. Some may think that player fudging is acceptable.


Do you think it's okay or not?

Unless it's been stated to be okay for some good reason, no. Roll in the open, avoid suspicion.


What would you do if you encounter it?

As a player, I'd bring it up as a suggestion to stop. If it continued, I'd bring it up with the DM privately, and see what s/he had to say.
As DM I tell them to stop. If they start out on the whole 'are you accusing me of cheating?' I tell them I'm not, but that they look like they're cheating, and no player at my table should do that. If I allow them to do what it takes to cheat, I'm essentially allowing cheating, and that's in nobody's interests but the cheaters'.

[Âmesang]

I used to do an extreme form of the opposite. :smalltongue: I much prefer trying to roll my dice out in the open, even as a referee… but I'd roll so hard they'd end up hitting things or rolling off of the table or what not.

I started using the transparent container I keep my dice in as a make-shift cup which helps control the movement/trajectory.

Otherwise I've seen it come up among other players, just sort of keeping the die "close to home." :smallconfused: Also a good reason to use dice that are super-easy to read even from a distance.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Nobody should be hiding rolls, players or GM.

[Malimar]

Nobody should be hiding rolls, players or GM.

See, this gets at the interesting aspect of the question: what about hidden GM dice? In many games (D&D, World of Darkness, and so on), the rules explicitly tell the DM to roll some player dice in secret so the players don't know the result, and at least implicitly the assumption is that all DM rolls (for monsters, NPCs, etc) are secret.

I don't really hold truck with rolling secret dice for players; I don't think it's a big enough deal to make the fuss.

Sometimes I question this double standard -- the DM is allowed to cheat, but the players aren't? Part of it may be the assumption that if the players cheat, it's to get an advantage for themselves; whereas if the DM cheats, it's to tell a better story: to modulate the challenge, to refrain from killing the PCs when it wouldn't be fun or to give them more of a challenge if the monsters are too weak.

On PBP, I roll monster and NPC dice "secretly" with physical dice at my desk, but have PCs roll "in the open", using the forum dice roller. I roll my dice physically because it's faster, not out of any need for secrecy. But when I have to roll for PCs -- for initiative, for saving throws, for attacks of opportunity, for miscellaneous stuff like that -- I roll "in the open", on a dice thread, mostly because PCs tend to have lots of fiddly little bonuses that only sometimes apply (dwarves with a bonus on saves vs spells, for example) so I want to make sure players can correct me if I get their bonus wrong.

[Knaight]

As far as I know, nobody has ever hidden rolls. That's not to say I've always been able to see them - we play on a small coffee table, and we have had groups with 6 players; the clutter can get a bit out of hand and prevent dice from being visible from all angles. I also don't actually tend to bother checking, so it doesn't really matter.

[Thrudd]

Nobody should be hiding rolls, players or GM.

Disagree. Many GM rolls are best hidden in order to preserve immersion and prevent metagaming, at least in D&D-like games. It might depend the system somewhat, what types of things the GM rolls for.

The GM should absolutely never be "cheating", however. You need to hide some rolls for the sake of the players' game experience, not so you can fudge the dice results.

I've never had players blatently try to hide rolls. I have had players in D&D who try to pull the constant dice rolling trick, rolling all the time during everyone's turns. They pick up the die quickly after every roll before anyone sees the result and then try to claim that whenever they get a good result it is the one that will count for their next action. Or a related trick, they roll and then see it is a bad result and try to scoop it up fast before it has stopped rolling and claim they dropped the die and it wasn't their "real" roll.

[Darth Ultron]

I've had a couple problem players try the hide-my-rolls cheat, but I just get rid of them quick.




Sometimes I question this double standard -- the DM is allowed to cheat, but the players aren't? Part of it may be the assumption that if the players cheat, it's to get an advantage for themselves; whereas if the DM cheats, it's to tell a better story: to modulate the challenge, to refrain from killing the PCs when it wouldn't be fun or to give them more of a challenge if the monsters are too weak.



Well, hold on to your dice and think about this: The DM can do anything. They don't even ''need'' the dice. A DM could for example, retroactively, give a npc/monster a feat, spell or magic item...and no one would ever know. A DM could, suddenly, say 10 guards come around the corner, not five. And so on.

Though as the DM has no character they are not cheating from themselves.

But half of the things a DM might ''cheat'' about or not cheats. Likes say on the 1st the DM makes some orc guards. Then on the 11th when in the game he sees he forgot to give the guards crossbows. So does the DM just sit there for no reason and say ''well I made them 10 days ago and can never, ever, ever change anything I made'' or does the DM just add the bows and arrows?

[Jormengand]

I've had a couple problem players try the hide-my-rolls cheat, but I just get rid of them quick.



Well, hold on to your dice and think about this: The DM can do anything. They don't even ''need'' the dice. A DM could for example, retroactively, give a npc/monster a feat, spell or magic item...and no one would ever know. A DM could, suddenly, say 10 guards come around the corner, not five. And so on.

Though as the DM has no character they are not cheating from themselves.

But half of the things a DM might ''cheat'' about or not cheats. Likes say on the 1st the DM makes some orc guards. Then on the 11th when in the game he sees he forgot to give the guards crossbows. So does the DM just sit there for no reason and say ''well I made them 10 days ago and can never, ever, ever change anything I made'' or does the DM just add the bows and arrows?

Incidentally, this argument is backed up by the 3.5 DMG:


Do you cheat? The answer: The DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes. As such, it's certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The 3.5 DMG is wrong. A DM needs to play by the rules just as much as anyone else. If a DM fudges dice rolls and declares things by fiat then he's playing the game wrong and making it worse for everyone.

[jindra34]

The 3.5 DMG is wrong. A DM needs to play by the rules just as much as anyone else. If a DM fudges dice rolls and declares things by fiat then he's playing the game wrong and making it worse for everyone.

If it becomes BLATANT that your fudging rolls or declaring events by fiat then yes it is a problem. But in general Rule Zero plus a whole bucket of common wisdom says occasionally altering events slightly so that the story can go on is okay.

[Kish]

Whether the GM is allowed to fudge dice is a debate I don't think is necessary: the GM should roll (some) dice secretly because otherwise there's no point to ever using nonmagical concealment.

DM: You don't see anything.
PLAYER: So nothing's there.
DM: You don't know that, you just know your Spot check didn't--
PLAYER: You rolled a 1 for your "opposed Hide check."

[Darth Ultron]

The 3.5 DMG is wrong. A DM needs to play by the rules just as much as anyone else. If a DM fudges dice rolls and declares things by fiat then he's playing the game wrong and making it worse for everyone.

Except the rules allow the DM to do anything.

For example, the PC's go into a cave. The DM is the one who says what is in that cave. And the DM can just make stuff up. What is in the cave? The Dm just says ''a troll'' and 'pop' a troll is in the cave. That is ''within the rules''. The Dm can even say ''a troll with a ring of fire resistance'' and it is so, and again ''by the rules''.

Just about anything the DM does in the game world is by ''fiat''. Does it start raining at noon? It does if the DM says it does. And even if there is a roll, the DM still decides what happens based on the roll.

You can say ''the DM plays by the rules'', but that is wrong as the DM is above and beyond the rules.

[Jormengand]

In fact, there's literally a section of the DMG saying "What you say, goes. Period". Because that's what the DM is for. If the players don't like it, they can ask the DM to change it, or else vote with their feet.

[Takewo]

Disagree. Many GM rolls are best hidden in order to preserve immersion and prevent metagaming, at least in D&D-like games. It might depend the system somewhat, what types of things the GM rolls for.

The GM should absolutely never be "cheating", however. You need to hide some rolls for the sake of the players' game experience, not so you can fudge the dice results.

Do you mean that rolling their own dice doesn't prevent immersion and metagaming?


Except the rules allow the DM to do anything.

The fact that D&D rules allow (or even encourage) it doesn't make it a good roleplaying practice.


Whether the GM is allowed to fudge dice is a debate I don't think is necessary: the GM should roll (some) dice secretly because otherwise there's no point to ever using nonmagical concealment.

DM: You don't see anything.
PLAYER: So nothing's there.
DM: You don't know that, you just know your Spot check didn't--
PLAYER: You rolled a 1 for your "opposed Hide check."

See? I would deal with that in a different way.

DM: Alright, there's some orcs hiding there, you missed your spot check, so they get to ambush/run away/do whatever while going unnoticed.

Or, if there's nothing, why the need to roll? Simply narrate as "After a while searching, you can't seem to find anything."

I'm not saying that your way of doing it is wrong or shouldn't be used. It's perfectly legit. I'm just saying that there's other ways to do it without hiding rolls, you just need to change your mindset a little bit.

[Kish]

See? I would deal with that in a different way.

DM: Alright, there's some orcs hiding there, you missed your spot check, so they get to ambush/run away/do whatever while going unnoticed.

Or, if there's nothing, why the need to roll? Simply narrate as "After a while searching, you can't seem to find anything."

I'm not saying that your way of doing it is wrong or shouldn't be used. It's perfectly legit. I'm just saying that there's other ways to do it without hiding rolls, you just need to change your mindset a little bit.
Specifically, change it to "never have anything the PCs might detect that you're not okay with immediately telling the players about no matter what the rolls." Which is not a neutral choice that doesn't impact the game. If they're searching for Count Strahd and I tell them "Count Strahd is on the ceiling above you, but you're not allowed to act like you realize this," it's asking a rather excessive level of metagaming from them to expect them act on the next floor like his location is still unclear.

Or take Sense Motive vs. Bluff, as Âmesang brought up below. "She's lying, but you don't get to act like you know she's lying." Really? Now the players, assuming you absolutely trust them not to metagame at all, have to figure out, from a position of knowing that what the NPC said is a lie, whether they would have trusted her word without seeing the dice. Rather a lot of trouble all around just because you apparently have an aversion to the concept of rolling behind the screen.

[Keltest]

Do you mean that rolling their own dice doesn't prevent immersion and metagaming?



The fact that D&D rules allow (or even encourage) it doesn't make it a good roleplaying practice.



See? I would deal with that in a different way.

DM: Alright, there's some orcs hiding there, you missed your spot check, so they get to ambush/run away/do whatever while going unnoticed.

Or, if there's nothing, why the need to roll? Simply narrate as "After a while searching, you can't seem to find anything."

I'm not saying that your way of doing it is wrong or shouldn't be used. It's perfectly legit. I'm just saying that there's other ways to do it without hiding rolls, you just need to change your mindset a little bit.

Ok, lets take your example. They say they search, you don't roll and just say they find nothing. If there really isn't anything there, they know this beyond a shadow of a doubt because there wasn't a roll to stay hidden, assuming youre an honest DM. Theres no possibility their search missed something. if there IS something there, you've just cheated the party out of any opportunity to find this hidden thing, arbitrarily deciding they didn't find it. That's very mean spirited.

It may be possible to run a game like that, but you run into significant challenges that could be avoided by simply not allowing the players to see your dice and whether they roll.

[Âmesang]

Sounds to me that this would be a good time to judiciously use the "Take 10" option. Say, for example, a player wants to use Sense Motive on an high-Bluff NPC; you take 10 instead of rolling the die, which should help lesson the idea that the NPC is bluffing.

[jindra34]

See? I would deal with that in a different way.

DM: Alright, there's some orcs hiding there, you missed your spot check, so they get to ambush/run away/do whatever while going unnoticed.

Or, if there's nothing, why the need to roll? Simply narrate as "After a while searching, you can't seem to find anything."

I'm not saying that your way of doing it is wrong or shouldn't be used. It's perfectly legit. I'm just saying that there's other ways to do it without hiding rolls, you just need to change your mindset a little bit.

And thats a perfect world response where it depends entirely on the players being able to skillfully segregate OOC knowledge from IC knowledge, and who aren't willing to abuse it. Such players aren't common you know.

[Koo Rehtorb]

People should never be making meaningless rolls.

[Kish]

Nothing like a well-reasoned, thoroughly supported opinion.

So I'll just say I'm glad we're unlikely to ever be in a position to play together, Ook.

[Quertus]

I'm a let the dice land where they may kind of player / DM. I recognize not everyone plays that way. And I'm not terribly happy about it. I've seen more DMs ruin a story by fudging rolls than I have seen stories made through cheating. Just as I have seen more GMs ruin a setting / module / system by changing things than I have seen improvement.

So, now that you know where I'm coming from, how do I feel about this particular issue, of players hiding their rolls?

The most obvious possibility is that the player is - or wants the option to - cheat. My response to that is simple: if one player - the DM - can cheat to make a better story, all of the players should be allowed to cheat to make a better story. Heck, in my experience, players do a much better job of it than DMs. The stories players create through cheating are, on average, better than the ones DMs make through cheating. So, if I have to have an opinion about this particular reason for players to hide their rolls, I say let the players cheat, but ban the DMs from doing so. But mostly I don't care. Max Stabbinator never rolling below a 17 on a d20 doesn't impact my enjoyment of the game, generally speaking.

To those who claim that their story is ruined by the players cheating on the dice, I can only say, if your story would have been ruined by the dice legitimately coming up that way - if your story could be ruined by simple random chance - you're probably doing something wrong.

There are other reasons why a player might want to hide their rolls. For myself, I have to say that the only thing worse than group of metagaming players is a group of metagaming PvP players. In such a setting, I absolutely will hide my rolls, my character sheet, my wallet, and everything else I possibly can. Of course, in such a group, I'll usually play God mode, and / or come in with a slew of custom cursed items, which can only be removed through very specific means.

As a player or DM, I generally roll in the open, but I'll hide rolls to keep players / other players from metagaming. One "obvious" if extreme example is if someone is finding traps, but either has a 0% chance of success, or is intentionally not telling the party about the traps.

I come from much more... open environment. If we see something we don't like, we call it out. "Yo, ****, why ain't you rollin' your dice out in the open, like the rest of us?" Conversation ensues. I find this is much healthier than all this ***** *** subtle ****. :smallwink:

[Thrudd]

Do you mean that rolling their own dice doesn't prevent immersion and metagaming?



Rolling their own dice when taking actions that the characters would have immediate knowledge of their success or failure, such as while they're fighting, trying to open a door, most physical activities, doesn't affect metagaming. However, actions which the characters should not be aware of the level of their success or failure should not be rolled by the players or in front of the players. This is mostly in the realm of perception and knowledge abilities. If you have players rolling their own searches and perception checks, then they know that a low roll might mean they missed something that was really there and will find ways to keep checking or at least will be on-guard even though their characters shouldn't be. Even asking for a check will tell them that there is something to find, which they have to pretend to have no knowledge of if they get a low roll. Roll perception checks in secret, and tell the players if and when their characters are aware of something. Stealth rolls made in secret. If the players want to search for something, roll it behind the screen for them and tell them if they find anything. DM rolls for wandering monsters, numbers of monster hit points, reaction rolls for NPCs and monsters, all should be secret. Combat rolls are ok in public.

[RickAllison]

The only time I would ever hide my rolls (and only from the DM, the other players can confirm my rolls so they know I'm being honest) is when there are both effects that can be decided after the die roll and the DM refuses to say what the die face's result is. At that point, it is a matter of fairness. If I can't see the result of the die to know whether to toss up Shield, the enemy shouldn't get to see my die rolls to know the same. If there are no abilities that function that way, or if the DM is willing to say what the die result (without modifiers) is, then that problem is moot. This issue is due to the abilities rather than the table practices.

[goto124]

RickAllison, what system is that? If the GM is taking action after the players, presumably the NPCs are also taking action after the PCs, and have already seen the effects of the PCs' actions.

[ProphetSword]

Whether or not the DM hides their rolls or not has nothing to do with this thread, which is about players who intentionally hide rolls. It's a completely different subject.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Well, it's not much of a topic, really. Of course a player shouldn't be hiding rolls. That's absurd.

[Thrudd]

In D&D, a player hiding their rolls from the DM is trying to cheat. Period. If they want to roll something that they don't want the other players to see because of PvP stuff, they should roll it in the DM's view behind the DM screen (and only if the DM will allow it).

If a player is doing this in your game, you need to lay down the law and tell everyone that all player rolls need to be made in full view of everyone, especially the DM. You also might need to make a rule against rolling before any action is declared or rolling repeatedly outside of their turn, as those are other ways people like to cheat. A roll made without any declared action doesn't count. You can't decide after you see the die result what that roll will be used for. No touching the die after it has left your hand. A common method is to ask everyone to roll the dice in a certain box or other container in the middle of the table. Any die that is rolled outside the box doesn't count for anything. This doubles as a way of avoiding dice rolling off the table and flying across the room.

[goto124]

It's not just hiding rolls, it's hiding information in general. GMs are allowed to hide information about the setting and NPCs from the players, but the players are not allowed to hide information about their characters from the GM.

If the GM revealed everything about the setting and its people, the game wouldn't be nearly as fun to play - some mystery is required for the players to have something to discover. However, the GM runs the entire world and has to remain logically consistent. If the players hide things, the GM can't run the world according to what the PCs actually have.

By the time the players roll, the GM needs to see the results immediately. What's the point of hiding rolls from the GM, who needs to see and right away calculate the results from those rolls anyway? Seems quite pointless, to be honest. There's just no reason to hide rolls (maybe even anything) from the GM unless the player intends to cheat.

[Jormengand]

There's an ability in Pathfinder somewhere that allows you to roll a die at the start of your turn and swap any one die roll during that turn for the one you rolled at the start; hiding it from the DM for suspense or so that they don't subconsciously take into account the fact that you can get an automatic critical threat on the enemy soldier if they provoke an AoO from you is probably the only situation I can think of where it makes sense.

[goto124]

roll a die at the start of your turn and swap any one die roll during that turn for the one you rolled at the start

Doesn't that mean that by the time the GM plays the NPCs, the players have already (not) substituted the die roll? So the GM acts based on what has already been done and cannot be taken back? Or do I not understand turns and AoOs?

Hiding the roll means the GM can't check if the player really rolled a high number at the start of the player's turn, aka if cheating had taken place.

[Quertus]

It's not just hiding rolls, it's hiding information in general. GMs are allowed to hide information about the setting and NPCs from the players, but the players are not allowed to hide information about their characters from the GM.

If the GM revealed everything about the setting and its people, the game wouldn't be nearly as fun to play - some mystery is required for the players to have something to discover.

Agree completely. Information hiding is very important for certain play styles and... um... "sources of fun". Discovery is one of my favorite parts of a game.


However, the GM runs the entire world and has to remain logically consistent. If the players hide things, the GM can't run the world according to what the PCs actually have.

By the time the players roll, the GM needs to see the results immediately. What's the point of hiding rolls from the GM, who needs to see and right away calculate the results from those rolls anyway? Seems quite pointless, to be honest. There's just no reason to hide rolls (maybe even anything) from the GM unless the player intends to cheat.

And what about the PCs identity should matter to the world? If the character's background, like pretty much all of mine are, is "I'm not from around here" - my characters are almost all literally out of this world - then what more should the DM need to know to make the world consistent?

I personally prefer the world and the DM not to metagame. If the DM starts metagaming, I'll start wanting to hide my characters' details from the DM in order to maintain realism. An unrealistic game is not a fun game for me.

But, other than systems where the DM/GM can metagame responses to the players' rolls (as several people have mentioned in previous posts), I agree, hiding rolls from the GM is silly. :smalltongue:

[Jormengand]

Doesn't that mean that by the time the GM plays the NPCs, the players have already (not) substituted the die roll? So the GM acts based on what has already been done and cannot be taken back? Or do I not understand turns and AoOs?

Hiding the roll means the GM can't check if the player really rolled a high number at the start of the player's turn, aka if cheating had taken place.

Oh, I think it's before the beginning of the next turn, not during your own turn. I don't remember.

You could hide the die without changing what it shows, and then reveal the die itself during the action.

[Darth Ultron]

The fact that D&D rules allow (or even encourage) it doesn't make it a good roleplaying practice.


This is also true of say, Optimization, but many players will say they must do that to even play the game.

[RickAllison]

RickAllison, what system is that? If the GM is taking action after the players, presumably the NPCs are also taking action after the PCs, and have already seen the effects of the PCs' actions.

D&D 5e. The Shield spell, Bardic Inspiration, Parry (which is available for both PCs and enemies like the Marilith), and other abilities all gain significant power if the user knows the die's result ahead of time (will the Shield/parry be enough?). Now this isn't about hiding the result of the roll at the end, it would be not showing it until the enemy decides whether or not it uses the feature. Basically, if the PCs can't know the die face to use the Shield spell, the NPCs shouldn't know when they are deciding whether to use the spell.

[Knaight]

Specifically, change it to "never have anything the PCs might detect that you're not okay with immediately telling the players about no matter what the rolls." Which is not a neutral choice that doesn't impact the game. If they're searching for Count Strahd and I tell them "Count Strahd is on the ceiling above you, but you're not allowed to act like you realize this," it's asking a rather excessive level of metagaming from them to expect them act on the next floor like his location is still unclear.

Or take Sense Motive vs. Bluff, as Âmesang brought up below. "She's lying, but you don't get to act like you know she's lying." Really? Now the players, assuming you absolutely trust them not to metagame at all, have to figure out, from a position of knowing that what the NPC said is a lie, whether they would have trusted her word without seeing the dice. Rather a lot of trouble all around just because you apparently have an aversion to the concept of rolling behind the screen.

You wouldn't have this information as a player - you might have "you don't find anything" combined with knowing full well it was a terrible roll, or "you don't detect any lying" combined with knowing full well it was a terrible roll. "You don't see this specific thing" comes up a lot less often, and if the only reason it comes up is because you were looking for it it still doesn't mean much. There's a certain level of metagame information there, but it's minimal.

[Takewo]

Specifically, change it to "never have anything the PCs might detect that you're not okay with immediately telling the players about no matter what the rolls." Which is not a neutral choice that doesn't impact the game. If they're searching for Count Strahd and I tell them "Count Strahd is on the ceiling above you, but you're not allowed to act like you realize this," it's asking a rather excessive level of metagaming from them to expect them act on the next floor like his location is still unclear.

No, it's about changing the situation according to the rolls. If they roll to find His Lordliness and fail, you can simply go with "You can't find the Count before the assassin murders him." Or he manages to run away or whatever. As opposed to

PC: I roll spot.
DM: You can't find anything.
PC: I roll again, or do something that will effectively give me a second chance to spot him.

You don't need to tell them where Count Strahd is hiding, only solve the rest of the scene according to their failure.

And no, it's not a neutral choice, as the other isn't either.


Ok, lets take your example. They say they search, you don't roll and just say they find nothing. If there really isn't anything there, they know this beyond a shadow of a doubt because there wasn't a roll to stay hidden, assuming youre an honest DM. Theres no possibility their search missed something. if there IS something there, you've just cheated the party out of any opportunity to find this hidden thing, arbitrarily deciding they didn't find it. That's very mean spirited.

It may be possible to run a game like that, but you run into significant challenges that could be avoided by simply not allowing the players to see your dice and whether they roll.

Or you simply make the rolls meaningful. I'm not saying it's a better system, just a different one. But I'd rather have my players roll for interesting stuff than trying to figure out if they didn't find anything because they rolled too low or because there isn't anything to find.


Rolling their own dice when taking actions that the characters would have immediate knowledge of their success or failure, such as while they're fighting, trying to open a door, most physical activities, doesn't affect metagaming. However, actions which the characters should not be aware of the level of their success or failure should not be rolled by the players or in front of the players. This is mostly in the realm of perception and knowledge abilities. If you have players rolling their own searches and perception checks, then they know that a low roll might mean they missed something that was really there and will find ways to keep checking or at least will be on-guard even though their characters shouldn't be. Even asking for a check will tell them that there is something to find, which they have to pretend to have no knowledge of if they get a low roll. Roll perception checks in secret, and tell the players if and when their characters are aware of something. Stealth rolls made in secret. If the players want to search for something, roll it behind the screen for them and tell them if they find anything. DM rolls for wandering monsters, numbers of monster hit points, reaction rolls for NPCs and monsters, all should be secret. Combat rolls are ok in public.

Okay, I get what you mean now. Thanks for the explanation.

[Traziremus]

Have you had a player try to do this?
No

Are you a player who does this?
No

Why do they do it?

They are afraid of failure, and want to always succeed
They think it is unfair that the DM can hide his rolls and they can't


Why do some DMs not stop this behavior?

They are too lazy to confront the players
They don't mind players fudging as all they want is for everyone to have fun
They know that people will get bored of cheating the rolls, as challenges make the game fun


Do you think it's okay or not?
I would let them do that if they all wanted to do it, if that means they will have fun then sure. I find a session a failure if I haven't at least once made them hyped for the encounter or made them laugh by joking about the situation at hand with them.

What would you do if you encounter it?
If we haven't agreed to hide our rolls I would warn the player not to do so. If they continue to do so even after my direct warning I would ask of them to make another character at first level and play him instead of their current PC they spend o' so much time bonding with and leveling.

For me FRP is all about having fun, anything that is fun for my players I shall implement even if it changes everything I have planed. All that matters is that they have smiles on their faces and that they are enjoying the game. If I can't accomplish that then I don't want to DM at all.

[BWR]

Do I have players who do it?
Not any more.

Have I?
On occasion, years ago, For all the terrible reasons people cheat. I no longer do so and haven't for quite some time.

Why do GM's not stop this?
Apart from reasons already mentioend: Straight up accusing people of cheating can ruin a group, and often times you want to stay friends with people. For whatever reason, fragile egos (and some people do have their own demons to contend with that makes it more than mere childish need to win) are more important than a fudged roll.

Generally I do not think it is OK but simply stating 'open rolls for everyone' is generally enough rather than specifically calling individuals out on their behavior. Saving face is surprisingly important.

[DigoDragon]

Unfortunately, this raises the possibility of the player determining whether to burn a resource or just use an at-will ability based on the roll. "I crit-missed on my attack roll? Guess I'm using a cantrip instead of spending a spell slot."

Not as long as the player did not look at the dice before saying what their action was.

In the case of this specific player, he did declare his action before the reveal, so it was legit.

[Cluedrew]

On GM- vs Player-knowledge: Am I the only one who will go into a game, as the game master, and not know about the secrets of the player's characters? There are times where (especially playing with people I know and trust) the players will have there own big secrets and subplots. I don't know about what they are going to do. I through them a Flathead (Flathead was hunting the man who was forcing one of the player-characters along. I don't know who that man was but Flathead was hunting him). I fill in what these things mean as we go along. You really need to trust the players to make it work.

That was just an rant to say that the GM doesn't have to know everything in the game. Generally I would recommend everyone handing the general idea of their characters and the planned/hoped for sub-plots so can everyone can contribute.

On Hiding Rolls: I don't think anyone should hide rolls. Maybe it is just from my war-game past but hiding dice just seems like... cheaty. I also think that the hidden rolls to hide the results are kind of a rough solution, if knowing if you passed or failed effects the result more than passing or failing then I think you need to raise the stakes a little.

[Kish]

You wouldn't have this information as a player - you might have "you don't find anything" combined with knowing full well it was a terrible roll, or "you don't detect any lying" combined with knowing full well it was a terrible roll. "You don't see this specific thing" comes up a lot less often, and if the only reason it comes up is because you were looking for it it still doesn't mean much. There's a certain level of metagame information there, but it's minimal.
I'm not sure if this is meant to be agreement or disagreement with what you're replying to; if it's disagreement I think you're behind on what's being argued. Takewo, Brother Ook, et al., are insisting that the DM shouldn't hide any rolls. I'm not concerned about "as a player, you know you rolled badly"--I'm concerned about "as a player, you know my opposed Stealth roll was a 1 and so if I say you don't see anything it means it was a dummy roll and there is truly nothing there," or, "as a player, you know my opposed Bluff roll was a 20 and so when I tell you your Sense Motive detects nothing but truthfulness you discount it instantly."


And no, it's not a neutral choice, as the other isn't either.
Tosh.

Explain how rolling dice behind the screen is "not neutral." In a way that doesn't require my treating your/Ook's/Cluedrew's/etc. emotional reaction to it as proof of its wrongness, because that's something you can't have. (Responding with something about the DM lying about what those hidden dice say will constitute a goalpost-move.)

[Lord Torath]

I've hidden dice rolls as a player before, but only my failures. If the DM's been paying attention to other players when I make my "to hit" roll, and it comes up a "one" (in a system without critical failures), I might hide that die. Might not. But if I do hide it, when the DM gets to me, I'll dutifully tell him I missed. Or I failed my save. Or whatever. If he presses, I'll tell him the actual result (I might hide the die, but not the result). But if I succeed, By George, I'm going to leave that die out where everyone can see it!

If the exact result is important for how beneficial or detrimental the outcome is, I don't hide the die. But if it doesn't matter if I rolled a 1 or a 2, both are failures, then there's no real point in leaving my failure staring up at me if I don't need to.

I like the idea above of rolling in (and under) an opaque cup, so not even the player knows what he's rolled until he reveals it (or she, as the case may be).

As a DM, I generally hide my rolls from the players.

[Leith]

I don't think it matters if the everyone at the table can see what you rolled, including the DM. It's really a matter of honesty and trust. If you're hiding your dice that suggests something cheaty. I, as a DM, can't see what my players roll but I can see their dice and they can see what each-other roll if they so desire because they roll openly.
That said I don't think there's a GM anywhere who would let their players deliberately hide their rolls. Sooner or later you'd put a stop to that even if you fear the confrontation. And it's not a double standard as such, DMs have many reasons to hide their rolls. Players have one: to lie about what they rolled.

[Quertus]

It really amazes me how many people keep saying that there's only one reason for players to hide their rolls, even after numerous other reasons have been mentioned.

Speaking of which, I've thought of another reason that I've actually seen, similar to one of my previous ideas: because the character is intentionally missing. Perhaps they don't feel comfortable attacking a former teammate in PvP, but fear reprisal if they don't appear to participate. Perhaps they like the cute, fury creatures too much to consider actually harming them. Perhaps they have a secret curse that says that after so many successful attacks, bad things happen. Whatever the reason, they are intentionally making attacks that miss, and don't want anyone metagaming.

[RickAllison]

It really amazes me how many people keep saying that there's only one reason for players to hide their rolls, even after numerous other reasons have been mentioned.

Speaking of which, I've thought of another reason that I've actually seen, similar to one of my previous ideas: because the character is intentionally missing. Perhaps they don't feel comfortable attacking a former teammate in PvP, but fear reprisal if they don't appear to participate. Perhaps they like the cute, fury creatures too much to consider actually harming them. Perhaps they have a secret curse that says that after so many successful attacks, bad things happen. Whatever the reason, they are intentionally making attacks that miss, and don't want anyone metagaming.

But that doesn't need to be hidden from the DM.

I think what most of the examples of hiding die rolls being good comes down to is not hiding it from everyone, but from specific people. To prevent metagaming from other players, one might hide it from them and only show it to the DM. In the niche cases from 5e, the result only needs to be hidden from the DM and not from other players. There is always someone who can verify (or complicity lie, in the case you presented) the roll, and it is just hidden from certain parties to prevent metagaming.

In PvP, the DM is most likely free of bias and can verify the rolls while the players' dice are hidden from one another. In the case of a DM who would metagame, other players can monitor one another in the DM's place. Heck, in my earlier examples, it is not so much hiding the dice from the DM as hiding them until the time to use the appropriate abilities has passed; the player doesn't care if the DM sees the final result, he just doesn't want the DM to know until s/he decides whether to burn a Shield spell or not.

This is best combined with texts or a messaging service like Groupme, so the players and/or DM can communicate intentions without disrupting the flow of play.

[Chauncymancer]

And thats a perfect world response where it depends entirely on the players being able to skillfully segregate OOC knowledge from IC knowledge, and who aren't willing to abuse it. Such players aren't common you know.

I've never met a player who isn't. And if I ever did, I'd vote to kick them from the game. If you can't be trusted to metagame, if you can't be trusted to be honest playing a game where we aren't even gambling money, then why am I even letting you in my house?
If the problem is lack of ability to make the decision that your character would make, just ask us. We'll talk it out, and help you distinguish you the character from you the audience member.
For me, metagaming is like free speech, the solution is more of it, not less of it.

[Chauncymancer]

Whether or not the DM hides their rolls or not has nothing to do with this thread, which is about players who intentionally hide rolls. It's a completely different subject.

I don't think so at all. What we have in both cases is the same: One player has decided that the dice are having too much control over the flow of the narrative, and not enough control is being given to the players to declare what happens next. The only difference is that, in Dungeons and Dragons, the DM is the only player given permission to act unilaterally on this belief, and non-DM players are expected to petition the DM to reset the level of dice control.

[ProphetSword]

I don't think so at all. What we have in both cases is the same: One player has decided that the dice are having too much control over the flow of the narrative, and not enough control is being given to the players to declare what happens next. The only difference is that, in Dungeons and Dragons, the DM is the only player given permission to act unilaterally on this belief, and non-DM players are expected to petition the DM to reset the level of dice control.

Players who sit at the table agree to the social contract that the DM controls the flow of the narrative. If they want to play a game where one person doesn't control the flow of the narrative, they shouldn't be playing a tabletop RPG. If they want to be the one who controls the flow of the narrative, they should be the DM.

[goto124]

Certain game systems do hand some amount of narrative control to the players. Others don't even have traditional GMs.

I get your main point though - that everyone should agree and stick to a social contract, which is often partially established by the game system being played.

It might make sense in a game of Paranoia for players to hide rolls from the GM. But something closer to DnD? Not really.

[RickAllison]

Players who sit at the table agree to the social contract that the DM controls the flow of the narrative. If they want to play a game where one person doesn't control the flow of the narrative, they shouldn't be playing a tabletop RPG. If they want to be the one who controls the flow of the narrative, they should be the DM.

Interesting that you bring up the social contract, a construct that exists because it is in the best interests of its signers to continue with it. However, a DM who violates the social contract by overreaching his initial permissions through changing the strength of the die roll has not only violated said contract, but also changed the conditions which make it necessary for the signers to re-evaluate whether the contract is in their best interests.

Now, maybe you are coming at this from the perspective that the social contract with the DM gives him all the power, the ability to do whatever he feels like, per rule zero. Most social contracts at the table, however, are not that way. When someone goes into a D&D 5e game, they have the expectation that they will be playing 5e's rules and not some Frankenstein of houserules. If the DM has house-rules, the nature of the social contract necessitates he states them, as they change the premise of the contract.

In Chauncymancer's example, we have a social contract, an understanding that the DM will allow the dice their power by rolling in the open. Then, the DM changed the status quo by hiding the rolls so he could change the narrative flow. That may be an agreeable decision, and be passed as an amendment to the social contract, but the contract is not the same as it was.

[goto124]

The social contract for rolling could read:

All players and GM must roll in the open inside this box in the middle of the table, apart from these specific exceptions:

GM
- Spot checks
- Perception checks
- Sense Motive checks
- Bluff checks
All these are to prevent the players from knowing if they have failed or succeeded their rolls, which (partially) removes the point of rolling.

Players
- Those PF abilities where seeing the roll means the GM can decide to throw up a Shield spell even if the NPCs shouldn't know when to. The players much show the die roll to the table after the turn is over.

[Piedmon_Sama]

The honest truth is, from where I'm sitting/standing at any given time during play I can't see what my friends rolled. Actually our whole group never really cares where you roll as long as it's a flat surface---I have a hard time picturing a group where everyone must roll in the very center of the table or something and give everybody a chance to see the naked result, then like, turn over their character sheet so you can all see the bonus. My players are, for the most part, my friends: I don't think they'd cheat and if they feel like they must to get the most out of their game, y'know, alright then. That's kinda sad but whatever.


e: As a DM, I totally hide rolls, mostly; unless the result was really funny (like one time, the party Alchemist rolled a 1 on appraise to see if a sword was magical, so she thought this masterwork sword had some kind of enchantment she couldn't figure, and then they gave it to an NPC wizard to appraise, and he also rolled a 1 and I had to lift my DM-shield up to show the die on that one so we could all lol at it together before the NPC wizard informed the party that yes, there was something strangely, ineffably magical about this bastard sword.) When my friends have DMd in the past, some of them were real big on rolling in the open but to put it nicely that's not my style because I can't check the to-hit bonus on every random tier of bandit my players fight in an encounter so yes, sometimes I spitball the numbers, do you want me to put out an abbacus and add in front of you?

ee: Rereading what I just wrote, that doesn't hold up. Obviously I could still spitball the bonuses/penalties while rolling in the open. What I want really is the psychological effect of my rolls being hidden, even if it's mainly totally meaningless. I want my players to feel that they must gauge the world by their wits and their guts, so hiding the rolls of their opponents or of weather rolls or whatever from them helps them feel a little bit more that the world is somewhat arbitrary and hostile and it's difficult to gauge between what's my own idea and what the dice tell me to do. I like that, and I think as DM ideally it should be hard to disentangle "me" from "the setting" (e.g the results of those random weather rolls).

[Mr Beer]

Players roll in the open. The guy who used to try to hide rolls because he cheated (he once rolled 42 points of damage with 4d6) got uninvited, though mostly for other reasons.

I hide a lot of my DM rolls, mainly to prevent players from knowing whether something failed because it's there or because the roll was bad.

I tend to make combat rolls hidden as well, because I want to be able to fudge it if I misjudged an encounter and the party is getting caned or when a PC death would be narratively bad. I rarely fudge but if I do it all in the open and then switch when things are getting tough, it's too obvious.

On the other hand, if the players are particularly involved in a battle, I might do every roll in the middle of the table to heighten drama.

[Koo Rehtorb]

You people who fudge combat encounters in particular are just robbing yourself of half the fun of the game. :smallannoyed:

We roll dice because we want randomness and unpredictability in these games, because it makes for better stories. Maybe someone dies unexpectedly, and that's okay. Fudging rolls is a subtle form of railroading because the DM is dictating how these combat encounters play out. If you want a predetermined outcome to a fight then why even have the fight in the first place? It's just a waste of everyone's time.

[Piedmon_Sama]

I want to add if it wasn't clear that I never fudge. I never, ever (ever!) push things in a certain way that I want to happen; sometimes I do, because doing arithmetic takes precious seconds which are invaluable in a combat encounter, look at a 17 or a 5 and say "yeah that did/didn't hit" without glancing down at the stats of my monster to make sure that's really true and I suspect a few times I've probably gotten a "wrong" result out of that, but it was never intentional and in its own way doesn't detract from the randomness of the d20 roll.

[nyjastul69]

I've read through the second page.

If you are playing with someone who can't be trusted to tell the truth about a die roll that they themselves hid, you should reevaluate why you are playing with that person.

[goto124]

Maybe because I'm playing with that person, sometimes a stranger, for the first time ever?

[Mr Beer]

You people who fudge combat encounters in particular are just robbing yourself of half the fun of the game. :smallannoyed:

We roll dice because we want randomness and unpredictability in these games, because it makes for better stories. Maybe someone dies unexpectedly, and that's okay. Fudging rolls is a subtle form of railroading because the DM is dictating how these combat encounters play out. If you want a predetermined outcome to a fight then why even have the fight in the first place? It's just a waste of everyone's time.

Duly noted, Captain Badwrongfun.

[Earthwalker]

Playing a DnD type game I can only imagine the time to hide the roll as a player is when there is some ability in play that can be used to counter your move if the opponent rolls higher.

I can only see this making sense if at the same time the GM hides his roll.

Say you have the Parry ability (Swashbuckler Pathfinder)

Once you are hit you can as an immediate action make an attack roll. If your attack roll is higher than the attack roll that hit you, then you are missed.

So if the GM just declares you are hit, you are working in the dark as to your odds of success. You are also spending a limited resource to use your ability.

Now if the GM is running a Swashbuckler NPC and you are duelling it out. The fact the GM sees your attack roll and can work out the odds and only parry when he has a good chance, that just seems a bonus for the GM. Here both should operate on the same playing field. Either both get to know the attack coming in or neither do.

I wonder if anyone here is in favour of when this duel between Swashbucklers is played out. That the GM gets to know the attack roll of the player and can keep the attack roll of the NPC a secret ?

[Kish]

Unstated assumption: The game is adversarial and the GM is trying to have the NPC swashbuckler kill the PC swashbuckler, metagaming to do so.

Without that assumption, the final question doesn't make sense. With that assumption, any kind of "the player can always see the GM's die" rule is putting a band-aid on an evisceration; the game has deep-seated problems.

[RickAllison]

Unstated assumption: The game is adversarial and the GM is trying to have the NPC swashbuckler kill the PC swashbuckler, metagaming to do so.

Without that assumption, the final question doesn't make sense. With that assumption, any kind of "the player can always see the GM's die" rule is putting a band-aid on an evisceration; the game has deep-seated problems.

The way my DM handles it is he just tells us the die face result if we ask him. He may be fudging or something else, but he is willing to say whatever the die result was so he could keep his dice hidden all other times without worrying about any one-sidedness.

As for the metagaming aspect, it is only so if it goes one way. The dice are supposed to represent how the character's are doing, and the characters can see how the dude with the sword in front of them is doing.

[goto124]

As for the metagaming aspect, it is only so if it goes one way. The dice are supposed to represent how the character's are doing, and the characters can see how the dude with the sword in front of them is doing.

If the characters cannot see how the person/surroundings/etc is doing, the players should not be able to see the rolls either. That's why GMs hide Perception checks/Bluff checks/etc.

The other way round doesn't really work. The GM controls the world, which knows everything including how well the characters have done.

[Quertus]

Unstated assumption: The game is adversarial and the GM is trying to have the NPC swashbuckler kill the PC swashbuckler, metagaming to do so.

Without that assumption, the final question doesn't make sense. With that assumption, any kind of "the player can always see the GM's die" rule is putting a band-aid on an evisceration; the game has deep-seated problems.

Metagaming need not be a conscious act. In fact, the hardest to fix are the ones that are not conscious. Imagine the difference of seeing a movie with and without spoilers.

[Earthwalker]

Unstated assumption: The game is adversarial and the GM is trying to have the NPC swashbuckler kill the PC swashbuckler, metagaming to do so.

Without that assumption, the final question doesn't make sense. With that assumption, any kind of "the player can always see the GM's die" rule is putting a band-aid on an evisceration; the game has deep-seated problems.

I can see what you are saying here.
I can imagine a situation where this is the closing of an act and at last the PC swashbuckler has a chance to face his nemesis in a duel.

I don't think saying that the PC would like that duel to be fair is reason enough to paint the whole relationship as adversarial.
Where is becomes adversarial is when for example the Player says "Tell me their AC I will tell you if I hit. Then let you choose to parry".

I mean the Player is only hiding the result till the parry is called or not.

[Quertus]

Where is becomes adversarial is when for example the Player says "Tell me their AC I will tell you if I hit. Then let you choose to parry".

I mean the Player is only hiding the result till the parry is called or not.

By my definitions, that's not adversarial, that's removing bias. That's a step away from adversarial in favor of pure mechanics.

[Kish]

I can see what you are saying here.
I can imagine a situation where this is the closing of an act and at last the PC swashbuckler has a chance to face his nemesis in a duel.

I don't think saying that the PC would like that duel to be fair is reason enough to paint the whole relationship as adversarial.

You apparently do not see what I'm saying here, because you're continuing to write according to the same assumption--that the GM will make "how can I screw the player over?" decisions for the enemy swashbuckler. Not, for example, "He's really aggressive, so he'll never use Parry" or "he's really proud of his parrying skill, so he always will" or "he'll start using it if he's below 50% health" or anything that involves the enemy swashbuckler being a character, rather than the GM's avatar in the game they're playing against the player.

[Earthwalker]

You apparently do not see what I'm saying here, because you're continuing to write according to the same assumption--that the GM will make "how can I screw the player over?" decisions for the enemy swashbuckler. Not, for example, "He's really aggressive, so he'll never use Parry" or "he's really proud of his parrying skill, so he always will" or "he'll start using it if he's below 50% health" or anything that involves the enemy swashbuckler being a character, rather than the GM's avatar in the game they're playing against the player.
You are correct and I apologize.

Let me write a different assumption. working on the assumption.
The GM will play the NPC to the best of the GMs abilities.
The player will play the PC to the best of their abilities.

This does set up the GM and PC as adversaries in this example. This does not mean that the player and GM have an adversarial relationship. It also does not mean that the whole game is one of player v GM.


[snip]
With that assumption, any kind of "the player can always see the GM's die" rule is putting a band-aid on an evisceration; the game has deep-seated problems.

So with the new assumption I don’t think rules around showing or hiding dice rolls are a band aid to a deeper problem. The Player and GM trust each other and in this example allowing the player to hide his roll or the GM always rolling in the open makes the fight balanced in terms of metagaming.

[Tanuki Tales]

You people who fudge combat encounters in particular are just robbing yourself of half the fun of the game. :smallannoyed:

We roll dice because we want randomness and unpredictability in these games, because it makes for better stories. Maybe someone dies unexpectedly, and that's okay. Fudging rolls is a subtle form of railroading because the DM is dictating how these combat encounters play out. If you want a predetermined outcome to a fight then why even have the fight in the first place? It's just a waste of everyone's time.

Just playing devil's advocate here:

So, because they're not playing the way you choose to play, in essence, they're having "bad wrong fun"?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Just playing devil's advocate here:

So, because they're not playing the way you choose to play, in essence, they're having "bad wrong fun"?

Well there's really no need for me to preface every post I make with "in my opinion", because that's sort of implied by the fact that I'm saying it, but yes. In my opinion people who do this are screwing up and making the game worse for themselves and their players. Probably not to the extent that the game is ruined and no one can possibly enjoy it ever again, but definitely worse.

And here's some people who are probably more entertaining on the subject than I am. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz6-4Bo1fCY#t=1513

[Keltest]

Well there's really no need for me to preface every post I make with "in my opinion", because that's sort of implied by the fact that I'm saying it, but yes. In my opinion people who do this are screwing up and making the game worse for themselves and their players. Probably not to the extent that the game is ruined and no one can possibly enjoy it ever again, but definitely worse.

And here's some people who are probably more entertaining on the subject than I am. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz6-4Bo1fCY#t=1513

I'm sorry, but prefacing "you guys are having fun wrong" with "in my opinion" doesn't really make it any better. To be frank, you don't get an opinion on whether some other group is having more or less fun by doing something is a specific way. You can decide whether you, personally, like it and would want to play in a group that does it, but you don't get to tell them that theyre making the game worse for themselves.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I'm sorry, but prefacing "you guys are having fun wrong" with "in my opinion" doesn't really make it any better. To be frank, you don't get an opinion on whether some other group is having more or less fun by doing something is a specific way. You can decide whether you, personally, like it and would want to play in a group that does it, but you don't get to tell them that theyre making the game worse for themselves.

I can have an opinion on any damn thing I want to. Especially when I'm right. :smallsmile:

People are, of course, entirely free to disregard me and form their own opinions about things.

[Quertus]

Re: bad wrong fun

Win ppl right lic dis, day is rong.

But when people find something fun, their version of fun might be disturbing, or horrifying, or illegal, but that doesn't make it any less fun. For them.

Now, personally, if the DM is fudging rolls, it'll take the fun out of the game for me. Trying to pull that in a game I'm in is decidedly un-fun.

Other players fudging rolls... meh, who am I to criticize what they consider fun?

And other groups that I'm not even a part of? Well, I encourage them to try different things, or otherwise determine what things they find fun, what things are essential to their fun, and what things kill the mood.

But, yeah, if you find you can have fun without fudging the dice, I consider it a win. :smallwink:

[Knaight]

You people who fudge combat encounters in particular are just robbing yourself of half the fun of the game. :smallannoyed:

We roll dice because we want randomness and unpredictability in these games, because it makes for better stories. Maybe someone dies unexpectedly, and that's okay. Fudging rolls is a subtle form of railroading because the DM is dictating how these combat encounters play out. If you want a predetermined outcome to a fight then why even have the fight in the first place? It's just a waste of everyone's time.

I don't fudge rolls, but: Fudging rolls doesn't necessarily mean a predetermined outcome. What it does is reduce the outcome-space to a certain extent. That could mean making there be only one, or it could mean that there are a good 50 possible outcomes and now there are only 49. The dice are still providing randomness and unpredictability there, they're just doing so within a restricted space.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I don't fudge rolls, but: Fudging rolls doesn't necessarily mean a predetermined outcome. What it does is reduce the outcome-space to a certain extent. That could mean making there be only one, or it could mean that there are a good 50 possible outcomes and now there are only 49. The dice are still providing randomness and unpredictability there, they're just doing so within a restricted space.

While true, I'd argue that most of those outcomes aren't meaningfully distinct. It doesn't really matter if the party ends the fight with 50 or 40 collective hp left, most of the time.

[Darth Ultron]

Now, personally, if the DM is fudging rolls, it'll take the fun out of the game for me. Trying to pull that in a game I'm in is decidedly un-fun.

Other players fudging rolls... meh, who am I to criticize what they consider fun?



So...You'd want the DM to never fudge a rule and leave every roll, but your ok with every other player out right cheating on every single roll?

How do you expect to have fun in a game where the DM will be saying ''sorry guys your screwed as I rolled it'' and every single player is automatically making every single roll for everything. Would you really be ok if all the player were ''taking 20'' for every roll?

[Knaight]

While true, I'd argue that most of those outcomes aren't meaningfully distinct. It doesn't really matter if the party ends the fight with 50 or 40 collective hp left, most of the time.

No, but it matters if all the opponents die or some escape; it matters if an allied NPC dies or lives; it matters if the opponents get off a warning before they die; it matters if the ship your opponents are on sinks, escapes, floats but is immobile, or can be taken. While none of these are always relevant, there's frequently more than just what resources are left.

[Koo Rehtorb]

No, but it matters if all the opponents die or some escape; it matters if an allied NPC dies or lives; it matters if the opponents get off a warning before they die; it matters if the ship your opponents are on sinks, escapes, floats but is immobile, or can be taken. While none of these are always relevant, there's frequently more than just what resources are left.

Sure, I'll freely admit that you can allow some meaningful random outcomes while restricting others. Doesn't make it a good thing to do, but better than straight railroading a single outcome, I suppose.

[RickAllison]

If the characters cannot see how the person/surroundings/etc is doing, the players should not be able to see the rolls either. That's why GMs hide Perception checks/Bluff checks/etc.

The other way round doesn't really work. The GM controls the world, which knows everything including how well the characters have done.

Considering that those are usually active abilities, I have zero problems with being unable to influence those outcomes. Shield spells and parry are based on being attacked (and if they couldn't see those coming, they were surprised and couldn't use the reaction anyway). Cutting Words could not hinder a Stealth check because the PC doesn't even know the person is there; if someone is trying to perceive the bard, calling out to distract and hinder his check seems to rather negate that point (unless he was trying to keep his allies hidden; that seems like a fantastic use of the feature at that point).

For a bluff check, it may or may not be applicable. Putting in a cleverly-placed barb to test the bluffer's story seems like an excellent thing to do, but I don't think they would need to see the roll ahead of time (by that same token, I would expect the DM to not view the roll ahead of time if he is contesting the check).

Really, it is just about enforcing a lack of metagaming. If the DM can be trusted to not let his knowledge of the die rolls impact how he plays the enemies, I don't think it is a problem. Basically, a DM who decided whether he was going to use the ability before the die was rolled would be no different than a DM who used the ability when the player hid the roll until it was resolved.

Hinging on your first point is why I am arguing the way I am. Just as the players could be argued to not see the die if the character didn't, the NPCs who can't see the PCs shouldn't be able to either. It is not about caring whether the DM sees, it just matters that the NPCs are playing by the same rules (non-creation, since most NPCs lack class levels. Some will, but that is up to the DM).

[Quertus]

So...You'd want the DM to never fudge a rule and leave every roll, but your ok with every other player out right cheating on every single roll?

How do you expect to have fun in a game where the DM will be saying ''sorry guys your screwed as I rolled it'' and every single player is automatically making every single roll for everything. Would you really be ok if all the player were ''taking 20'' for every roll?

The DM represents over 99.99% of the world, the players less than 0.01% of the world. If some very small fraction of the world happens to be very lucky - and I've met players who rolled their dice in the open, and just were crazy lucky - then that's a fun statistical anomaly, and I'm lucky for being allied with it.

But when that 99.99%+ of the world is unrealistic, well, that's just no fun. Feeling like the only one in the world bound to the rules of reality does not generally a fun game make.

EDIT: sorry, that only implicitly answers your questions; let me try to answer a few more explicitly.

I've played with players who were crazy lucky, and I've played with players who... almost certainly cheated at almost the level you describe. And I really couldn't be bothered to care. How lucky their characters were in no way impacts my character, or my enjoyment of the game.

Part of it is that different characters have different specialties. If Sly Guiler always makes his bluff checks as if he rolled a 20, that in no way impacts my "realistic" tracking rolls.

Another part is that I am accustomed to characters of different level, different optimization level, different player skill and experience, and different access to books... in the same party. Compared to that, what's a difference in cheating at dice? :smallconfused:

Add to that the fact that my two most often referenced characters are a powerhouse wizard who is tactically inept, and a statistical wuss who survives by his wits, and, well, read between the lines a little bit, and you might see that roleplaying disparate personalities through diverse scenarios is entertaining for me. Limiting those scenarios to predetermined outcomes is simply going to limit my fun.

Yes, I'm an old-school grognard. Hundreds of characters lie dead on the path behind me. Few of these handheld bubblewrapped kids these days build up a proper level of skill and paranoia that a realistic world teaches and engenders through the most efficient Darwinian trial by fire. Child proofing the game for someone who's lived through the "lawn darts and lead paint" of RPGs really doesn't feel appropriate at my age. :smalltongue:

[Tanuki Tales]

I can have an opinion on any damn thing I want to. Especially when I'm right. :smallsmile:

Carry on Chief Circle.

[Cluedrew]

I think Chief Circle (Marty Stu) would claim it to be an objective truth, instead of a justified opinion.

[SirBellias]

I had a player that rerolled whenever he got a bad result on the dice. I didn't do anything about it besides laugh at him for making a fool of himself, because it didn't upset anyone else and ultimately didn't affect the course of the game that much.

In the game I'm currently in, all rolls are in the open except for the DM Stealth checks. Others he rolls in the open, but doesn't tell us the modifiers. We could figure it out pretty easily, but if we do it only speeds up play, as we automatically know of we hit or missed, and can pass our turn much faster. For NPC interaction skills, we are quite capable of separating the fact that "this character is probably lying" from "my character can't tell if this character is probably lying," so we roleplay based on what our characters know. It's a highly lethal game, and new characters are easy to make, so we are all fine with failing rolls and role-playing the consequences.

[Janwin]

Honestly, as a GM, I really couldn't care less if the dice fall behind a pile of books or are rolled behind a laptop screen or whatnot.

You can generally tell if someone is lying about their dice roll. If someone has suspiciously good luck, suggest the party rolls the dice in the middle.

But honestly, I prefer dice to not go flying all over the game map, bouncing off things and falling off the table to delay the game, rolling too far and getting mixed into similar dice, etc, and I trust my players enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. That even applies to people who are joining a campaign in a store that I don't know.

I give players the benefit of the doubt and don't just assume everyone is always cheating. If someone seems to be, then I address the issue as the case arises.

[hifidelity2]

For me and the people I regular play with

Players – always in the open – end of!

GM- generally behind a screen – esp for things that the PC’s would not know
e.g. PC thief sneaking – guard makes a perception roll – this is a hidden roll as I don’t want the PC to know if the guard made it or not

I am happy to say that I will and do if needed fudge rolls – this is however usually 99% of the time to stop killing a PC when they have just been unlucky esp in some of the systems I play that are far more lethal than D&D

If the PCs have been stupid and ignored hints about how dangerous it is then that’s fine I have no issues in killing them off

[Aldarin]

Players shouldn't be hiding rolls.
The DM is god. The puny mortals exist due to his mercy and majesty, and the peasants shall never see behind the DM screen. In D&D, the DM is almighty and can alter reality as he chooses.

[Kish]

You are correct and I apologize.

Let me write a different assumption. working on the assumption.
The GM will play the NPC to the best of the GMs abilities.
The player will play the PC to the best of their abilities.

Now you've sunk the assumption into the terminology without ever acknowledging that it's not an inherent part of the game. What you apparently mean, is, "In combat, the GM will immediately stop playing the NPC as an NPC, and start playing the NPC as an avatar for killing the PCs." This is followed by the assumption "That is playing the NPC well and no one would ever think it's playing the NPC horribly."


This does set up the GM and PC as adversaries in this example. This does not mean that the player and GM have an adversarial relationship. It also does not mean that the whole game is one of player v GM.

And for one sentence, you were doing so well. Do you even realize that it's actually possible to make decisions for an NPC in combat that aren't about "how will my avatar crush my adversary's avatar"?

[Earthwalker]

Now you've sunk the assumption into the terminology without ever acknowledging that it's not an inherent part of the game. What you apparently mean, is, "In combat, the GM will immediately stop playing the NPC as an NPC, and start playing the NPC as an avatar for killing the PCs." This is followed by the assumption "That is playing the NPC well and no one would ever think it's playing the NPC horribly."

And for one sentence, you were doing so well. Do you even realize that it's actually possible to make decisions for an NPC in combat that aren't about "how will my avatar crush my adversary's avatar"?

I feel there is a situation where a player can hide his roles.
It does require some assumptions about the game being played for it to be true. As it only makes sense with certain types of games.

So if a question is "Should a player hide his rolls?" My answer is I can see situations where this could happen. As opposed to "No, a player should never hide his rolls"

Now I can also see situations where a player shouldn't hide rolls. (in fact all my games the player and GM roll in the open)

I can also imagine situations where The GM isn't using an NPC just to crush the PC or the GM is playing up others of the NPCs traits, like he never parries. Or he Always parries. That's fine, none of that stops the Player from hiding his dice from working.