Secret Rolls

[Vorpal Glaive]

Do you use these as a ref or do you always allow players to roll Perception-related checks themselves?

I used to let players make their own but realized later that if I made the Perception/Insight/Investigation/Deception checks secretly, it can be really fun.

Give me your viewpoints as referees and players, please and thank you.

[Aotrs Commander]

Do you use these as a ref or do you always allow players to roll Perception-related checks themselves?

I used to let players make their own but realized later that if I made the Perception/Insight/Investigation/Deception checks secretly, it can be really fun.

Give me your viewpoints as referees and players, please and thank you.

Most of the time, I make them roll their own (but I have, like, 6-8 players normally).

But on occasion (like last week, where the rogue slipped ahead of the rest of the party and was the only one possibly able to spot the natural-20 rolling stealthed monster), I will make a roll for them if I don't want to give something away.

[Peelee]

My group is scattered across the state, so we play with Fantasy Grounds. Nearly all non-combat rolls are made in the dice tower, so we roll ourselves, but only the DM sees the results.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Roll everything in the open, including GM dice, always.

[Keltest]

If the players are actively looking for something, they can roll themselves, out in the open. If its a passive check where the act of rolling would reveal that something is there, I do it myself.

[Galithar]

Roll everything in the open, including GM dice, always.

This is not true of a lot of groups and systems. PF2 for example calls out in the rules a number of rolls that are to be made by the DM in secret to avoid letting players know something is up from a bad roll. It eliminates the need for 'random rolls' on things like perception. If you only call for it when there is something to find even if everyone rolls a 1, suddenly they're all on edge and investigating every Pebble until they find something.

[Sebastian]

When it is appropriate (when the PC don't know they should roll) roll secretly.

Occasionaly roll dice for no reason, (AKA paranoia dice) to keep them on their toes else they'll know that when you roll dice something is up.

[Khedrac]

Playing D&D 3.5:
I like to have the players roll 3 or 4 (or 6 - it depends on the adventure) D20 rolls in advance which I record. I also get them to give me their characters' relevant modifiers (spot, sense motive, listen etc.).

As play progresses I will mark off the dice rolls asking for more for a specific character when I run out. This way the players get to roll their checks, but they don't get to metagame from knwong when they make those checks...

It's also great fun when they are worried by a series of really low rolls made in advance - they usually end up not mattering, but the players don't know that!

[Earthwalker]

Sometimes I roll and sometimes the players roll.
It depends on the game, the system being used and the group.

So DMing a fate game I never roll checks for the players and all my rolls for the NPCs are in the open. It requires a different mind-set and set up to truly work.

If I am playing Pathfinder I may do secret rolls. Of course even this gets a bit odd if we have hero points in play. As it allows players to re-roll or alter the result. Which is hard to do if the players don’t know about the dice rolls.

[Glorthindel]

One solution to utilise secret rolls, whilst not taking away the players ability to make their own rolls (players like rolling dice) is to use a dice tower. Position it your side of your screen, with the top sticking over, so when you need a secret roll, the player can throw their own dice in, but only you will see the result.

You will find, in the case of most players who object to secret rolls, it isn't actually the fact the result is secret that they dislike, it is the fact that they aren't rolling their dice for their character. Its a viceral thing, and as soon as you take that problem away (by letting them roll the dice, even if they don't see the result), they don't have a problem with secret rolls.

[Themrys]

As a player, I don't care much one way or the other, but I do think it is better for immersion if rolls for "does the characters notice that something is amiss" are made in secret.

If everyone rolls perception but no one notices anything, you just know there is something - I dutifully pretend to not know somethig is amiss in-character, but it would probably be fun for it to be entirely surprising.

[Vorpal Glaive]

One solution to utilise secret rolls, whilst not taking away the players ability to make their own rolls (players like rolling dice) is to use a dice tower. Position it your side of your screen, with the top sticking over, so when you need a secret roll, the player can throw their own dice in, but only you will see the result.

You will find, in the case of most players who object to secret rolls, it isn't actually the fact the result is secret that they dislike, it is the fact that they aren't rolling their dice for their character. Its a viceral thing, and as soon as you take that problem away (by letting them roll the dice, even if they don't see the result), they don't have a problem with secret rolls.
But can there be situations at the table where the GM rolling for a player is "good for the group"?

What if secret rolls (1) create suspense for the group, and (2), help a player better separate THEIR knowledge from their CHARACTER'S knowledge?

[Tinkerer]

One solution to utilise secret rolls, whilst not taking away the players ability to make their own rolls (players like rolling dice) is to use a dice tower. Position it your side of your screen, with the top sticking over, so when you need a secret roll, the player can throw their own dice in, but only you will see the result.

You will find, in the case of most players who object to secret rolls, it isn't actually the fact the result is secret that they dislike, it is the fact that they aren't rolling their dice for their character. Its a viceral thing, and as soon as you take that problem away (by letting them roll the dice, even if they don't see the result), they don't have a problem with secret rolls.

That reminds me of one method that I used back in the day. I would have all of the players roll me about 6-10 or so checks at the start of the adventure, then I would randomize the order of their results and use those for the secret checks.

I know what you're thinking. "Wow that's a lot of effort for an effectively useless outcome." And you would be right, hence why I stopped doing it (particularly when I lowered my session time to 3 hours). But I noticed that it went over pretty well with the players who normally really disliked secret rolls.

Now I normally just use the characters passive perception for 95% of situations.

[Aotrs Commander]

One solution to utilise secret rolls, whilst not taking away the players ability to make their own rolls (players like rolling dice) is to use a dice tower. Position it your side of your screen, with the top sticking over, so when you need a secret roll, the player can throw their own dice in, but only you will see the result.

You will find, in the case of most players who object to secret rolls, it isn't actually the fact the result is secret that they dislike, it is the fact that they aren't rolling their dice for their character. Its a viceral thing, and as soon as you take that problem away (by letting them roll the dice, even if they don't see the result), they don't have a problem with secret rolls.

I'm sure those players would loath my current weekly campaigns, one fears, since all the iniatives are generated on a spread sheet months in advance...

(Because doing it otherwise simply wastes a lot of time on my end organising 7-8 PCs plus umpteen monsters in order when we only have just over two hours to play in. Now, we just have a little line of cards that get put onto of the DM's screen (DM's right to left in descending initative order), which tells the player what sequence the iniative is in and thus when they can whip to the bar between turns and that's all you need. You don't even need to know the actual numbers, really. And, since it's on a spreadsheet and sorted, I adjust the numbers up or down (based on Dex or whatever) when I do it, so there's a discrete sequence, as it's not even as if if I amde you roll with actual dice fifty or so iniatives beforehand they'd actually be the same numbers by the end of it.

Players are advised if they're going to pick something that changes initaive modifiers, to do it at first level of at the end of a stretch I've already written, since I'm not going to go through every combat and do it all again for the sake of changing the order of the first round of combat which is the only point it matters...!)



For the record, ALL my dice rolls are behind my screen - I don't need to see your dice if you're my DM, you don't need to see my dice if I'm yours - especially if I need to fudge it (a typically remote possibility), it's most likely going to in your favour1. (For that matters, I (and my group) consider the DM is quite within their rights to go hold their dice up in their hand and say "rattle rattle rattle, it's a twenty" if they think that makes for a better game (though doing it more than once in a blue moon's blue moon starts to raise questions about what you're doing wrong as a DM to have need to do that). It's a random number generation system there to facillitate the game, it isn't THE game. 99.99% of the time, the system does the job it is supposed to and can be left alone, but that's not 100% of the time.



1Sorry, metaphorically annoyed player, but I don't generally feel like spending another three-four hours writing your new character into the campaign (and re-doing all those initatives) because RNG said so. RNG is not the DM, nor a good story-teller, despite what all the computer games that rely on procedural generation claim. If you want a game where the dice more inviolable and where succeeding is not something I'm explictly working to essentially let you do (gratuitous stupidity aside), you're welcome to play a wargame with me instead - but be aware that since the sort of wargames I play can be more likened to the sort of "max difficulty iron-man" that a lot of folk prefer to play the computer games at, the dice are not going to help you if you're a bad general...

[LordCdrMilitant]

I generally roll dice in the open. I like it, and my players like it. I also feel like "what's the point?", if I roll behind the screen and fudge numbers; I might as well not roll. Sometimes, there are rolls that the result of needs to remain hidden, but that's the exception.

In D&D, there's a passive perception score, I'd reference my creature's take-ten stealth against their passive scores, so I don't have to roll and give anything away.

In Dark Heresy, it's based off of degrees of success, and I usually just assign an appropriate difficulty rating for detecting the stealthy target, and drop hints that they should test Awareness.

[Vorpal Glaive]

Well just because a GM rolls behind a screen does not mean they are fudging. I make secret rolls using a site that records them, along with notes.

I've always felt fudging dice is silly: if your "story" can be killed by a bad roll, why are you even using dice?

[Keltest]

Well just because a GM rolls behind a screen does not mean they are fudging. I make secret rolls using a site that records them, along with notes.

I've always felt fudging dice is silly: if your "story" can be killed by a bad roll, why are you even using dice?

At my table at least, the goal is to maximize fun. Sometimes that means eliminating stupid, random statistically unlikely events like three consecutive crits on the same character who would otherwise be fine in combat. An honest loss in a fight is one thing, but a character suddenly facing and inexplicably god like orc for a couple rounds that they had no reason to expect or prepare for just isn't something anybody particularly cares to see.

[Aotrs Commander]

At my table at least, the goal is to maximize fun. Sometimes that means eliminating stupid, random statistically unlikely events like three consecutive crits on the same character who would otherwise be fine in combat. An honest loss in a fight is one thing, but a character suddenly facing and inexplicably god like orc for a couple rounds that they had no reason to expect or prepare for just isn't something anybody particularly cares to see.

Agreed.

That last time I did it was because the AP (1-20 level) I was running thought it was a good idea to have a high-crit, high damage Large creature (something wielding a falchion) as an early enounter for level 2-3 PCs. (Not even a boss fight.) The inevitable happened, and killing the player's character he'd spent ages making up a lyrical backstory for (bard) and I'd spent quite some time writing additional background for - like all the PCs - to slot them into the world (and thus not do "you meet in a tavern) wasn't going to be fun for him or for me (or anyone else at the table); not for the empty "because dice say so."

So as we realised he'd be obliterated on hit point damage (because like an idiot, I'd annouced the crit before I realise what it meant), I "remembered" at the last second the monster the monster ws power attacking (it might even have been true, I forget whether or not I genuinely forgotten to include PA in the equation) and that meant the monster missed the confirmation roll. (I have no idea or whether this was true.) As a result, said character still went down like a sack of potatoes (so dramatic tension still achieved and the other PCs had to frantically to resuce him), but, with the addition of power attack damage but sans double damage, he was still on living negatives.

(Once they get to level 9, so long as it's not the cleric, this never needs to be a concern, of course.)

[MoiMagnus]

Do you use these as a ref or do you always allow players to roll Perception-related checks themselves?

I used to let players make their own but realized later that if I made the Perception/Insight/Investigation/Deception checks secretly, it can be really fun.

Give me your viewpoints as referees and players, please and thank you.

It depends.

For D&D, we usually play with "all player rolls are public, and DM rolls are semi-public (not hidden, but you're not supposed to look at them specifically, as you might deduce from them information you're not supposed to have)".

In fact, in most games, we don't use hidden rolls, unless when the Players are not supposed to know that a roll happened at all.

For more "DM-controled" games (like Paranoia), hidden rolls are frequent, and it is assumed a hidden roll is a roll the DM actually chose the result of, but might take in account the suggestion given by the dice if he does not have a clear mind on how the action should resolve.

[Ashtagon]

If the players are actively looking for something, they can roll themselves, out in the open. If its a passive check where the act of rolling would reveal that something is there, I do it myself.


I search the room.

Okay. Roll a Search check.

I rolled a 1.

You find nothing.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's something out there.

Sometimes, knowing what you rolled will give useful information about whether the information the GM provides is accurate.

[LordEntrails]

face to face, the players roll in the open. Online (using Fantasy Grounds) we use the dice tower and the rols are hidden.

I prefer hidden and so do my players online, but face to face, I somehow find it emotionally ... unstaisfying to have the DM roll. But, online I don't.

[Keltest]

I search the room.

Okay. Roll a Search check.

I rolled a 1.

You find nothing.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's something out there.

Sometimes, knowing what you rolled will give useful information about whether the information the GM provides is accurate.

That would be actively searching something, and therefore A: I would have the player roll and B: their conclusion is faulty, because it was an active search. If there was nothing there to find, it wouldn't matter what they rolled, nothing magically appears on a poor search roll instigated by the player.

[Galithar]

That would be actively searching something, and therefore A: I would have the player roll and B: their conclusion is faulty, because it was an active search. If there was nothing there to find, it wouldn't matter what they rolled, nothing magically appears on a poor search roll instigated by the player.

Did I miss something? Who said there was nothing there to find?

[Thinker]

I search the room.

Okay. Roll a Search check.

I rolled a 1.

You find nothing.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's something out there.

Sometimes, knowing what you rolled will give useful information about whether the information the GM provides is accurate.

I'd ask why you're bothering to roll for the search if there's no pressure for them to search quickly or if nothing interesting might happen. That's a waste of time. Any action where there's no interesting outcome, no pressure to succeed should simply happen, and it makes logical sense for it to happen in the context of the game.

[Keltest]

Did I miss something? Who said there was nothing there to find?

Nobody. Hence the use of "if".

[Galithar]

Nobody. Hence the use of "if".

That does nothing to change the fact that they THINK there is something and have reason to believe they missed it. The if doesn't change the problem, though it changes my response slightly that you are hanging on the if.

The point of the secret roll is to not give them the chance to make that assumption. If there's nothing there the result could be they continue to search thinking 'I just missed it from a bad roll'. Now you can tell them 'no move on you only get one check' but that's kinda taking agency away from them. Now this interacts with some systems 'don't roll if there's nothing interesting to come of it' but I'm keeping this system agnostic as much as possible and not all systems say that.

It matters less when there really isn't anything there, but it matters greatly when there is something. They rolled a 1 and then decide 'I'm going to take 45 minutes to fully investigate every inch of this room'

[Keltest]

That does nothing to change the fact that they THINK there is something and have reason to believe they missed it. The if doesn't change the problem, though it changes my response slightly that you are hanging on the if.

The point of the secret roll is to not give them the chance to make that assumption. If there's nothing there the result could be they continue to search thinking 'I just missed it from a bad roll'. Now you can tell them 'no move on you only get one check' but that's kinda taking agency away from them. Now this interacts with some systems 'don't roll if there's nothing interesting to come of it' but I'm keeping this system agnostic as much as possible and not all systems say that.

It matters less when there really isn't anything there, but it matters greatly when there is something. They rolled a 1 and then decide 'I'm going to take 45 minutes to fully investigate every inch of this room'

Why is that a problem? This isn't a passive spot check, they actively decided to initiate the search to begin with, and not just with the subsequent roll, but the initial roll. Its not metagaming, they just legitimately think theres something there and are determined to find it.

Sometimes the players will be wrong about something. Let them be wrong. Theres no harm unless they start spending an hour of real time trying to find the hidden door that isn't there, at which point the DM's job is to throw the book at them after about the 3rd search that comes up empty.

[RedMage125]

Sometimes, knowing what you rolled will give useful information about whether the information the GM provides is accurate.

And sometimes, this is exactly why the DM makes the roll for them.

I roll for my players when they search for traps, specifically. Especially when it's the trap searching specialist who looks.

Because these 2 things happen:

Player rolls a 4 on the die.
DM: you find no traps.
Player: ok, this thing is probably trapped, but I didnt find it, let's be extra careful.

Or

Player rolls a 19 on the die.
DM: you find no traps.
Player: totally not trapped. I open the door/chest/whatever.

When I roll for them, this does not happen. The Player then has their character behave as if he rolled well and found no traps, because he was confident that his search was thorough.

That's the only roll I make FOR them. However, when they ask to make Perception/Spot checks, I will roll a die behind the screen as if making a Stealth check, no matter what. Same goes for Insight/Sense Motive checks. I will roll Bluff for said NPC no matter what. I do tell my players, in advance, that any NPC who believes he is telling the truth gets a +30 circumstance bonus to Bluff checks, however. So when I tell my players "he is telling the truth", they usually believe him, because they are willing to immerse themselves enough to go along with the story. It actually has happened, in Age Of Worms, that my players attempted to Sense Motive on a seemingly helpful NPC who was actually a vampiric silver dragon working for the enemy. Her Bluff check was SUPER high, and they missed the opposed check by only 2 or 3 points, but they continued to believe she was just being truthful.

[Jay R]

Any general rule has holes in it. Have a general rule, with a perfect willingness to make an exception at any time.

My general rule is that players make rolls if they know the rolls are happening, and if their characters would know the results immediately. But I make rolls privately if the fact of the roll gives them information, thereby robbing them of the possibility of learning it in play.

For example, the party walks into a cavern. I quietly make DC 20 perception rolls. They all fail. One player says, "Pollyanna looks up at the ceiling." I say, make a perception roll. If she succeeds against a DC 10, she sees the dire bats perching in the darkness.

But (like so much in RPGs), this requires the two basic rules for a comfortable game:

A. Be trustworthy, and only play with players who will trust you.

B. Only play with players you can trust, and trust them.

[Psikerlord]

My strong preference is to roll as much as possible in the open. At the start of an adventure I get everyone to make 10 x d20 rolls that I keep as a list. If I need a secret roll (very rare), I use the PC's list.

[Earthwalker]

And sometimes, this is exactly why the DM makes the roll for them.

I roll for my players when they search for traps, specifically. Especially when it's the trap searching specialist who looks.

Because these 2 things happen:

Player rolls a 4 on the die.
DM: you find no traps.
Player: ok, this thing is probably trapped, but I didnt find it, let's be extra careful.

Or

Player rolls a 19 on the die.
DM: you find no traps.
Player: totally not trapped. I open the door/chest/whatever.

When I roll for them, this does not happen. The Player then has their character behave as if he rolled well and found no traps, because he was confident that his search was thorough.

[snip]


Borrowing this example. Firstly I don't think there is anything wrong with this example but just using it to show how I would cover something similar in a DnD game.

In my game searching for traps as no penalty for rolling a 1, so you can take a 20 searching for traps. So there is no roll to search for traps. You pretty much find all the traps you search for.

There is a roll to disarm the trap. (Normally people that want to roll dice for trap disarming..not always tho)

At that stage the player that searched will be told something like...

Its a fireball trap (or what ever the trap is)
Its a trap with a DC of 24, if you try to disable and fail by more than 5 the trap hits you.


Then its up to them if they want to roll.

Also can lead to more questions on how the trap is triggered and so on, can be an encounter why they try to avoid the trap without rolling.

The game isn't about if they notice the trap, its about what they do when they notice it.

Of course that's just me.

[oxybe]

All rolls are done in the open.

Perception type ones are normally a passive skill for noticing things they aren't actively looking for or "opposed passive", like a passive stealth check for monsters trying to sneak up on players who aren't actively on guard.

But really, I generally follow the rule of thumb "would adding randomness here be fun, and am I willing to accept all dice results?" when deciding if rolling dice is necessary. As you can probably guess I'm not a big fan of fudging rolls either.

For the most part, simply being trained in a skill will allow success in a lot of tasks, doubly so if you have plenty of time and no stressors.

As far as stuff like traps are concerned, for the most part I abuse the ever loving crap out of passive perception type abilities and assume the characters are aware of traps and somewhat looking out for them. As such traps are usually easily found, unless the PC in question is rather blind. Active perception is used more for fine or extra details the passive check might have missed.

Then again, i very rarely use simple "resource waster" traps as i find them probably the most boring thing you can put in your environment. Yeah, a hidden punji stick trap coated with feces can absolutely wreck someone's day, but it's probably going to be a one-and-done boring affair.

The point of a trap in play, to me, is not to waste player resources but rather press the characters for time and present an opportunity to use abilities. They're treated like any other hazard, just one that can potentially be "shut off" or disarmed, or even turned against it's creator.

[Aotrs Commander]

Serious question: is deciding that the PCs succeed (or possibly, fail) and not having them roll (tacitly, as if you always/frequently let them take 10 or 20 (for a given instance of something) then any DCs you set, you're deciding whether or not they'll pass) different to ignoring the result of a secret dice roll you make? Or is the difference between non-combat and combat situations? (I.e. secret rolls to see if they spot something verses (say) your to-hit rolls.)

I'm curious what the answers are.



(As a side-note, traps are usually really badly handled generally; 3.x especially made them into "roll dice to solve" and means that every foot, every room is checked for traps and the only time one ever works is if they forget. (See also traps in computer games, which generally are a nuisence at best unless deployed simultaneously with a combat,which doesn't happen often.) It is certainly, far, far too easy to slip into that mindset - I try, these days, to make more of an effort into making traps more than just a couple of dice-rolls.)

[Koo Rehtorb]

Serious question: is deciding that the PCs succeed (or possibly, fail) and not having them roll (tacitly, as if you always/frequently let them take 10 or 20 (for a given instance of something) then any DCs you set, you're deciding whether or not they'll pass) different to ignoring the result of a secret dice roll you make?

Yes they are different. Deciding when a roll is triggered is part of the GM's job. It is your job to not call for frivolous rolls. If someone declares they want to jump to the moon you are under no obligation to tell them to roll their jump skill. Just narrate them jumping a certain distance into the air and then falling back down to earth again. If you call for a roll, though, then you are bound to the result. Cheating at dice and lying about it is not part of the GM's job.


Or is the difference between non-combat and combat situations? (I.e. secret rolls to see if they spot something verses (say) your to-hit rolls.)

No. No difference.

[Keltest]

Serious question: is deciding that the PCs succeed (or possibly, fail) and not having them roll (tacitly, as if you always/frequently let them take 10 or 20 (for a given instance of something) then any DCs you set, you're deciding whether or not they'll pass) different to ignoring the result of a secret dice roll you make? Or is the difference between non-combat and combat situations? (I.e. secret rolls to see if they spot something verses (say) your to-hit rolls.)

I'm curious what the answers are.



(As a side-note, traps are usually really badly handled generally; 3.x especially made them into "roll dice to solve" and means that every foot, every room is checked for traps and the only time one ever works is if they forget. (See also traps in computer games, which generally are a nuisence at best unless deployed simultaneously with a combat,which doesn't happen often.) It is certainly, far, far too easy to slip into that mindset - I try, these days, to make more of an effort into making traps more than just a couple of dice-rolls.)

If its something downright impossible, i'll have them roll and then tell them they failed before they actually say what they got, just to make a point. We're all friends at my table, so they recognize it for the joke it is. If its simply unlikely but not literally impossible, i'll tell them that they basically need a perfect roll to get it, and then see if they still want to go through with it.

I might also have them roll on some impossible tasks to determine degrees of failure. A big clumsy fighter with 8 dex is not going to be picking a lock, but he might break the lock in the attempt, or attract monsters, or even get frustrated and force the door if his strength is high enough.

[RedMage125]

Serious question: is deciding that the PCs succeed (or possibly, fail) and not having them roll (tacitly, as if you always/frequently let them take 10 or 20 (for a given instance of something) then any DCs you set, you're deciding whether or not they'll pass) different to ignoring the result of a secret dice roll you make? Or is the difference between non-combat and combat situations? (I.e. secret rolls to see if they spot something verses (say) your to-hit rolls.)

I'm curious what the answers are.

I don't typically ignore the secret dice rolls I make, so I don't think this question has a valid premise. If, hypothetically, one did such a thing, I suppose it would be no different, but it begs the question "why roll dice at all of outcomes are predetermined?"


(As a side-note, traps are usually really badly handled generally; 3.x especially made them into "roll dice to solve" and means that every foot, every room is checked for traps and the only time one ever works is if they forget. (See also traps in computer games, which generally are a nuisence at best unless deployed simultaneously with a combat,which doesn't happen often.) It is certainly, far, far too easy to slip into that mindset - I try, these days, to make more of an effort into making traps more than just a couple of dice-rolls.)

Traps combined with combat encounters can be awesome. I once ran a 5e game in which level 3 PCs infiltrated a town that had been taken over by kobolds. There were only about 10 kobolds or so, not much of a challenge for 5 PCs of 3rd level, but they'd held the town for a few weeks, and it was riddled with traps. The kobolds made it a running battle, constantly retreating past the traps, taking side routes to avoid them, and taunting the PCs into going straight thru them.

Good times.

[Jay R]

I don't typically ignore the secret dice rolls I make, so I don't think this question has a valid premise. If, hypothetically, one did such a thing, I suppose it would be no different, but it begs the question "why roll dice at all of outcomes are predetermined?"

This question also has an invalid premise. There are degrees between "the outcome is predetermined" and "some normally possible outcomes aren't possible here."

The clearest example is rolling on a wandering monster table. I'm using my usual table, and all results are usually possible. I roll, and get "zombies". But I know that a little further on, there is a necromancer who has called all nearby zombies to his lair. So in this particular moment, that particular roll is impossible. I either re-roll, or decide that the zombies were here until they were called, and there's no encounter.

Similarly, if I'm using a critical fumble table, and I get "roll dex to avoid dropping weapon," when the character is attempting a grapple, he doesn't drop his hands.

There are also situations in which a fumble or a critical hit have no meaning.

And I occasionally ignore a roll I just made when the result reminds me, after I rolled, that the outcome wasn't random.

[Aotrs Commander]

Yes they are different. Deciding when a roll is triggered is part of the GM's job. It is your job to not call for frivolous rolls. If someone declares they want to jump to the moon you are under no obligation to tell them to roll their jump skill. Just narrate them jumping a certain distance into the air and then falling back down to earth again. If you call for a roll, though, then you are bound to the result. Cheating at dice and lying about it is not part of the GM's job.

So it is fine for me to say1 "no, that moderately stupid thing you want to do is impossible" or (as actually happens sometimes) "no, you can't Diplomacy the [monster], it's simply not interested, (no, not even if you roll a natural 20)" but not to go "hmm, well, that unexpected lot of maxed D6 damage will wipe the party out, let's quietly halve that," or "oh, frack no, that random monster encounter will TPK the party if I spring that on them?"



I would also say that Convincingly Lying To Your Players (you can call it bluffing, if it make you feel better) is one of the most important DM skills to have (like Lying To The Other Players is, in say, poker or something.)



1Pleae note I am deliberately excluding unreasonable scenarios like "you can't hit him, don't bother making your attack roll" or "I want to jump to the moon" that basically no-one at the table would consider acceptable.

[MrSandman]

So it is fine for me to say1 "no, that moderately stupid thing you want to do is impossible" or (as actually happens sometimes) "no, you can't Diplomacy the [monster], it's simply not interested, (no, not even if you roll a natural 20)" but not to go "hmm, well, that unexpected lot of maxed D6 damage will wipe the party out, let's quietly halve that," or "oh, frack no, that random monster encounter will TPK the party if I spring that on them?"
.

Why would you have monster encounters that can TPK if you're not willing to accept them as a possible outcome of the roll?

[Keltest]

Why would you have monster encounters that can TPK if you're not willing to accept them as a possible outcome of the roll?

Not everybody prepares their own random encounter tables before each session. To say nothing of the fact that a party's strength will fluctuate throughout the day.

[Roderick_BR]

My group rolls it open. The thing is that the DM doesn't say how much is the DC, or if we passed or not, he just tells us the info we get accordingly, unless it's when we shouldn't even be aware of it, then he uses the Passive Perception rules.

[Aotrs Commander]

Why would you have monster encounters that can TPK if you're not willing to accept them as a possible outcome of the roll?

In the case of a randomly generated encounters - you didn't create the table and/or the PCs are low level, so even a mildly-vexed bear could wipe them, let alone something smarter and nastier. (Especially if you don't have cacking great 7-8 character parties like I have.)



(For the record, personally, I generate any random encounters long in advance if I think I'll need them so they are least marginally more than "now a fights happens" and if I rolled up something I don't like, I'd scrap it. At that point, I'm still, as far as I'm concerned, still at the "preparing the quest stage" and the random rolls are nothing more than a suggestion to give me ideas for an encounter.

I also never use random encounters at a static location; if my PCs need to rest after their fifteen-minute adventuring day the NEED to rest after their fifteen-minute adventuring day because they'll have blown their resources and won't be in a position to carry on until they do rest; and if I did want throw something at them for resting when/where they shouldn't, I'd use existing dungeon denizens.)



In the case of in actual combat? There are dozens of ways that can occur. The party are already getted hammered in an encounter with, say, Some Giants and the Evil Wizard lobs a Delayed Blast Fireball in and you roll Mostly Sixes. (I am notoriously good at doing that on occasion). Or you have a dragon which keeps rolling 1s on getting its breath weapon recharge.

Would you just... Not have them use that attack? (Even if that would be the best option and most in-character for that creature to do?) Is that better than making the attack and just lowering the damage so they all stay up? Or do you go "whelp, that's it lads, you all die, end of the campaign?" (And given as the DM, you spend all the time preparing the game and pretty much no-one else can do it, that's it for the game for several weeks while you prepare a new campaign?)

There comes a point where you have to make a decision as DM what is the most important priority to you (and your game and players). Maybe if you're a free-form sort of GM, you can afford to scrap parties off because you can pull a new game out at the drop of a hat. I am the exact opposite of that, so if it comes to that sort of decision, I'm always going to go with "whichever compromise keeps the campaign rolling and the credible threat level up for the players (not the PCs), i.e. without making it too obivous I'm going easy on them." That's my line in the sand. I'm curious as to where other people's are.

[Koo Rehtorb]

So it is fine for me to say1 "no, that moderately stupid thing you want to do is impossible" or (as actually happens sometimes) "no, you can't Diplomacy the [monster], it's simply not interested, (no, not even if you roll a natural 20)" but not to go "hmm, well, that unexpected lot of maxed D6 damage will wipe the party out, let's quietly halve that," or "oh, frack no, that random monster encounter will TPK the party if I spring that on them?"

It becomes closer to the same thing (and also unacceptable) if you're not calling for a roll because you don't want something to happen rather than because you genuinely don't think dice arbitration is needed. Not the same thing, but not a good thing either. Saying no you can't diplomacy the angry king because you don't think what they're saying would do anything is fine. Saying no you can't diplomacy the angry king because my session plan requires them to be thrown in the dungeon is not fine. It may look the same to the outside observer, but you know your own motivations.


I would also say that Convincingly Lying To Your Players (you can call it bluffing, if it make you feel better) is one of the most important DM skills to have (like Lying To The Other Players is, in say, poker or something.)

Lying in character is fine, and expected. That's part of playing the game. Lying to your players out of character makes you scum.

[Keltest]

Lying in character is fine, and expected. That's part of playing the game. Lying to your players out of character makes you scum.

I would suggest theres a difference between lying and generating a false perception. Its one thing to tell players that there is an empty room and then have there be, like, 20 kobolds in it, and another to tell them that they cant see anything in the room. One is lying (the room was not empty) and the other is managing player perceptions so they only think its empty.

[HouseRules]

Spot Check - See
Listen Check - Hear
Odor Check - Smell

Odor Check must always be a secret roll, because there is no skill for it.

[Aotrs Commander]

I would suggest theres a difference between lying and generating a false perception. Its one thing to tell players that there is an empty room and then have there be, like, 20 kobolds in it, and another to tell them that they cant see anything in the room. One is lying (the room was not empty) and the other is managing player perceptions so they only think its empty.

Bluffing, generating false perception, lying, whatever you want to call it, you need the ability to keep a completely straight face when, e.g. the PCs fail their checks and wander into the empty room full of invisible kobold assassins you've spent ages generating up and not giggle like a little school girl at the impending massecre. Or maybe you can (a grinning DM always rattles the players) - because the impending massecre is ALSO a lie - the lie that you are ACTUALLY intending to kill the PCs off is the very most important one to maintain while you're behind the screen. You should always give the impression to the PCs that they are going to die horribly at any moment (or at least if they do something stupid), even though in reality, that is never (shouldn't be) your goal.

Like that one blue chap said, the difference between a villain and a DungeonMaster?

Presentation!



I mean, on the first instance you said there, poor DMing is poor DMing, regardless, but that's neither here nor there; be a poor DM and you won't have any players (or at least, any players who give a frack).

[MrSandman]

Not everybody prepares their own random encounter tables before each session. To say nothing of the fact that a party's strength will fluctuate throughout the day.


In the case of a randomly generated encounters - you didn't create the table and/or the PCs are low level, so even a mildly-vexed bear could wipe them, let alone something smarter and nastier. (Especially if you don't have cacking great 7-8 character parties like I have.)


I tend to think that checking the random encounter tables beforehand is part of preparation if you are going to use them.

Regarding the fluctuation in party's survivability, maybe don't roll for a random encouner if they can't survive what's in the table?

That's just my preference, though. I'd rather not roll for something if I'm not going to accept any possible outcome.

[Haldir]

Roll everything in the open, including GM dice, always.

This.

But just because we're rolling in the open doesn't necessarily mean the players will always know why I'm rolling in the open. :xykon:

[HouseRules]

This.

But just because we're rolling in the open doesn't necessarily mean the players will always know why I'm rolling in the open. :xykon:

Just because a player is rolling for a skill check does not mean the player knows which skill is more favorable.

[Keltest]

I tend to think that checking the random encounter tables beforehand is part of preparation if you are going to use them.

Regarding the fluctuation in party's survivability, maybe don't roll for a random encouner if they can't survive what's in the table?

That's just my preference, though. I'd rather not roll for something if I'm not going to accept any possible outcome.

That sounds a lot like doing more work for the same result. Why should I go through my material with a fine tooth comb looking for the slim chance edge cases when I can just take the quarter second to deal with them when they pop up instead? It would be one thing if the entire table was useless, but if its only one encounter in a specific circumstance that could potentially be a problem, whats the point in proactively trying to filter it out? Tables and dice are tools to facilitate fun. If it turns out they don't do that in a specific circumstance, just get a different tool, don't break something trying to use them anyway.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I would suggest theres a difference between lying and generating a false perception. Its one thing to tell players that there is an empty room and then have there be, like, 20 kobolds in it, and another to tell them that they cant see anything in the room. One is lying (the room was not empty) and the other is managing player perceptions so they only think its empty.

"You don't see anything in the room" isn't a lie, or even a misdirection. It's a straightforward description of what their characters perceive. I find that sort of gameplay tedious pixel bitching, resolve the actual interesting conflict at hand instead of spending 30 minutes rolling to search for traps with a fine tooth comb, but if I was playing that style of game, for some reason, I certainly wouldn't take that sentence as a guarantee that the room was actually empty.

[Koo Rehtorb]

As for the often mentioned "but what about if I roll a dire tiger in a place where all the dire tigers have become extinct?!?!" defense of fudging. Are you comfortable saying to the players, "This result is non-applicable because I haven't updated the table. I'm going to roll again" or not? If you can provide a reasonable explanation for why you're not accepting a die result and have everyone go "Yeah, that makes sense" then it's probably not fudging.

[Keltest]

As for the often mentioned "but what about if I roll a dire tiger in a place where all the dire tigers have become extinct?!?!" defense of fudging. Are you comfortable saying to the players, "This result is non-applicable because I haven't updated the table. I'm going to roll again" or not? If you can provide a reasonable explanation for why you're not accepting a die result and have everyone go "Yeah, that makes sense" then it's probably not fudging.

Comfortable? Sure. I don't feel any particular need to announce it, but if they asked I would tell them as much.

[Quertus]

Roll everything in the open, including GM dice, always.

Closest to this?

So, I believe in rolling in secret for things that the PCs don't know that they don't know (like perception checks to notice secret doors or hidden monsters), and even rolling them before the session begins, so that they don't know that there is a roll. This helps prevent metagame information from biasing their actions.

Everything else can (and arguably should) be rolled in the open.

That's the simplest way to get close to explaining my position on hidden rolls in particular, and hidden information in general.

[Quertus]

Serious question: is deciding that the PCs succeed (or possibly, fail) and not having them roll (tacitly, as if you always/frequently let them take 10 or 20 (for a given instance of something) then any DCs you set, you're deciding whether or not they'll pass) different to ignoring the result of a secret dice roll you make?

This implies that you've created the content after the PCs existed - or even created the content in the first place.

IMO, best practices is that the module exists before the PCs exist / are known to the GM.

[Quertus]

This question also has an invalid premise. There are degrees between "the outcome is predetermined" and "some normally possible outcomes aren't possible here."

The clearest example is rolling on a wandering monster table. I'm using my usual table, and all results are usually possible. I roll, and get "zombies". But I know that a little further on, there is a necromancer who has called all nearby zombies to his lair.

In this scenario, I would give them the *empty* zombie encounter: "it's clear from the boot-shaped indentations & dead foliage that a number of bipedal creatures have been standing here, unmoving, for several years… until very recently, when… roll Track".

[Jay R]

In this scenario, I would give them the *empty* zombie encounter: "it's clear from the boot-shaped indentations & dead foliage that a number of bipedal creatures have been standing here, unmoving, for several years… until very recently, when… roll Track".

Quite likely. I'd have to make an instant call whether to do that or see if some other encounter moved in.

But in either case, it's an example of looking at a die roll and deciding that it doesn't apply in this specific situation, which was my point.

Making the occasional judgment call is a third option, different from either blindly following the dice or ignoring them.

[Earthwalker]

Closest to this?

So, I believe in rolling in secret for things that the PCs don't know that they don't know (like perception checks to notice secret doors or hidden monsters), and even rolling them before the session begins, so that they don't know that there is a roll. This helps prevent metagame information from biasing their actions.

Everything else can (and arguably should) be rolled in the open.

That's the simplest way to get close to explaining my position on hidden rolls in particular, and hidden information in general.

Another simple way of removing the metagamey bits is to move the roll to the point of action. This changes what having a perception skill means to the game.

Like for example.

GM: As you are searching the room make a perception test. If you beat DC 15 you spot the goblin hiding and we are into combat. If you fail, the goblin gets a surprise round.

Sutreuq (A battle mage that hates things academic and loves tactics, an original character for this example and under no circumstances is it based on an existing character so you can’t charge me copyright) : Rolls Dice “14, that’s just failed. I am going to burn a point of luck and re-roll… 18 much better”

GM: Ok roll initiative as you notice a goblin moving into attack.

The perception check changes the state of the start of the fight so is important but it doesn’t need to be a hidden roll as one way or another the state of the scene / encounter changes, Success or fail. When one result doesn’t change the state of the scene you end up in hidden roll land (and you don’t have to if you don’t want)

[Thinker]

Another simple way of removing the metagamey bits is to move the roll to the point of action. This changes what having a perception skill means to the game.

Like for example.

GM: As you are searching the room make a perception test. If you beat DC 15 you spot the goblin hiding and we are into combat. If you fail, the goblin gets a surprise round.

Sutreuq (A battle mage that hates things academic and loves tactics, an original character for this example and under no circumstances is it based on an existing character so you can’t charge me copyright) : Rolls Dice “14, that’s just failed. I am going to burn a point of luck and re-roll… 18 much better”

GM: Ok roll initiative as you notice a goblin moving into attack.

The perception check changes the state of the start of the fight so is important but it doesn’t need to be a hidden roll as one way or another the state of the scene / encounter changes, Success or fail. When one result doesn’t change the state of the scene you end up in hidden roll land (and you don’t have to if you don’t want)

That sounds good in this scenario, but I don't think it addresses Quertus's situation. In your example, there is a fight to be had whether the players roll well or not. Let us say that Quertus the Wizard (for whom the forum poster is named after) goes past a secret door. If there's no ambush or trap to be triggered, how does Quertus passively discover the door? You can't set a DC and say "all characters with +7 perception to can find this door" because then when you're designing the scenario, you choose which of your doors are found in the first place.

[Earthwalker]

That sounds good in this scenario, but I don't think it addresses Quertus's situation. In your example, there is a fight to be had whether the players roll well or not. Let us say that Quertus the Wizard (for whom the forum poster is named after) goes past a secret door. If there's no ambush or trap to be triggered, how does Quertus passively discover the door? You can't set a DC and say "all characters with +7 perception to can find this door" because then when you're designing the scenario, you choose which of your doors are found in the first place.

This is true.
The change it has made for me is that I have no secret doors in my game, at least not like you are suggesting.

With one of my gaming groups a secret door would just be found. If the adventure lies beyond a secret door. I am not rolling dice to see if the characters can get to the adventure. I am just going to say they can.

Where a roll can be used (with a secret door..) would be more along the lines of...

GM: Doctor Creed flees and runs into his office. You give chase and as you enter the office the villain is no where to be seen. Make a Perception 13, if you make it you spot the secret door and can continue the chase. If you fail you spend too long before you notice the secret door and Doctor Creed gets away.

Sutreuq (A battle mage that hates things academic and loves tactics, an original character for this example and under no circumstances is it based on an existing character so you can’t charge me copyright) : Rolls, a 7 "Curses he got away, if only I had learned more magic to do with information collection or tracking I would be able to find him again"

[Quertus]

I suppose I'm more the type to describe the villains' various offices as having "paperweights"; when the PCs finally take ranks in Knowledge: Arcana, they come to understand that those were Crystal Balls, and the coordination that they've been seeing all this time suddenly makes sense. (OK, admittedly, actual Crystal Balls may well be common knowledge, but communication through attuned runestones (the rune being on the bottom, covered in felt) that just look like paperweights to the untrained eye would require some Knowledge)

That is, I like when they actually make the roll, the details that they have seen all make sense. They could both have and act on suspicions if they so choose, because there isn't metagame information there to taint their perception.

[Jay R]

Another simple way of removing the metagamey bits is to move the roll to the point of action. This changes what having a perception skill means to the game.

Like for example.

GM: As you are searching the room make a perception test. If you beat DC 15 you spot the goblin hiding and we are into combat. If you fail, the goblin gets a surprise round.

Great idea -- when you can use it.

But it assumes that the roll can be moved to the point of action. What if the goblin knows she's outnumbered, and if she isn't spotted, she will sneak away and come back with a dozen more? Or she's a goblin rogue, and will try to get behind a PC for a sneak attack? In that case, succeeding means the point of action is now, but failing means the point of action (for the PCs) is later.

Or suppose one of several clues is in this room. The "point of action" is when they get enough clues that they can solve the mystery. That depends on which of the clues they spot, and how clever they are that day. I can't predict that.

Or the perception roll is to determine if the rogue sees the specific magic item the goblin is carrying. If the rogue makes the throw, then she decides whether to start a fight or try to sneak up to steal it. If she doesn't spot it, she'll roll again a round or two later. But I can't tell the player, "OK, roll to see if you notice that she's carrying the quest object that you're all looking for."

Since making or failing the roll can affect the point of action, you can't arbitrarily move the roll to the point of action.

[MrSandman]

Great idea -- when you can use it.

But it assumes that the roll can be moved to the point of action. What if the goblin knows she's outnumbered, and if she isn't spotted, she will sneak away and come back with a dozen more? Or she's a goblin rogue, and will try to get behind a PC for a sneak attack? In that case, succeeding means the point of action is now, but failing means the point of action (for the PCs) is later.

Well, as Earthwalker said, it requires a different mindset. You could, for instance, frame it in terms of spotting the goblin before it runs away. So if the goblin succeeds, they'll notice it only when it's too late to chase it.

The point is that you don't roll if it doesn't move the story forward. The goblin being there and the characters not noticing it at all might be important in the future, but at the present it doesn't help move the story forward, so you avoid this situation.




Or suppose one of several clues is in this room. The "point of action" is when they get enough clues that they can solve the mystery. That depends on which of the clues they spot, and how clever they are that day. I can't predict that.

Again, add pressure to it. Instead of "can you figure out this clue?" do "can you figure out this clue before another victim is murdered?"
If the adventure won't go on until enough clues have been worked out and they've got any amount of time to solve it, just assume they'll solve it.




Or the perception roll is to determine if the rogue sees the specific magic item the goblin is carrying. If the rogue makes the throw, then she decides whether to start a fight or try to sneak up to steal it. If she doesn't spot it, she'll roll again a round or two later. But I can't tell the player, "OK, roll to see if you notice that she's carrying the quest object that you're all looking for."

But you can tell the player to roll to see if she notices the quest object before the goblin runs out of reach.


It's definitely not for all tastes, and some genres might not work very well with it, but this mindset works well for the kind of game it seeks to produce, which is a game where each roll is intended to move the story forward (one way or the other) and avoid dead ends as well as succeed-or-miss-the-adventure checks.

[jintoya]

I roll everything out in the open, but I also roll dice for no reason and write down the results just to stop meta-gaming.
It lets them celebrate the nats, and mourn the 1s as a group, unless it's the bad guy rolling, then they cheer... It's good fun.

[Thinker]

To actually address the topic, I like to play games where the GM doesn't roll anything. Everything that happens that requires a roll is based on the players rolling. Everything is in the open.

[Quertus]

To actually address the topic, I like to play games where the GM doesn't roll anything. Everything that happens that requires a roll is based on the players rolling. Everything is in the open.

How do these systems handle information that the PCs are or may be unaware of?

[Koo Rehtorb]

How do these systems handle information that the PCs are or may be unaware of?

Give an example of a specific situation and I'll tell you how I'd handle it in a PbtA game.

[Quertus]

Give an example of a specific situation and I'll tell you how I'd handle it in a PbtA game.

Fair enough.

While investigating a crime scene, one of the PCs says something dumb that one of the NPCs reacts to (because they know something that the PCs don't, and believe that it might be true). Do the PCs notice? If not, it'll likely be days later before the PCs notice the ramifications of that NPC hearing that comment.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Fair enough.

While investigating a crime scene, one of the PCs says something dumb that one of the NPCs reacts to (because they know something that the PCs don't, and believe that it might be true). Do the PCs notice? If not, it'll likely be days later before the PCs notice the ramifications of that NPC hearing that comment.

So some of this answer is going to be me editorializing because I have strong feelings about the subject (big surprise). I think "do the PCs notice X or not?" is generally a very boring question in a roleplaying game. Bypass that question and move on to something more interesting. The interesting question is usually what the PCs are going to do about it.

In this case I'd describe the NPC acting cagey in some manner or other that's non-specific to the reason. If the players are curious/alarmed they can follow up by trying to figure out why he's acting cagey. Most PbtA games will have some variation of "Read a Person" which will usually have some variation of "What does your character intend to do?" as one of the options for questions you can ask on a success. Or if they're not interested in the NPC, or the players are particularly dense that day and don't notice anything strange about the way I'm playing him, they can let it pass and you can move on to future ramifications.

[Thinker]

How do these systems handle information that the PCs are or may be unaware of?


Fair enough.

While investigating a crime scene, one of the PCs says something dumb that one of the NPCs reacts to (because they know something that the PCs don't, and believe that it might be true). Do the PCs notice? If not, it'll likely be days later before the PCs notice the ramifications of that NPC hearing that comment.

I'm referring to the same system in general as Koo Rehtorb, Powered by the Apocalypse, games based on the original design of Apocalypse World by Vincent Baker. In that game, rolls are only made when players trigger moves. I'm going to elaborate on your scenario because it needs a bit more meat to really say what might happen.
Scenario: The party is investigating the death of Dodge Random and heard that the last person to see him alive was Deever Mason who runs a rough and tumble bar on the other side of town. They've loudly asked around to find out more about Deever and discovered that he and Dodge had a falling out a few years back while scavenging the ruins of Ewyor City. They show up at the bar to question Deever, but find that he's not in (probably because the party hasn't exactly been low-key while they've been asking around about him). One of the players, a savvyhead (a class for being an expert mechanic) named Fix It Steve, starts talking sh*t about Deever, not thinking that they might be surrounded by Deever's crew. The GM describes the bar as being dilapidated, but with a lot of customers for this time of day. Filled with the kinds of people who fight hard and party harder.
Fix It Steve: I'm going to burn this sh*thole down and smoke this joker out.
GM: You notice one of the heavier-built patrons move toward the door and flip around the sign to closed while another one approaches you, forming a mean mug on his face. The bar goes quiet as though you can hear a pin drop.
Fix It Steve: I guess I'm surrounded. I want to look for a way out of this mess.
GM: Sounds like you want to read a sitch. Roll +sharp.

When you read a charged situation, roll +sharp. On a hit, you can ask the MC questions. Whenever you act on one of the GM's answers, take +1. On a 10+, ask 3. On a 7-9, ask 1:

- Where's my best escape route / way in / way past?


- Which enemy is most vulnerable to me?


- Which enemy is the biggest threat?


- What should I be on the lookout for?


- What's my enemy's true position?


- Who's in control here?


On a miss, ask 1 anyway, but be prepared for the worst.



Fix it Steve: <rolls 2d6 +sharp, gets a 7> Alright. A 7 doesn't seem so bad. Where is my best escape route?
GM: There's a door marked private by the stage. It's been left ajar, but there's no one guarding the door. Still, all eyes are on you and you might not make it over there without a scrap. What do you do?
Fix it Steve: Well if that's my best bet, I try to rush to the other side of the room, keeping an eye out for anyone trying to stop me.
GM: By your count, there's half a dozen guys and girls in here who might try to keep you from leaving. One of the heavies reaches out to try to stop you.
Fix it Steve: I'm going to draw my pistol and blast a path to the exit.
GM: Sounds like you want to seize by force. Roll +hard.

Basically, you go back and forth. The GM has principles to follow to keep the world dangerous and interesting. You don't bother with rolls unless or until something interesting might happen.

[Quertus]

@Thinker - you've changed the scenario to a "something is happening now" scenario. I'm interested in less of a "he's taking it out of your skin now" scenario, and more of a "he's going to get some dynamite, and rig it to your truck/door/whatever 4 moves from now - but you don't know that, because you failed the roll. Hope you do something to learn about it, or you may lose your property, and maybe your life" kind of scenario.

[MrSandman]

@Thinker - you've changed the scenario to a "something is happening now" scenario. I'm interested in less of a "he's taking it out of your skin now" scenario, and more of a "he's going to get some dynamite, and rig it to your truck/door/whatever 4 moves from now - but you don't know that, because you failed the roll. Hope you do something to learn about it, or you may lose your property, and maybe your life" kind of scenario.

But that's kind of the point. You frame scenarios differently.

The scenario you propose here is basically a "keep rolling until you succeed". You've failed your roll, so keep trying or you'll be in trouble. Some people don't like this kind of scenario, so they reframe them to be something different.

The first example you got goes in the way of just giving the players the basic information (the guy is acting strange) and let them take action on it. The second one is a complete reworking that moves the action here and now instead of maybe sometime somewhere.

Bu the whole point is that you don't keep your players in the dark because a game like this is boring:

Players walk down the corridor (fail perception check)
GM "There's nothing strange"
Players enter the room (fail perception check)
GM "You don't see anything"
Playes exit the room
GM "You find yourselves surrounded by goblins"
(The goblin that they failed to spot went away and got its buddies, who came through the secret door in the room that they failed to spot and so now they've got to face a bunch of goblins for no apparent reason)

In this case, there may be loads of ramifications and things going on due to the players' failed rolls, but it is all in the GM's head, so the players are cut off most of what's going on. Some people like to avoid that.

[Thinker]

@Thinker - you've changed the scenario to a "something is happening now" scenario. I'm interested in less of a "he's taking it out of your skin now" scenario, and more of a "he's going to get some dynamite, and rig it to your truck/door/whatever 4 moves from now - but you don't know that, because you failed the roll. Hope you do something to learn about it, or you may lose your property, and maybe your life" kind of scenario.

The GM would still have to communicate that the NPC seemed upset in some way. The players might not pick up on it and that's fine. I'd start a clock probably with 4 counts. When all four ticks of the clock are filled, the truck goes boom. Every time the players miss a clue about the dynamite, the clock fills by one. Some of those chances to uncover the dynamite bomber would be rolls, but would depend on player actions.

[Quertus]

But that's kind of the point. You frame scenarios differently.

The scenario you propose here is basically a "keep rolling until you succeed". You've failed your roll, so keep trying or you'll be in trouble. Some people don't like this kind of scenario, so they reframe them to be something different.

The first example you got goes in the way of just giving the players the basic information (the guy is acting strange) and let them take action on it. The second one is a complete reworking that moves the action here and now instead of maybe sometime somewhere.

Bu the whole point is that you don't keep your players in the dark because a game like this is boring:

Players walk down the corridor (fail perception check)
GM "There's nothing strange"
Players enter the room (fail perception check)
GM "You don't see anything"
Playes exit the room
GM "You find yourselves surrounded by goblins"
(The goblin that they failed to spot went away and got its buddies, who came through the secret door in the room that they failed to spot and so now they've got to face a bunch of goblins for no apparent reason)

In this case, there may be loads of ramifications and things going on due to the players' failed rolls, but it is all in the GM's head, so the players are cut off most of what's going on. Some people like to avoid that.

Well, no. This is not a "keep rolling" scenario, this is a "if you made the roll, turn to page 107; if you failed the roll, turn to page 46" scenario. That is, how the adventure continues - or, at least, whether the adventure continues with the PCs having knowledge of a particular clue - is dependent upon this roll. If they know that someone is out to get them, they may take precautions - or just kill that guy before he tries anything. If they don't, they're subject to his success or failure.

But the point is, "him trying something" is not something that happens at the point in time when the PCs have the opportunity to learn that he may try something.

Being "kept in the dark", as you put it, is the opposite of boring. It is exciting when you realize that everything happens for a reason, if only you had seen those reasons earlier, if only you had put the pieces together before you blundered into the death trap. Or, alternately, how cool of you to put those pieces together in time.

It sounds like you are saying that the answer is to always give the players the information, and see what (if anything) they do with it. So, you always notice secret doors, always notice shifty characters, etc. Have I got that right? If so, that limits the number of stories you can tell, puts the PCs fate squarely in the players' hands, and IMO, makes Sherlock Holmes less special. Win some, lose some.

[MrSandman]

Well, no. This is not a "keep rolling" scenario, this is a "if you made the roll, turn to page 107; if you failed the roll, turn to page 46" scenario. That is, how the adventure continues - or, at least, whether the adventure continues with the PCs having knowledge of a particular clue - is dependent upon this roll. If they know that someone is out to get them, they may take precautions - or just kill that guy before he tries anything. If they don't, they're subject to his success or failure.

Oh, gotcha. When you said "but you don't know that, because you failed the roll. Hope you do something to learn about it, or you may lose your property, and maybe your life" kind of scenario." I thought you were proposing the kind of scenario in which the players roll something else to try again when they've failed a roll.



But the point is, "him trying something" is not something that happens at the point in time when the PCs have the opportunity to learn that he may try something.

Being "kept in the dark", as you put it, is the opposite of boring. It is exciting when you realize that everything happens for a reason, if only you had seen those reasons earlier, if only you had put the pieces together before you blundered into the death trap. Or, alternately, how cool of you to put those pieces together in time.

If you like it and have a good GM, probably. In my experience it usually feels more like the GM is fiating everything and I haven't the foggiest idea about what is going on.



It sounds like you are saying that the answer is to always give the players the information, and see what (if anything) they do with it. So, you always notice secret doors, always notice shifty characters, etc. Have I got that right? If so, that limits the number of stories you can tell, puts the PCs fate squarely in the players' hands, and IMO, makes Sherlock Holmes less special. Win some, lose some.

Not exactly. It's not just give the information to the players and see what they'll do with it. It's add stakes to the roll and make both success and failure move the story forward.

And as I've been saying, this often requires reframing your questions. So instead of "Will Sherlock notice the bloody footprints on the floor?" you ask "Will Sherlock notice the bloody footprints on the floor before Poirot beats him to it and leaves him in shame again?"

Another example would be not just asking "Will the character climb the wall?" If there is no pressure and the story doesn't move forward until the character climbs it, just assume it climbs it. But, instead, you can ask "Will the character manage to climb the wall while the guards are distracted by the distracting distraction?"

[jintoya]

If players are handed all relevant information and given the chance to act on it without a roll, how do you handle traps and secret compartments, secret doors, sneaky foes quietly approaching, undead lying about a pile of corpses etc.

If they notice all the things, how do you surprise them?

Edit: I see the emphasis on stakes... But, that is just a slight narrative difference, i don't see how it actually changed anything

[Torpin]

as DM I roll for any checks where the player wouldnt know how well they did
stealth, perception, bluffing, insight.
i also like to ask people what is there such and such score, roll go hmmm and keep going

[MrSandman]

If players are handed all relevant information and given the chance to act on it without a roll, how do you handle traps and secret compartments, secret doors, sneaky foes quietly approaching, undead lying about a pile of corpses etc.

If they notice all the things, how do you surprise them?

Edit: I see the emphasis on stakes... But, that is just a slight narrative difference, i don't see how it actually changed anything

The idea is to move the suspense from "will the characters notice X" to "will it be too late when the characters notice X". Well, sometimes. There are many different ways to play with all the rolls in the open, and I feel that other people might be able to offer much better answers than I can.

But the point is to frame the scene in a way that letting your players know what the roll is about doesn't ruin it.

As for your examples, let's see. Traps is the easiest one. "There's a trap, if you roll Good or above with a Notice check, you see it before it's too late. Otherwise it springs on you."

With secret doors, I am a big fan of what Earthwalker said. Don't use them. If the party needs to find the secret door for the scene to continue, just assume they find it. Now, if it is a time-sensitive issue or something like that, you can frame it in terms of "finding it before doom". E.gr. you roll to see if you can find the door before the guard falls upon you. Then the question is not whether you can find the door, but whether you can do it fast enough.

As for sneaky foes and corpses, it depends on what they intend. If they are going to attack the party straight away, same as traps, roll to see if they spot them or are surprised. If they are spying on them, I don't know, it's late and my bed is calling me. But I probably wouldn't put a situation like this in this sort of game.


Another thing that you can do for perception checks is give information depending on their degree of success. E.gr. you're trying to figure out what a magic item does and the GM says "roll Lore, for each point above Fair you discover one of its properties." So you know there's stuff to be learned and you can keep rolling after that, but it'll require more actions.

[Koo Rehtorb]

If players are handed all relevant information and given the chance to act on it without a roll, how do you handle traps and secret compartments, secret doors, sneaky foes quietly approaching, undead lying about a pile of corpses etc.

A lot of these things would be what the "Defy Danger" roll in Dungeon World is. Say there's a sneaky goblin sneaking up on you sneakily to stab you in the back. I could say "Roll to Defy Danger with your Wisdom to notice the goblin before it shanks you".

[LordCdrMilitant]

I would tell the players that he's acting strangely, and then they can prompt themselves for an active fellowship or perception test to analyze his behavior to know more. A passed test with sufficient degrees would reveal that he may be plotting against you, that he may have set a trap, that he wants to get away from the trap, that the trap is on the truck, etc. A failed test might just result in descriptions of his actions, such as "he keeps catching glances at the truck", that can prompt the party to continue their investigation along a different path.

The scenario of "gm rolls behind the screen, the dynamite goes off because the players didn't notice it when they were never informed it might be an option or that something wasn't right" isn't a scenario that should actually be a thing in a game.

Actually, a situation that's almost exactly like this came up in my Traveller game one time, and at no point was there a "pass or explode" roll. Very few rolls were actually made, and generally things were described and the players left to formulate conclusions, only rolling if they wanted to know more.

[Quertus]

If you like it and have a good GM, probably. In my experience it usually feels more like the GM is fiating everything and I haven't the foggiest idea about what is going on.

As GM, once everything is resolved, I like to go over what caused what with my players. As a player, if I don't get what happened, I'll harass my GM until I get an answer.

So, sure, I've had plenty of bad GMs whose answers were nonsense. But if you've got a GM who cannot handle cause and effect reasonably, I have a hard time imagining that changing the system is somehow the answer. Care to explain how that makes sense?


It's add stakes to the roll and make both success and failure move the story forward.

And as I've been saying, this often requires reframing your questions. So instead of "Will Sherlock notice the bloody footprints on the floor?" you ask "Will Sherlock notice the bloody footprints on the floor before Poirot beats him to it and leaves him in shame again?"

But, again, my question is, what if the consequences don't happen at the same time as the action? What if, because you shot your mouth off at the bar, this guy will (if he doesn't get caught) plant a bomb 3 scenes from now? Is the answer simply, "this system cannot handle that"?

[Koo Rehtorb]

But, again, my question is, what if the consequences don't happen at the same time as the action? What if, because you shot your mouth off at the bar, this guy will (if he doesn't get caught) plant a bomb 3 scenes from now? Is the answer simply, "this system cannot handle that"?

I've literally already told you how. Mention the NPC is acting sketchy. If they want to investigate they can make a roll to figure out why he's acting sketchy and what he might do about it. If they decline to make the roll or fail the roll then proceed with future consequences if you want to.

[MrSandman]

As GM, once everything is resolved, I like to go over what caused what with my players. As a player, if I don't get what happened, I'll harass my GM until I get an answer.

So, sure, I've had plenty of bad GMs whose answers were nonsense. But if you've got a GM who cannot handle cause and effect reasonably, I have a hard time imagining that changing the system is somehow the answer. Care to explain how that makes sense?

For me, it works this way: ten minutes of the GM revealing what has been going on all along and showing us how smart she is don't fix two hours of barely being able to understand what was going on during the game.

Also, I didn't intend to say that changing the system would cause a bad GM to make good games. I meant to say that the requirement for your kind of game to work is both that you like it and that the GM is good.



But, again, my question is, what if the consequences don't happen at the same time as the action? What if, because you shot your mouth off at the bar, this guy will (if he doesn't get caught) plant a bomb 3 scenes from now? Is the answer simply, "this system cannot handle that"?

We could spend the rest of our lives proposing scenarios and possible ways to reframe them. But truth is that there isn't one single way to do it. You reframe things in a way that makes sense in the scene and that makes the story move forward.

Some basic questions here would be "What are the PCs trying to achieve?" "How do they relate to this person?" "What do they know about this person?" "How does this scene fit in the overall story?" "Why are they talking to this person?" The answers to this questions may substantially change how I choose to frame any rolls in the scene.

Without any other context to work with, you can just tell your players that the guy is obviously upset. If the interaction has been handled with a roll, you can frame it in terms of "failure will upset him." This doesn't immediately reveal that he is planning to bomb something, but lets the players know that something might be going on.

But working with just "there's a nutter who might explode something" is really a poor example of how to reframe the scene, because the specifics of how you do it will depend on things such as "why is there a nutter who might explode something?" "why are the PCs talking to a nutter who might explode something?" "what are the PCs trying to achieve in this particular scene?" "how does this particular scene fit with the rest of the story?"

On the other hand, if they are tracking a cult and they are trying to find out something about its location from this guy, I might say something like "if you succeed you get the intel. If you fail, you get some intel anyway, but the cult gets word that you've been nosing around and will act on it in the near future."

But if they are talking to the guy to make peace between two clans, I might frame it in terms of "success will earn you his trust, but failure will escalate the conflict."

You don't need to have the final consequences of an action happen in the same scene, it's okay to leave that for later. You just need to have something that the players can work with.

[Drascin]

Sure, there's plenty of secret rolls. And GMs also sometimes ignore open rolls anyway, when a roll's result reminds them "oh, I right, I probably shouldn't even have rolled here, this result is goddamned stupid".

I generally put very little trust in dice and a lot more trust on my GM. Dice don't know what makes for a satisfying scene.

[jintoya]

The idea is to move the suspense from "will the characters notice X" to "will it be too late when the characters notice X". Well, sometimes. There are many different ways to play with all the rolls in the open, and I feel that other people might be able to offer much better answers than I can.

But the point is to frame the scene in a way that letting your players know what the roll is about doesn't ruin it.

As for your examples, let's see. Traps is the easiest one. "There's a trap, if you roll Good or above with a Notice check, you see it before it's too late. Otherwise it springs on you."

With secret doors, I am a big fan of what Earthwalker said. Don't use them. If the party needs to find the secret door for the scene to continue, just assume they find it. Now, if it is a time-sensitive issue or something like that, you can frame it in terms of "finding it before doom". E.gr. you roll to see if you can find the door before the guard falls upon you. Then the question is not whether you can find the door, but whether you can do it fast enough.

As for sneaky foes and corpses, it depends on what they intend. If they are going to attack the party straight away, same as traps, roll to see if they spot them or are surprised. If they are spying on them, I don't know, it's late and my bed is calling me. But I probably wouldn't put a situation like this in this sort of game.


Another thing that you can do for perception checks is give information depending on their degree of success. E.gr. you're trying to figure out what a magic item does and the GM says "roll Lore, for each point above Fair you discover one of its properties." So you know there's stuff to be learned and you can keep rolling after that, but it'll require more actions.

I think all this would do in many games is limit the things a DM can do and promote meta-gamers. In every situation so far, many of these problems are solved by "I stop walking that way for.... Reasons unclear" and then it becomes a purity test just to find the meta-gamers reason is indeed meta.

Also, every rogue forever would just say "take ten" because trapfinding bonus puts them in the positives and if you sent them that... It just feels like the DM is strong-arming

Quertus points out the problem of the "I'm so smart" DM and I agree, but I also know the solution is just to slow clap and stand up, throw a granola bar to them with a "you've earned a cookie" and eventually they will either get the picture or you'll find a better group.

My point is, neither group has any advantage, and I don't see how telling the player they are in trouble altered anything other than limited the dungeon master and outright spells everything out for players.
That said, I do like the "resist mystery danger" roll, and will incorporate it into my games somehow.

(This comes off as waspish and annoyed... It's not meant to be, I didn't get enough coffee.... Well the part about the self gratifying DM was supposed to be a little condescending... But that was by design, and intended for a hypothetical target)

[Tanarii]

But can there be situations at the table where the GM rolling for a player is "good for the group"?There is never such a time. Rolling in secret is always bad for the group. Trust is a two way street, and the only "reason" to roll in secret is so you can cheat the dice.


What if secret rolls (1) create suspense for the group, and (2), help a player better separate THEIR knowledge from their CHARACTER'S knowledge?The first one doesn't require rolling in secret. Creating suspense is independent of rolling dice.

The second one indicates either the GM has some terrible misconceptions about how role playing game should work, or it's a very poorly designed roleplaying game in the first place.

[Faily]

I'm personally too lazy to bother with secret rolls when I GM, at least when it comes to secretly rolling Perception, Sense Motive, and the like for the PCs. I'm more than happy to let the PCs do that.

But I'm also totally cool with other GMs deciding to roll that way (one of my GMs roll secretly for Perception, Sense Motive, and Will save sometimes in Pathfinder), and it can create interesting situations.


In closing, both approaches work fine, and neither is wrong or inherently better than the other.

[Keltest]

There is never such a time. Rolling in secret is always bad for the group. Trust is a two way street, and the only "reason" to roll in secret is so you can cheat the dice.

The first one doesn't require rolling in secret. Creating suspense is independent of rolling dice.

The second one indicates either the GM has some terrible misconceptions about how role playing game should work, or it's a very poorly designed roleplaying game in the first place.

Frankly, I trust a GM who doesn't feel beholden to the dice more than one who does. The former is at least theoretically prioritizing creating an interesting and entertaining gameplay experience, while the latter is not.

Beyond which, there are several valid reasons outlined above where the players shouldn't know the outcome of a roll even if you follow it religiously.

[Psyren]

Frankly, I trust a GM who doesn't feel beholden to the dice more than one who does. The former is at least theoretically prioritizing creating an interesting and entertaining gameplay experience, while the latter is not.

Beyond which, there are several valid reasons outlined above where the players shouldn't know the outcome of a roll even if you follow it religiously.

Agreed on both counts. Even if I suspect a GM fudged a roll to make a result more engaging (whether or not that result was in my favor) - it's the results I care about, not the specific method of random number generation. And the roll might not even have been fudged anyway.

Fundamentally, I'd say a group that takes issue with some rolls being in secret indicates a more underlying issue with trusting their GM.


Rolling in secret is always bad for the group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgpytjlW5wU

[Tanarii]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgpytjlW5wU
Which is why you should always play the bad guys. Good guys are for chumps and suckers.

[Psikerlord]

To actually address the topic, I like to play games where the GM doesn't roll anything. Everything that happens that requires a roll is based on the players rolling. Everything is in the open.

This is a major strength of players roll everything type games. Tend to also get a similar effect when playing online, the rolls are there for everyone to see.

[Earthwalker]

Fair enough.
While investigating a crime scene, one of the PCs says something dumb that one of the NPCs reacts to (because they know something that the PCs don't, and believe that it might be true). Do the PCs notice? If not, it'll likely be days later before the PCs notice the ramifications of that NPC hearing that comment.

Late replying to this and others have stepped in but I am going to share my thoughts. So in an open game where the players get to know what’s going on and the game is them deciding how they use that information (not a game of can the players learn that information) I have a few options.
Simplest… I mark the NPC in question with an aspect of “suspicious of the PC” and if it’s the PC messing up give the NPC a free invoke on that (basically giving the NPC an advantage in dealing with the PC). The PCs would be told this had happened.

That’s simple but might not be what the player is after.

One question others have asked, what was the PC trying to achieve by the dumb thing he said. If he was trying to do something I could let the dice decide right now what happened, maybe let the PC roll Rapport with success meaning he spotted the NPC and now has leverage or if he failed means the NPC has advantage like above.

It’s an open situation and hard to give the exact answer because as other have pointed out what you are trying to achieve is not really possible in this style of game.

This is a flaw that comes with trying to achieve other things, mostly allowing the players more control of the narrative space. (Well that’s what I think, someone will most likely tell me it’s not about that)
In the same way secret rolls can be some be seen as a flaw with trying to create more immersion in games. (Removing some control / agency from the players)

If this doesn’t answer your question I am happy to go over with more details.


I'm personally too lazy to bother with secret rolls when I GM, at least when it comes to secretly rolling Perception, Sense Motive, and the like for the PCs. I'm more than happy to let the PCs do that.
But I'm also totally cool with other GMs deciding to roll that way (one of my GMs roll secretly for Perception, Sense Motive, and Will save sometimes in Pathfinder), and it can create interesting situations.
In closing, both approaches work fine, and neither is wrong or inherently better than the other.

Just wanted to say it so nice seeing someone else on the boards saying…

Yeah both ways are fine.

Nice to see someone else that also playing in games that do both. I too play different games with different ideas on how they should be run and I am happy with either. If I was playing in Pathfinder for example, sure the GM can be making secret rolls. If I am playing in Fate then secret rolls don’t make much sense.

[Aotrs Commander]

There is never such a time. Rolling in secret is always bad for the group.

*looks around*

Whelp, looks like my group still turns up every week when I DM after a few months shy of thirty years, so I have to question your definition of "bad for the group..."

Maybe I'm hallucinating, and actually my players have never existed outside my head? Mind you, if that's true, then all of this is a halluncination as well, so if so, clearly none of you exist either...

[LudicSavant]

I prefer to roll in the open; the exception is things where the roll itself would communicate information the players shouldn't have ("roll Perception to see if you spot the assassins").

[Mordar]

Do you use these as a ref or do you always allow players to roll Perception-related checks themselves?

I used to let players make their own but realized later that if I made the Perception/Insight/Investigation/Deception checks secretly, it can be really fun.

Give me your viewpoints as referees and players, please and thank you.

I'm generally in the "prefer them to be secretly rolled" camp, but with zero compunction about all rolls in the open, all rolls made by the player or all rolls made by the GM games...at least until I learn the dynamic at the table. So I guess that means the people at the table are way more important than the method of rolling the dice for these kind of checks. If you'll all abide by the rolls, then open is fine. But once time of "I rolled a 2, but I really think there should be something here, so I'm going to keep looking..." sours me a little bit.

One of the most enjoyable RPG experiences I had was a game where we (the players) didn't even know our character stats/skills. We had a sense of what they were and how they compared to the other characters and the general public, but that's all. The GM managed all of the random number generation as well. It made for a very interesting experience and while cumbersome for the GM it was really worth the extra work (according to him as well)...though only manageable for a few sessions. In retrospect (this was mid 1980s) it ended up feeling a lot like a good video game experience combined with cool storytelling. We didn't have to worry about the crunch, but the game still had randomness and chance. Of course, required a group very familiar with one another.

- M

[DanDare2050]

My general rule with 5e is that I state target DCs and players roll. If I'm rolling for an NPC then its out in the open and not hidden. No fudges.

With perception the rule adjusts :

Passive perceptions
- players are being cautious and perceptive - their value as is triggers when the hide/sneak DC is beaten otherwise nothing.
- players are rushing, distracted by something in their face - as above but hide/sneak DC is +2.

Players actively using their perception
- they indicate where they are looking and what they are looking for. Passive operates in the target area at +2 for anything that may be hidden there.
- players roll dice but I do not give a DC. I give an answer based on success/fail.
- no reroll for the same search. They must come up with a different approach, move to change perspective etc.

I do not roll hide/sneak values but have a pre-generated list so the information is not given away by dice rolling.

[Malifice]

Lying to your players out of character makes you scum.

Lol. You must be a hoot at parties.

Also, nah. Just nah.

[Keltest]

Lol. You must be a hoot at parties.

Also, nah. Just nah.

Yeah, just yeah. Don't lie to your players when youre speaking as the DM. D&D is a game, not a challenge to screw over people in the most effective manner. Let them be wrong if they came to it honestly, but don't lie to them. There aren't a lot of universal rules for DMing but "don't lie to your players" is one of them.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, just yeah. Don't lie to your players when youre speaking as the DM. D&D is a game, not a challenge to screw over people in the most effective manner. Let them be wrong if they came to it honestly, but don't lie to them. There aren't a lot of universal rules for DMing but "don't lie to your players" is one of them.
Many DMs like to come up with justifications for why they aren't lying to their players or cheating. Often some incorrectly applied version of rule 0 or (more recently) rulings not rules.

[Malifice]

Yeah, just yeah. Don't lie to your players when youre speaking as the DM. D&D is a game, not a challenge to screw over people in the most effective manner. Let them be wrong if they came to it honestly, but don't lie to them. There aren't a lot of universal rules for DMing but "don't lie to your players" is one of them.

Yeah, nah.

For all your salt, lying to players is an important skill to know if you want to be a good DM. Has been that way forever, and it wont change due to some of the sooks in here.

[EGplay]

Yeah, nah.

For all your salt, lying to players is an important skill to know if you want to be a good DM. Has been that way forever, and it wont change due to some of the sooks in here.

With respect, but no.
Maybe for you, but certainly not for everyone.
You do not get to invalidate the experiences of all the people who DM differently to you.

We can be entirely honest and still DM well. Have done so since forever.
We just do so using a different approach and skillset, which you possibly won't learn otherwise. Yes, the learning curve can be steep, but to us is worth it.

Look, any tool can become a crutch if you cannot do without and if you don't try that's exactly what they become.
Now, there is nothing wrong with crutches, our ways have them too, but there is no need for 'salt' if others try to do without yours.

[Quertus]

Yeah, nah.

For all your salt, lying to players is an important skill to know if you want to be a good DM. Has been that way forever, and it wont change due to some of the sooks in here.

Murdering your guests, and serving them as food is an important skill for a host, and has been forever. If you want to be a good host, you need this skill, and that won't change based on a few sticks in here.

[Tanarii]

We can be entirely honest and still DM well. Have done so since forever.

I'd go further, and say honesty is a requirement, with some caveats.

Example caveats:
- NPCs can lie
- legends and lore are often full of bs
- characters might misremember info if you use "knowledge checks"
- illusions

But the GM represents the game world. That means giving accurate information whenever it's available to the characters. And the players have to be able to trust the GM won't just arbitrarily change the rules or scenario on them, especially sneakily and without informing them.

Which is why illusionism, quantum ogres, and fudging are just terrible. People that advocate for them have missed the entire point.

[EGplay]

@Tanarii:
Apparently, for some it isn't one.
And I can be fine with that (when uninvolved), as long as they can at least be honest about their dishonesty (to avoid morality clashes), and don't present it as the only option for DMs.

And yeah, NPCs can do whatever they like, they are not the DM.

[MrSandman]

This might be slightly off-topic, but what do we exactly mean by "being dishonest/lying" to one's players? Is it giving them false information? Fudging rolls? Using illusionism? All of the above?

[Keltest]

This might be slightly off-topic, but what do we exactly mean by "being dishonest/lying" to one's players? Is it giving them false information? Fudging rolls? Using illusionism? All of the above?

So, an example. A rogue goes to check a door for traps. He rolls decently, and the DM tells him "there are no traps on the door" verbatim. He opens the door, and triggers a trap. That would be lying, because the DM made a blatantly false statement to the player which lead to incorrect expectations. The correct way to do it would be to tell the rogue that they don't find any traps, presumably because it was a well hidden trap with exceptionally high DC that they didn't make. At that point the rogue can use their own judgment as to whether their skill was good enough to detect any traps with that roll.

Another example. The PCs are exploring a castle, and they through a door into a room. The DM tells them that its just an empty room with another door on the other side. As they cross the room, the DM tells them that somebody drops a bookcase on them. The DM lied to the players when he told them the room was empty when it in fact was not.

Stuff like that is lying to the players as the GM. When youre acting as an NPC or otherwise describing an in-world attempt to deceive people, that's fine as long as it doesn't spill over into the GM narrator chair.

[Koo Rehtorb]

So, an example. A rogue goes to check a door for traps. He rolls decently, and the DM tells him "there are no traps on the door" verbatim. He opens the door, and triggers a trap. That would be lying, because the DM made a blatantly false statement to the player which lead to incorrect expectations. The correct way to do it would be to tell the rogue that they don't find any traps, presumably because it was a well hidden trap with exceptionally high DC that they didn't make. At that point the rogue can use their own judgment as to whether their skill was good enough to detect any traps with that roll.

Another example. The PCs are exploring a castle, and they through a door into a room. The DM tells them that its just an empty room with another door on the other side. As they cross the room, the DM tells them that somebody drops a bookcase on them. The DM lied to the players when he told them the room was empty when it in fact was not.

Stuff like that is lying to the players as the GM. When youre acting as an NPC or otherwise describing an in-world attempt to deceive people, that's fine as long as it doesn't spill over into the GM narrator chair.

Honestly that just comes off as the GM being kind of clumsy with wording or something. It's bad, but probably not deliberately malicious. What I mean is a GM who says something like "I don't fudge dice" when they actually do.

[Keltest]

Honestly that just comes off as the GM being kind of clumsy with wording or something. It's bad, but probably not deliberately malicious. What I mean is a GM who says something like "I don't fudge dice" when they actually do.

I mean, that's not great either, but that's less to do with the game and more just generally a thing of social interaction.

[Malifice]

I mean, that's not great either, but that's less to do with the game and more just generally a thing of social interaction.

But isnt that ignoring the context of the social contract with the players and DM (and their expectations of the game), which varies from group to group?

Like; I get that you (and others) see DnD as a competitive endeavor against the DM, and would rather play in a game where the 'dice fall where they may' in a parody of Hackmaster (itself a parody). If the dice dictate 'story ending TPK' then that's just how things are.

Other people (and other groups) dont want to be beholden to gravity getting in the way of a fun time spent with mates playing a game and telling a shared story. They prefer a game where a story ending TPK doesnt happen simply because the dice say it does. Their social contract is that the DM has an obligation to moderate the game in this spirit.

I get that you prefer the former over the latter. But to call groups (and DMs) that prefer the latter to the former 'Scum' as some on this thread have done, or to decry those later groups as people having badwrongfun is juvenile in the extreme.

Different techniques and playstyles work for different groups. As long as you're conforming to the social contract and expectations of your own table, who are you to judge other tables?

[Quertus]

But isnt that ignoring the context of the social contract with the players and DM (and their expectations of the game), which varies from group to group?


Like; I get that you (and others) see DnD as a competitive endeavor against the DM, and would rather play in a game where the 'dice fall where they may' in a parody of Hackmaster (itself a parody). If the dice dictate 'story ending TPK' then that's just how things are.

So much wrong here. The GM should be a fair rules arbiter (or, better yet, the players should be the fair rules arbiters). The players are playing against the module; the players are role-playing the PCs; the GM is role-playing everyone else. The players' actions (and, to a (likely) lesser extent, the dice) should dictate the outcome, yes, including a potential TPK.

Anyone care to put forth a similar description of their preferences, so that I'm not speaking for everyone?


Other people (and other groups) dont want to be beholden to gravity getting in the way of a fun time spent with mates playing a game and telling a shared story. They prefer a game where a story ending TPK doesnt happen simply because the dice say it does. Their social contract is that the DM has an obligation to moderate the game in this spirit.

Other groups don't want to be beholden to sitting out for hours while the rest the players finish up Monopoly - their social contract is that the banker has an obligation to keep all players in the game until one player pulls a TPK.


I get that you prefer the former over the latter. But to call groups (and DMs) that prefer the latter to the former 'Scum' as some on this thread have done, or to decry those later groups as people having badwrongfun is juvenile in the extreme.

A banker who is an illusionist and tries to silently pull that **** at my tables (and probably at any tables) is cheating. Plain and simple.


Different techniques and playstyles work for different groups. As long as you're conforming to the social contract and expectations of your own table, who are you to judge other tables?

Personally, I'm judging people / actions, not tables.

I judge bankers who break the rules to make a "better" game to be cheating.

[Keltest]

But isnt that ignoring the context of the social contract with the players and DM (and their expectations of the game), which varies from group to group?

Like; I get that you (and others) see DnD as a competitive endeavor against the DM, and would rather play in a game where the 'dice fall where they may' in a parody of Hackmaster (itself a parody). If the dice dictate 'story ending TPK' then that's just how things are.

Other people (and other groups) dont want to be beholden to gravity getting in the way of a fun time spent with mates playing a game and telling a shared story. They prefer a game where a story ending TPK doesnt happen simply because the dice say it does. Their social contract is that the DM has an obligation to moderate the game in this spirit.

I get that you prefer the former over the latter. But to call groups (and DMs) that prefer the latter to the former 'Scum' as some on this thread have done, or to decry those later groups as people having badwrongfun is juvenile in the extreme.

Different techniques and playstyles work for different groups. As long as you're conforming to the social contract and expectations of your own table, who are you to judge other tables?

In short, no. The GM, in his role of referee, needs to be honest with his players. The fact of the matter is, there isn't any aspect of the ref role that actually requires or even particularly benefits from lying to your players. Its just totally unnecessary except to one-up them, and that turns it from a cooperative experience into an antagonist one.

Also, you seem to have totally misunderstood both my position on dice fudging (its a tool, with an appropriate way to use it) and whether that constitutes lying (it does not, by itself.) This is especially strange to me given that I have made relatively lengthy posts explaining my stance on both of these issues.

[Malifice]

Like I said, if it works at your table fine.

Just dont tell me how to run things at my table, or presume to know better than my players and I.

[geppetto]

Lol. You must be a hoot at parties.

Also, nah. Just nah.

Right? Nothing like insane moral absolutism and judgement over petty nothings. People like that manage to suck the fun out of anything and everything. IME they usually wind up kicked out of groups very quickly and then come and spread their negativity online because its the only place people will listen to them.

[geppetto]

I'd go further, and say honesty is a requirement, with some caveats.

Example caveats:
- NPCs can lie
- legends and lore are often full of bs
- characters might misremember info if you use "knowledge checks"
- illusions

But the GM represents the game world. That means giving accurate information whenever it's available to the characters. And the players have to be able to trust the GM won't just arbitrarily change the rules or scenario on them, especially sneakily and without informing them.

Which is why illusionism, quantum ogres, and fudging are just terrible. People that advocate for them have missed the entire point.


So lying to them when you think its okay is fine, but lying to them when someone else thinks its okay is evil badwrongfun and makes the gm a scumbag?

Yeah got it. We have a word for that. Hypocrisy.

I love the tool/clutch comparison too.

"So you have those boards you want to nail together and you think the hammer is the right tool for the job? Ha ha, amateur. I only use shovels for hammering, because evil bad people use hammers. But I suppose if you need the crutch of a hammer then you'll just never develop the super next level skill of using a shovel to nail those boards together like us morally superior elite GMs who never leave home without our trusty shovels".

[Koo Rehtorb]

So lying to them when you think its okay is fine, but lying to them when someone else thinks its okay is evil badwrongfun and makes the gm a scumbag?

If you actually can't tell the difference between portraying a character that lies, and actually lying as a real person, then that's........................... interesting

[EGplay]

So lying to them when you think its okay is fine, but lying to them when someone else thinks its okay is evil badwrongfun and makes the gm a scumbag?

Yeah got it. We have a word for that. Hypocrisy.

I love the tool/clutch comparison too.

"So you have those boards you want to nail together and you think the hammer is the right tool for the job? Ha ha, amateur. I only use shovels for hammering, because evil bad people use hammers. But I suppose if you need the crutch of a hammer then you'll just never develop the super next level skill of using a shovel to nail those boards together like us morally superior elite GMs who never leave home without our trusty shovels".


NPCs are not the DM, PCs are not the players. There is no hypocrisy in viewing these relations differently.
(In fact, I would make sure they're different and make clear they are.)

As to the example: you can hammer the boards together, or you can glue-and-screw them.
You don't need a hammer for the latter.

[Earthwalker]

Let me start by stating where I am coming from.
I really don’t think that GMs should be lying to players out of character. I could even say that as
no lying to them out of game.

Sure NPCs can lie (using the GMs voice)
Characters can have incorrect perceptions of the world (in the GMs voice)

But GM to Player shouldn’t need lying for the game to work.


But isn’t that ignoring the context of the social contract with the players and DM (and their expectations of the game), which varies from group to group?

How can I build a social contract with a GM that is lying to me?
Player: I prefer more open world nonlinear games, is that what you run.
GM: Yes (I don’t but I am sure I can fool his player into thinking it is)
Why is this a good solution over just telling the truth?


Like; I get that you (and others) see DnD as a competitive endeavor against the DM, and would rather play in a game where the 'dice fall where they may' in a parody of Hackmaster (itself a parody). If the dice dictate 'story ending TPK' then that's just how things are.
Other people (and other groups) dont want to be beholden to gravity getting in the way of a fun time spent with mates playing a game and telling a shared story. They prefer a game where a story ending TPK doesnt happen simply because the dice say it does. Their social contract is that the DM has an obligation to moderate the game in this spirit.

We have no TPKs in my FATE game. The reason. The rules state that you can only kill a player’s character if the player chooses to risk their life (As a personal choice in each given situation) The characters can lose, the characters can fail to get what they want. Its just that they cant die unless they choose to. Why is lying to your players better than this solution for the problems of TPKs ?


I get that you prefer the former over the latter. But to call groups (and DMs) that prefer the latter to the former 'Scum' as some on this thread have done, or to decry those later groups as people having badwrongfun is juvenile in the extreme.
Different techniques and playstyles work for different groups. As long as you're conforming to the social contract and expectations of your own table, who are you to judge other tables?

As I see it.

My style of GMs being honest about what their game is. i.e. not lying out of character. Has a positive impact on the gaming community as a whole. If we all did it then players would be able to find games they like.

Equally if the advice to GMs is lie to your players out of game. That has a negative impact as players can’t tell what kind of games they are getting into.

[Tanarii]

So lying to them when you think its okay is fine, but lying to them when someone else thinks its okay is evil badwrongfun and makes the gm a scumbag?

Yeah got it. We have a word for that. Hypocrisy.
Well, that's certainly a case of missing the entire point, but not quite how I meant.


Edit: however yes, I do get all moralistic when it comes to DMs secretly fudging dice, or secretly changing things to 'save' the party (or screw the party). And yeah, that makes my posts on the matter pretty heavy handed.

But there is a reason I feel that way. Because when it comes to light (and it will), it usually makes players feel like their efforts and time were ... less than self accomplished. It's not always a matter of removing player agency and making their decisions not matter, but it can easily feel that way.

Not everyone will feel that way, but many will. And if you, the DM, decide to make that choice on behalf of your players without letting them know that you're that type of DM, you risk invalidating all the time and effort they've put into your campaign.

[Aotrs Commander]

Edit: however yes, I do get all moralistic when it comes to DMs secretly fudging dice, or secretly changing things to 'save' the party (or screw the party). And yeah, that makes my posts on the matter pretty heavy handed.

But there is a reason I feel that way. Because when it comes to light (and it will), it usually makes players feel like their efforts and time were ... less than self accomplished. It's not always a matter of removing player agency and making their decisions not matter, but it can easily feel that way.

Speaking as a player (though rare when I get the chance), I don't care what you, as DM, do behind the screen - but I'll have a lot less respect for you as DM if you think that my time and effort and investment into my character is less important than the (mistaken) belief that I'll get some kind of nebulous sense of self-satisfaction out of my character dying just because you generated better random numbers than me, because at least the sanctity of the random number generators were preserved. (And consequently, I'm not going to put more than a token effort into my character, because - same as with authors and character deaths - if you don't care, why should I?) I don't play RPGs - not even CRPGs - for a sense of "pride and accomplishment" (sic). I am well aware that ANY success I have are because you the DM let me have them, either actively or tacitly.

(If I want some vague sense of competative achievement, I'll go play a wargame, since that is the one and only arena where I'm interested in "max difficulty with ironman on" equivilents and even then with the games I play its more like solving a puzzle than a competition.)

So personally, I will trust a DM who is willing to quietly fudge the dice behind the screen in the moment when absolutely necessary to make the game better for the players far more than one that makes the dice inviolate, doubly-especially so if on the mistaken impression I care about the RNG over the game; triply so if they are going to make sweeping generalisations (something which I try very hard to avoid, because varying preferences) that anyone not believing what they do is, as you said earlier, doing things that are "always bad for the group."

My not killing off one PC when I could have because the dice said so (on top of a poorly balanced module encounter) in about two-three years of gameplay time is not, in fact, tantamout to criminal activity, nor morally reprehensible.

(I'm a LE lich, if you want to accuse me of that, I can provide you with plenty more material of greater merit in that regard...)

I don't, particularly, have a huge axe to grind with how you run your game - after all, I'm very likely never going to play it and vice versa, so what would be the point - but I DO object to you telling me (and by extension, my group) that not only am I (and we) playing it badwrongfun, but objectively badly. (Especially in light of the aforementioned thirty years of contrary experience.)



DAMMIT, why do I let myself get drawn into these things when I should be quest-writing!

[Koo Rehtorb]

Speaking as a player (though rare when I get the chance), I don't care what you, as DM, do behind the screen - but I'll have a lot less respect for you as DM if you think that my time and effort and investment into my character is less important than the (mistaken) belief that I'll get some kind of nebulous sense of self-satisfaction out of my character dying just because you generated better random numbers than me, because at least the sanctity of the random number generators were preserved. (And consequently, I'm not going to put more than a token effort into my character, because - same as with authors and character deaths - if you don't care, why should I?) I don't play RPGs - not even CRPGs - for a sense of "pride and accomplishment" (sic). I am well aware that ANY success I have are because you the DM let me have them, either actively or tacitly.

You're playing the wrong game. If you don't want a game in which death is on the table, which is an entirely legitimate preference, then there are dozens, if not hundreds, of fine RPGs out there in which character death isn't a thing that can happen. No cheating required.

[Earthwalker]

Speaking as a player (though rare when I get the chance), I don't care what you, as DM, do behind the screen - but I'll have a lot less respect for you as DM if you think that my time and effort and investment into my character is less important than the (mistaken) belief that I'll get some kind of nebulous sense of self-satisfaction out of my character dying just because you generated better random numbers than me, because at least the sanctity of the random number generators were preserved. (And consequently, I'm not going to put more than a token effort into my character, because - same as with authors and character deaths - if you don't care, why should I?) I don't play RPGs - not even CRPGs - for a sense of "pride and accomplishment" (sic). I am well aware that ANY success I have are because you the DM let me have them, either actively or tacitly.
[snip]


Why is it better to fudge the dice behind the screen to avoid a player death. Than to just start the game saying something like.

I am not playing a game where players can die. When you (5e example) fail your 3rd death save you are out of the fight but alive. Then between us we choose a complication for your character. Like part of your soul still trapped on the other side, something fun to move the story forward.

This is an honest question. You don't seem to care about the competitive or accomplishment side. So being honest about not having player death seems fine. For me it seems better than fudging dice behind the screen.

Of course you may have reasons why you don't agree and I am interested to hear them.

[Tanarii]

DAMMIT, why do I let myself get drawn into these things when I should be quest-writing!Because I used strong judging language in my first post that just begs people to object? (And others are doing the same.)

Honestly, I don't get why people with your attitude towards (DM) dice and death play RPGs that involve either of them. It sounds like you want the DM to do a lot of unofficial house ruling on the fly to remove them. Why not just ask them to make official house rules to remove them? Or if it's an option, ask them to run a game that either removes one or both of them.

My stance is pretty simple. Secret fudging will come out. Some players may be okay with it, but plenty won't. Therefore secretly fudging can only be an overall negative impact on the game.

Your personal preferences for gameplay don't change my stance, they only enhance it. If a DM openly announces they will occasionally fudge the dice (which is in effect an open house rule), you can stick around and enjoy the game, and players that object can leave the table. If a DM does it secretly, you gain the same benefit, but those other players don't. Thus it can only be bad for the table to secretly fudge.

(I don't like any fudging, but when I say fudging I almost always mean secret fudging, DMs that do it without letting players know, neither in general or in the specific instance.

Edit: also I note you assume DMs will fudge on the Pcs favor. That's generally the case, but how can you know that?)

[Pelle]

Honestly, I don't get why people with your attitude towards (DM) dice and death play RPGs that involve either of them. It sounds like you want the DM to do a lot of unofficial house ruling on the fly to remove them. Why not just ask them to make official house rules to remove them? Or if it's an option, ask them to run a game that either removes one or both of them.


I think it illustrates that some players actually want the DMs to use illusionism, and secretly save their characters while pretending that they are taking big risks. And that's ok. It's a way of merging two mutually exclusive wishes; feeling of risk taking, and no real chance of bad consequences. If the DM say they allow the former, but secretly it's the latter, the player gets both wishes satisfied. But this makes it really hard to communicate about. The player wants the DM to confirm that characters can be killed, while *wink wink* hoping the DM understands that the player doesn't want that to happen without mentioning it.

[Keltest]

Because I used strong judging language in my first post that just begs people to object? (And others are doing the same.)

Honestly, I don't get why people with your attitude towards (DM) dice and death play RPGs that involve either of them. It sounds like you want the DM to do a lot of unofficial house ruling on the fly to remove them. Why not just ask them to make official house rules to remove them? Or if it's an option, ask them to run a game that either removes one or both of them.

You act like this is a binary choice where either the dice are absolute or don't get rolled at all. I don't think ive ever met anybody who actually plays at either of those extremes, even people who protest the very idea of fudging.

The goal is for players to have fun. Sometimes that means making sure that the kobold crossbowmen don't all accidentally cause a TPK on an otherwise easy encounter when three of them all roll crits that KO their targets at a low level, sometimes that means everybody dies when the PCs fill a mine tunnel full of explosive gasses and then start playing with fire. Its not a "one rule for every scenario" kind of thing, you react to the situations as they come up. You know, like the GM is supposed to do.

[Tanarii]

I think it illustrates that some players actually want the DMs to use illusionism, and secretly save their characters while pretending that they are taking big risks. And that's ok. It's a way of merging two mutually exclusive wishes; feeling of risk taking, and no real chance of bad consequences. If the DM say they allow the former, but secretly it's the latter, the player gets both wishes satisfied. But this makes it really hard to communicate about. The player wants the DM to confirm that characters can be killed, while *wink wink* hoping the DM understands that the player doesn't want that to happen without mentioning it.Okay. The problem with that is it's a selfish stance. Because it accepts that players who don't want that kind of thing to be pissed off when they find the DM has been misleading them.

Also I didn't get the impression the poster I was responding to particularly felt such things needed to be secret. Just that they object to losing characters due to a string of bad rolls.


You act like this is a binary choice where either the dice are absolute or don't get rolled at all.I feel the rest of my post made it clear that theres an in between ... letting players know you fudge and why, openly announcing you're invalidating a result and why, or making house rules for certain situations before hand. Communicating, not being secret about it.


I don't think ive ever met anybody who actually plays at either of those extremes, even people who protest the very idea of fudging.I know plenty of tables where the DM rolls in the open to make it clear the dice fall as they may ... once they are rolled.

As far as dice never being rolled, I was specifically thinking of AW, where the entire design is the MC doesn't role dice. My impression is it's a pretty deadly system though, so it wouldn't meet requirements that character death is uncommon.



The goal is for players to have fun. Sometimes that means making sure that the kobold crossbowmen don't all accidentally cause a TPK on an otherwise easy encounter when three of them all roll crits that KO their targets at a low level, sometimes that means everybody dies when the PCs fill a mine tunnel full of explosive gasses and then start playing with fire. Its not a "one rule for every scenario" kind of thing, you react to the situations as they come up. You know, like the GM is supposed to do.
Those examples sound like fun to me. And afaiac the GM is primarily supposed to arbitrate the game and provide challenges.

[geppetto]

If you actually can't tell the difference between portraying a character that lies, and actually lying as a real person, then that's........................... interesting

Whats interesting is that YOU cant seem to tell the difference between describing a characters point of view and lying to hurt people.

Also that some GM apparently traumatized you badly enough to create this absurd over-reaction and yet you stuck with the hobby. There are more fun ways to indulge in masochism, though you generally pay by the hour for them.

[geppetto]

NPCs are not the DM, PCs are not the players. There is no hypocrisy in viewing these relations differently.
(In fact, I would make sure they're different and make clear they are.)

As to the example: you can hammer the boards together, or you can glue-and-screw them.
You don't need a hammer for the latter.

Yes NPC's ARE the DM. In every single way. He creates them, describes them, acts them out and decides entirely from his own imagination what their actions and reactions are. They do not exist without him. When an NPC speaks its the DM speaking. That is the narrative perspective.

Just like when you describe a location or action your describing it from the players perspective. Not from the perspective of an all knowing super being.

Which is why saying "theres no trap" is NOT lying. The character, from their perspective, which is ALL the players have, is not aware of any traps. So until the character becomes aware of such a trap the player should not be aware of it either.

Thats part of verisimilitude.

As to the boards, yes I suppose you can take 1 simple step and turn it into 2 inferior steps if you want a lesser result for twice the labor. Although why you would think theres something moral about indulging in foolishness like that is rather confusing.

[geppetto]

Well, that's certainly a case of missing the entire point, but not quite how I meant.


Edit: however yes, I do get all moralistic when it comes to DMs secretly fudging dice, or secretly changing things to 'save' the party (or screw the party). And yeah, that makes my posts on the matter pretty heavy handed.

But there is a reason I feel that way. Because when it comes to light (and it will), it usually makes players feel like their efforts and time were ... less than self accomplished. It's not always a matter of removing player agency and making their decisions not matter, but it can easily feel that way.

Not everyone will feel that way, but many will. And if you, the DM, decide to make that choice on behalf of your players without letting them know that you're that type of DM, you risk invalidating all the time and effort they've put into your campaign.

My god do I wish I had lived a life of such ease and leisure, so devoid of exposure to ACTUAL IMMORALITY that I had the freedom to confuse assigning different priorities to gamesmanship and storytelling with evil intentions.

Would that life had been so gentle, so lacking in actual trials that I had the freedom to confuse losing any measure, no matter how momentary of utterly imaginary "player agency" with an actual offense upon my person.

Oh what a easy life such a person must have lived.

FYI. You never had any agency. Everything you know about the game world, the situation, your options, and what results from them is 100% dependent on the DM. Everything.

Nothing you ever did, in any game, was ever self accomplished. It was ALL just allowed, or not. You were never really in control of anything.

[Koo Rehtorb]

As far as dice never being rolled, I was specifically thinking of AW, where the entire design is the MC doesn't role dice. My impression is it's a pretty deadly system though, so it wouldn't meet requirements that character death is uncommon.

It's actually next to impossible to involuntarily die in Apocalypse World because mechanics never say "Your character dies" what they actually say is "Life becomes untenable, player picks one". Where the list is come back with -1hard, come back with +1weird, change to a new playbook, die.

And that's entirely fine. Because the game isn't really about the PCs dying. It's about other things, like how the world is falling apart around you, and about human relationships during a crisis. No cheating required, because the rules support this style of play perfectly.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It happens every time this subject comes up, but I am never not surprised by it when various people crawl out of the woodwork and throw a fit over what is fundamentally the statement "Get consent". Look. You can be bad at roleplaying games and ignore the rules and give total authority to the GM to tell you a wonderful story that you can't contribute to yourself or whatever else you want. That's all fine.

What you can't do is say to your players "I play by the rules and your decisions are the most important thing shaping what happens in the game" and then subvert that behind their backs while lying about it. If your players agree to it then you can do whatever the **** you want. It's your group's game. No one's kicking down your door to make you play a certain way. Just be honest about it. If your players give consent to it then it's fine. What isn't acceptable is lying to people to get them to play a game with you under false pretenses. This shouldn't be a controversial point. This is basic human interaction. And it's pretty embarrassing for the roleplaying community as a whole that so many members of it have such a hard time with this.

[Drascin]

It happens every time this subject comes up, but I am never not surprised by it when various people crawl out of the woodwork and throw a fit over what is fundamentally the statement "Get consent". Look. You can be bad at roleplaying games and ignore the rules and give total authority to the GM to tell you a wonderful story that you can't contribute to yourself or whatever else you want. That's all fine.

What you can't do is say to your players "I play by the rules and your decisions are the most important thing shaping what happens in the game" and then subvert that behind their backs while lying about it. If your players agree to it then you can do whatever the **** you want. It's your group's game. No one's kicking down your door to make you play a certain way. Just be honest about it. If your players give consent to it then it's fine. What isn't acceptable is lying to people to get them to play a game with you under false pretenses. This shouldn't be a controversial point. This is basic human interaction. And it's pretty embarrassing for the roleplaying community as a whole that so many members of it have such a hard time with this.

I mean. You yourself are equating "I don't mind when the dice aren't absolute and the DM overrides them" with "you are bad at roleplaying games and wrong".

Mayhaps that kind of bull* is why people discount the supposed "consent" angle, which is not in any way the actual angle being espoused, because the constant refrain is not "you have to give consent for this to be okay", it's "if you think this is okay and consent to this you are wrong and immature and should not actually be playing roleplaying games, but graciously we will allow you to exist in your wrongness".

So, you know, miss me with that backhanded fake highminded stuff.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I mean. You yourself are equating "I don't mind when the dice aren't absolute and the DM overrides them" with "you are bad at roleplaying games and wrong".

Mayhaps that kind of bull* is why people discount the supposed "consent" angle, which is not in any way the actual angle being espoused, because the constant refrain is not "you have to give consent for this to be okay", it's "if you think this is okay and consent to this you are wrong and immature and should not actually be playing roleplaying games, but graciously we will allow you to exist in your wrongness".

So, you know, miss me with that backhanded fake highminded stuff.

There are two separate points being made.

One of them is "If you play this way I think you're bad at roleplaying games and snicker at your metaphorical swilling cheap liquor out of a paper bag before passing out in a gutter" style of roleplaying.

The second one is "But it's your group and you can do whatever you want to so long as your players consent to it."

The second one is the actual real issue. Being bad at roleplaying games is fine. Lying to real people about it is not. And people being snobby elitists at you doesn't change that.

[EGplay]

Yes NPC's ARE the DM. In every single way. He creates them, describes them, acts them out and decides entirely from his own imagination what their actions and reactions are. They do not exist without him. When an NPC speaks its the DM speaking. That is the narrative perspective.

Doesn't make them the same. Otherwise for the bad guys to want to end the PCs, the DM must want to kill the players.
Which is either ludicrous or scary.

NPCs do not: adjudicate rules; run other NPCs; inform players of results; set up the campaign; ect.

I, at least, am only talking about dishonesty in the DM - player layer.


Which is why saying "theres no trap" is NOT lying. The character, from their perspective, which is ALL the players have, is not aware of any traps. So until the character becomes aware of such a trap the player should not be aware of it either.

Technically it is, but such phrasing I would list under 'poor roleplaying' and mentally translate to "{PC} does their thing and finds no sign of traps" anyway.

Honestly, I don't believe the statement of an NPC as true even when I know the Sense Motive to be successful. It merely means the NPC means/believes what they say.
(What my PC believes is another story.)


As to the boards, yes I suppose you can take 1 simple step and turn it into 2 inferior steps if you want a lesser result for twice the labor. Although why you would think theres something moral about indulging in foolishness like that is rather confusing.

We find these steps not inferior nor the results lesser, at all. You do not get to invalidate our experiences.

Coining the opinions and preferences of others foolishness is uncalled for, to say the least.

[DanDare2050]

There are some underlying issues that seem to be unspoken in the thread.

How do the players deal with the drama of the game? Do they need tension, which requires a real risk of failure, or do they prefer cinematic action with them winning in the end? I'm sure there are third and fourth options but I haven't thought of them.

In the case where tension is required then work the mechanics as openly and honestly as possible. Use secret rolls or secret DCs for situations where the players can't tell how things have gone and they need to be careful about their assumptions. When doing that, still remain honest otherwise they can't trust that their thinking has any purchase in the reality presented to them.

In the latter, go to town, don't let them fail but tease them a bit with near death. When they say they think something went one way when it secretly didn't then, yeah, it did after all, wow.

Players who like the former hate the latter, and vice a versa.

Also "don't just let the players win" is not synonymous with "force them to lose" or "don't let them have fun". Its "allow them to fail in their intent" and "let them make their fun as they see it". The DM, in either style, is helping the players have fun, cooperating with them. The better the DM understands the players the easier it is for the task of facilitating the experience. For the DM to have fun it helps for the players to know the DM and her play style too, and accommodate that. Also, know thyself.

As a DM I can't play the "let the players win" method, because I enjoy not knowing how things will go, and the tension of players taking risks. I like being surprised by player cleverness. I let my players know up front that that is how I play. Caveat to that that I do often take player remarks to solidify the world in the direction they are suggesting, although sometimes I go in unexpected tangents. That's me. I know my players, and I compromise as I can.

This probably applies to situations where dice mechanics are not a thing, such as NPC attitudes and action choices. In the "let the dice land as they may" style this would mean keeping NPCs true to themselves regardless of players wishes. In the "player victorious" style NPCs may be more subject to player expectation.

As an example in one of my ongoing campaigns the is Lord Binare, an NPC who is making a kingdom for himself. He has a race prejudice against elves, deals in place with dragons and other nasty monstrous powers, and is trying to deal with an uprising among the lesser nobles. The players decided one adventure that they wanted to go and kill one of the dragons. They went to Lord Binare for aid. He gave them his prisoners, local nobles who were part of the uprising alled The Anarchists, who were bound in iron masks. All were good knights. He also asked the elf in the group to gather elves from the local forest to help. Binare's intent, if the dragon is slain, blame the players, the elves and the anarchists. He could go to the other dragons and set them apon his desired targets. If the players failed the response from the dragons would be a bit costly but then he could decree elves outlaw and push them out of his realm, and turn sentiment against the anarchists. In that scenario, failure, which was the actual outcome, he did not implicate the players themselves, but made it obvious that if they bragged about their involvement then they would get targeted.

[olskool]

If you are looking for a method to create uncertainty on a die roll where the player can see their own die roll and knows whether they succeeded or not, I'd look to GDW's method in Traveller and MegaTraveller. This method is designed to create an uncertain outcome when the player can deduce or simply knows that their roll succeeded or failed. This system also "randomizes" the DM's dice roll, thus providing a random outcome that NEITHER the player or DM can predict. The system works like this...

Both the Player and the DM roll for the task in question. The chance of Success is whatever the DM has secretly calculated it to be.

IF BOTH ROLLS SUCCEED: Then the DM tells the player the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about what they find or suspect. Since the player doesn't know what the DM's dice roll is, they may still doubt the information they are given by the DM.

IF THE PLAYER FAILS BUT THE DM SUCCEEDS: The Dm will give SOME TRUTHFUL INFORMATION AND SOME FALSE INFORMATION. Since the player failed, they may decide to try again because they know that they did not perform well on the task. Because the player failed their roll for success, the DM could lean the information in the direction of more False information than Truthful information.

IF THE PLAYER SUCCEEDS BUT THE DM FAILS: As above, the ratio to truthful versus false information will be about 50/50. However, in this case, the player KNOWS that they succeeded and the bias of the information obtained should lean towards Truth as a result.

IF BOTH FAIL THEIR ROLLS: The result will be TOTAL FALSEHOOD because both failed.

This system will work to create "uncertainty" in the PLAYER which should affect the CHARACTER accordingly.

[Keltest]

If you are looking for a method to create uncertainty on a die roll where the player can see their own die roll and knows whether they succeeded or not, I'd look to GDW's method in Traveller and MegaTraveller. This method is designed to create an uncertain outcome when the player can deduce or simply knows that their roll succeeded or failed. This system also "randomizes" the DM's dice roll, thus providing a random outcome that NEITHER the player or DM can predict. The system works like this...

Both the Player and the DM roll for the task in question. The chance of Success is whatever the DM has secretly calculated it to be.

IF BOTH ROLLS SUCCEED: Then the DM tells the player the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about what they find or suspect. Since the player doesn't know what the DM's dice roll is, they may still doubt the information they are given by the DM.

IF THE PLAYER FAILS BUT THE DM SUCCEEDS: The Dm will give SOME TRUTHFUL INFORMATION AND SOME FALSE INFORMATION. Since the player failed, they may decide to try again because they know that they did not perform well on the task. Because the player failed their roll for success, the DM could lean the information in the direction of more False information than Truthful information.

IF THE PLAYER SUCCEEDS BUT THE DM FAILS: As above, the ratio to truthful versus false information will be about 50/50. However, in this case, the player KNOWS that they succeeded and the bias of the information obtained should lean towards Truth as a result.

IF BOTH FAIL THEIR ROLLS: The result will be TOTAL FALSEHOOD because both failed.

This system will work to create "uncertainty" in the PLAYER which should affect the CHARACTER accordingly.

See, this falls under my "don't lie to the players" rule. Youre wearing the narrator/GM hat here, youre obligated to be factual in what you tell them. If they roll one of the middling results, make it clear that the information is uncertain. Give a half dozen different versions, be clear that they don't know which is the correct one, and have them act on that uncertainty.

[geppetto]

We find these steps not inferior nor the results lesser, at all. You do not get to invalidate our experiences.


Yes i do. Your experiences are garbage, your doing it wrong and your a bad person for wanting to do it like that.

............hey that sounds kinda familiar:smallamused:

[EGplay]

Yes i do. Your experiences are garbage, your doing it wrong and your a bad person for wanting to do it like that.

............hey that sounds kinda familiar:smallamused:

Those are positions never held by me, please do not confuse me for other posters just because you think we're on the same side.