skill check the dm should roll instead of the party

[Torpin]

At your table, what checks if any does the DM roll on behalf of the players
In my games, I roll perception, investigation, stealth and everyone once is a great while i roll a secret deception and insight check for my players, the reason being is you dont know how well you are hiding, if you missed something cause of a bad roll or if nothing is there etc

[Tanarii]

None. That's what passive checks are in the game for.

As a player, I won't play with a DM that rolls behind a screen. Open rolls only. There's no reason for that and it means I know the DM isn't cheating. Often excused/justified as 'fudging'.

[WaroftheCrans]

You could argue that the player would know that he rolled poorly, it's not too hard to recognize that you're being really loud or that you got distracted while looking around. But that's not what I'm going to bring up as my main point.

My issue with this method is that it prevents the players from using their resources, in particular with the secret deception/insight rolls. You might have a class feature that lets you automatically succeed, or perhaps you really want this social encounter to go flawlessly, and have guidance/bardic inspiration. Basically, taking checks without player knowledge of the checks even existing, robs some agency and realism from it.

[Lunali]

If you don't want your players to know what the roll was, use their passive score and roll against it with NPC stats. There's no reason for you to be rolling skills for a character that you aren't playing.

[Torpin]

You could argue that the player would know that he rolled poorly, it's not too hard to recognize that you're being really loud or that you got distracted while looking around. But that's not what I'm going to bring up as my main point.

My issue with this method is that it prevents the players from using their resources, in particular with the secret deception/insight rolls. You might have a class feature that lets you automatically succeed, or perhaps you really want this social encounter to go flawlessly, and have guidance/bardic inspiration. Basically, taking checks without player knowledge of the checks even existing, robs some agency and realism from it.

thats a good point

[greenstone]

As a player, I won't play with a DM that rolls behind a screen. Open rolls only. There's no reason for that and it means I know the DM isn't cheating. Often excused/justified as 'fudging'.

There is one reason for it, and it is the one of the few rolls I make behind the screen - saving throws.

If a character casts a spell on a target that is not a valid target (for example, casting hold monster on an illusary creature), the fact that the GM doesn't roll a d20, just saying "the spell fails" is a piece of metagaming I would like to avoid. The caster only knows that the target saved, not that the target is an inaplicable target (as per Xanathar's Guide to Everything).

I give pretty much every other statistic to the players (AC, hit points, resistances, vulerabilities) after a few rounds of battle, but not saving throws.

Behind the screen I also roll mobs' ability checks related to stealth and perception, because they are often rolled before the encounter and I don't want the players to metagame.

[Rynjin]

Typically, nothing, but there are a very few circumstances where a secret roll might be called for.

I typically roll saves against diseases behind the screen, as an example (though this gets tricky if your PC has a re-roll ability available; don't know if 5e has that problem though), and of course many checks made by NPCs are rolled by me secretly if the party isn't directly observing them, so I roll enemy Stealth checks secretly (though not the PCs' opposed Perception rolls).

[Tanarii]

Behind the screen I also roll mobs' ability checks related to stealth and perception, because they are often rolled before the encounter and I don't want the players to metagame.
To contradict myself, I made that exact same point in another thread, but in relation to suggesting giving traps and secret doors a "stealth check" instead of a fixed value.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little villains and warlords and divines.

[Demonslayer666]

Sometimes I like to roll Insight so they aren't aware if an NPC is lying or telling the truth. Even if the player is good at not metagaming, the rest of the players see the role, and not all of them are very good at avoiding it.

I disagree with it always being a passive check, that removes all luck. And sometimes the non-face characters should notice.

[Mukade]

There is one reason for it, and it is the one of the few rolls I make behind the screen - saving throws.

I absolutely roll monster/NPC initiative, stealth, insight, saving throws etc behind the screen. I wouldn't roll those checks behind the screen on PCs behalf, which I think is what OP was suggesting.

You're playing a game bruh let em roll the dice

[Lunali]

Sometimes I like to roll Insight so they aren't aware if an NPC is lying or telling the truth. Even if the player is good at not metagaming, the rest of the players see the role, and not all of them are very good at avoiding it.

I disagree with it always being a passive check, that removes all luck. And sometimes the non-face characters should notice.

You only need a single roll for randomness, why do you need to roll insight for the PC in addition to deception for the NPC? Just roll deception against passive insight.

[Tanarii]

I absolutely roll monster/NPC initiative, stealth, insight, saving throws etc behind the screen. I wouldn't roll those checks behind the screen on PCs behalf, which I think is what OP was suggesting.

You're playing a game bruh let em roll the dice
He was responding to my comment that using a screen implies the DM is cheating.

[Bobthewizard]

You only need a single roll for randomness, why do you need to roll insight for the PC in addition to deception for the NPC? Just roll deception against passive insight.

I may be reading your post wrong, but my concern with this is then if the highest insight character says they are telling the truth, everyone knows he's right. They can even figure out the exact roll based on their insight checks.

I prefer to determine a DC based on the NPCs deception and then roll secretly for each character, telling the party that characters A, B, and D think they are telling the truth but characters C and E think they're lying. They can sort out who to believe.

[Man_Over_Game]

I may be reading your post wrong, but my concern with this is then if the highest insight character says they are telling the truth, everyone knows he's right. They can even figure out the exact roll based on their insight checks.

I prefer to determine a DC based on the NPCs deception and then roll secretly for each character, telling the party that characters A, B, and D think they are telling the truth but characters C and E think they're lying. They can sort out who to believe.

I think that's a good ideal, I just also think that's a lot of friggin' work to do. 5 dice rolls, 6 different skill bonuses, 5 secret answers, for a single lie-detector moment. That's gonna be a hard pass on me, dawg. At least until someone makes up an advanced tabletop phone app that pulls something like that off easily.


You could argue that the player would know that he rolled poorly, it's not too hard to recognize that you're being really loud or that you got distracted while looking around. But that's not what I'm going to bring up as my main point.

My issue with this method is that it prevents the players from using their resources, in particular with the secret deception/insight rolls. You might have a class feature that lets you automatically succeed, or perhaps you really want this social encounter to go flawlessly, and have guidance/bardic inspiration. Basically, taking checks without player knowledge of the checks even existing, robs some agency and realism from it.

At the same time, I don't feel a player has to roll a Perception or an Investigation Check every 5 feet to look for traps.

One thing I've started doing is having my players choose what Passive skill they want to focus on, which is assumed to apply towards everything that can interact with it while I control the dice rolls. It nerfs Perception, buffs a lot of other skills, cuts down on unnecessary requests from the players, puts more value on player choices, all good things.

If something would require them to roll a passive check that they were not focusing on (such as Perception for spotting an ambush), they are considered using that skill with Disadvantage (so -5 to your Perception Checks if you aren't actually keeping watch).

I firmly believe that a player should never have to make a roll they didn't ask for, unless they're being afflicted by something (and thus know what they're rolling to do).

What you don't want is:
Player: "I look up at the watchtower"
DM: "Make a History Check for me"
Player: "...okay [rolls poorly]. But why?"
DM: "Ouch, uhm...no reason".


Dice rolls represent chaos from action. Don't tell your players to make a dice roll unless they're directly part of the action. He wouldn't have known to make a History Check preemptively, so it's reasonable for the DM to have made it for him and provided the knowledge anyway. You can even say something along the lines of "Due to your advance education of ancient landmarks, you know this watchtower was constructed entirely over a Ley Line, and has survived several sieges alone." Referencing the player's choice in his skills or background is enough to show exactly why he has this information without him asking for permission to give it to him.

[Demonslayer666]

You only need a single roll for randomness, why do you need to roll insight for the PC in addition to deception for the NPC? Just roll deception against passive insight.

Because then the PCs insight check is never random, and all the outcomes are always the same for the entire party. They should not be. Some should think they are lying and some should believe them. They should tend towards listening to the insightful party members, but not always.



I may be reading your post wrong, but my concern with this is then if the highest insight character says they are telling the truth, everyone knows he's right. They can even figure out the exact roll based on their insight checks.

I prefer to determine a DC based on the NPCs deception and then roll secretly for each character, telling the party that characters A, B, and D think they are telling the truth but characters C and E think they're lying. They can sort out who to believe.

These are my thoughts exactly. Thanks Bobthewizard!