What Skills should DMs roll for players?

[ReNoid]

I've always worked on the assumption that Players should roll their own skills to determine the success or failure of what it is they do. Lately, I've wanted to try something different and I had heard that some DMs roll skill checks for Players instead of having them roll it.

For example: You're floating down the river on a barge with just yourself and the pole guiding your boat. A flat barge with nothing to hide behind. You spy orcs on the riverbank and attempt to hide... in the open... on a barge floating down the river. Even a natural 20 can't prevent the orcs from checking it out this "abandoned raft" (and yes, you could HIDE under the barge but then you run the risk of splashing water... drawing attention from things in the water and NOT orcs, etc)

Or another example would be Sense Motive. If an NPC is bluffing the Party, by mere mention of "Make a Sense Motive check" leads the party to already believe that the NPC is lying to them. Natural PC suspicion should be allowed, especially if "Shady Tom, the town Alchemist" comes off as really shady. But I mean, in cases where things like that occur "You believe he's telling the truth." Breaking the chance and option for a PC to metagame.

So what other skills would you think it appropriate for a DM to roll instead of their players? Would it just be situational or would it be all the time?

[Darth Ultron]

In general a Dm only makes a roll when the character is not aware of something.

The whole ''DM tells the player to make a check, but also tells the player that the character does not know about the check '' is clumsy and awkward. And only the best gamers can play out something they know that their character does not know.

Though, in a lot of games just to save time, the DM makes a lot of skill rolls for the players.

The type of game where the players make no rolls can be loads of fun....but only for the right players.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I like 4th Edition's take here, just extrapolated across other skills. You use an assumed roll of 10, and if the player thinks something's up, they actively roll.

[hymer]

Or another example would be Sense Motive. If an NPC is bluffing the Party, by mere mention of "Make a Sense Motive check" leads the party to already believe that the NPC is lying to them. Natural PC suspicion should be allowed, especially if "Shady Tom, the town Alchemist" comes off as really shady. But I mean, in cases where things like that occur "You believe he's telling the truth." Breaking the chance and option for a PC to metagame.

Well, never say 'You believe he's telling the truth.' Say 'He seems to believe in what he's saying.' Describe what PCs experience. Just because they've not caught someone in an open lie doesn't mean they can't be lying.

I call for plenty of Sense Motive checks for various minor stuff. Maybe the NPC is starstruck at meeting the PCs, or s/he resents the holy symbol they're displaying openly, or s/he's trying to pretend s/he's not drunk. Ideally, I'll only confirm what the players already suspected from my acting out the NPC. But sometimes those rolls are because the NPC is hiding something. And most of the time you don't get more than that; you don't know what the NPC is concealing, but you feel confident that something isn't right. That's the player's cue to start wondering if you can interrogate this NPC more closely, or if you can guess what's being hidden.

[Glorthindel]

I don't like taking dice rolls out of players hands - the reality is player like rolling dice. So my solution is "blind" rolls - in situations where the character either shouldn't know the result (such as stealth rolls) or even know what they are rolling for, I keep a box behind by DM screen and make them throw their dice in to that, so I can read the result and pass the dice back. It keeps the player actually making the roll without giving away their success or faliure.

[Celestia]

The DM should roll any time a player should not realistically know whether or not they succeeded or even whether or not there was anything to roll for. With several skills, success or failure is obvious. For others, not so much. You can tell that you failed your Climb check by the fact that you are still at the bottom of the cliff. However, when you fail to identify a creature, knowing that you were rolling a Knowledge (Dungeoneering) check greatly limits the possibilities. And if the DM calls for a Sense Motive check, you don't even need to roll to know that the NPC is lying.

[Aneurin]

The only times I'll roll on behalf of my players is when they shouldn't know if they've succeeded or failed. Or maybe if they should never know there was a testto be made to begin with, like ambushes.

For instance, knowledge checks. They shouldn't know if the info is right or wrong, just that it's what their character 'knows' is true. If they make a knowledge test, and come up with the idea that werewolves will run away if you smack them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper... they should be willing to consider it might true, even if it sounds like complete nonsense. Or if they 'know' that werewolves can only be harmed by silver, they should actually go looking for some silver to weaponise rather than realising the whole silver thing is a complete myth because it was what they were told when they botched the test.

[Tinkerer]

I've done a few different things to try and alleviate this problem. I mean I've got a great group of players but even then I run into a few who would still try something like "I roll a 5 to search this area... Oh hey maybe somebody should double check my work." If I think it's going to be a problem I usually either clear it with the player OR (because players like rolling dice) during the warm-up period I have them roll about 20 results and put the results on scrap pieces of paper then put those scraps in a small sack and hand it to me. Of course this works best if you're in a group of about 4-5 but I do find that they are a lot more willing to accept the results when they are the ones who rolled them. At one point I had a dice tower where you could slide the base back and forth but I can't really say that I enjoyed it due to some faults in its construction.

Additionally I think the GM should NEVER be calling for a Sense Motive check. Give the players a passive Sense Motive ability and then if they choose to they can roll (well have you roll/draw a slip) on specific statements (I usually limit this to one per conversation barring extreme circumstances).

If they don't know what they're rolling for at all I usually let them roll out in the open though.

[Thrudd]

All perception related things
Searching and investigating
Hiding/stealth
sometimes knowledge

anything else where the character would not be able to see the result of their action right away, or would not be aware of unless the result of the roll was positive.

for example - the character forges someone's signature and hands off the letter to be delivered- the character doesn't know whether their forgery is good enough or not - they obviously tried their best. They shouldn't see the roll - you just tell them what happens after the letter is received.

[Mastikator]

All of them.

Edit- I'll add an addendum to that, I know it feels like you're more in control when you throw the dice but surely you(everyone) must realize that that is an entirely irrational belief and if you did in fact have the capacity to actually change the outcome of the dice then you would be cheating. (in which case you especially shouldn't be allowed to throw the dice, even if you brought your own and the DM didn't)

[Pex]

Way back in 2E it was a sometimes practice for a DM to roll a PCs saving throw behind the DM screen to reflect a magical attack the PC/Player doesn't know is happening. That fell out of favor but only partially out of caution against possible DM tyranny. When something is serious enough to affect a PC that requires a saving throw, the player wants to control his own fate. Even if he doesn't know the source it's his character. He wants to know and should know something is happening.

The same line of thinking of PC in character not knowing something leads to the DM wanting to roll, but the problem of taking away the player's agency for his own character is still there. This is where Take 10/Passive Scores can come in to solve the competing desires (accepting at face value the DM is not being tyrannical). The DM is rolling for the bad guy/trap, not the PC, or let the Take 10/Passive score determine autosuccess or not, and the player gets to play the game without unintentional metagaming.

My Pathfinder DM notes down each character's AC, saving throws, and Perception. During the game he'll ask a player to roll a d20, doesn't say for what, just roll. He uses that roll and applies it to a saving throw or Perception as appropriate. Most of the time it's Perception. This also maintains the check against unintentional metagaming and the player controlling his own character's fate.

[Thrudd]

Way back in 2E it was a sometimes practice for a DM to roll a PCs saving throw behind the DM screen to reflect a magical attack the PC/Player doesn't know is happening. That fell out of favor but only partially out of caution against possible DM tyranny. When something is serious enough to affect a PC that requires a saving throw, the player wants to control his own fate. Even if he doesn't know the source it's his character. He wants to know and should know something is happening.

The same line of thinking of PC in character not knowing something leads to the DM wanting to roll, but the problem of taking away the player's agency for his own character is still there. This is where Take 10/Passive Scores can come in to solve the competing desires (accepting at face value the DM is not being tyrannical). The DM is rolling for the bad guy/trap, not the PC, or let the Take 10/Passive score determine autosuccess or not, and the player gets to play the game without unintentional metagaming.

My Pathfinder DM notes down each character's AC, saving throws, and Perception. During the game he'll ask a player to roll a d20, doesn't say for what, just roll. He uses that roll and applies it to a saving throw or Perception as appropriate. Most of the time it's Perception. This also maintains the check against unintentional metagaming and the player controlling his own character's fate.

But you aren't taking away a player's agency, in any way. The player was never "controlling their own fate" just because they rolled the die - since they don't get to choose when the die is rolled or what for.
Passive scores are fine, too, it's essentially the same thing since both are invisible to the player - either way does not grant them any more or less agency.
Thinking the person who rolls the die is somehow more "in control" is just superstition (unless you're cheating), and there's no reason to humor that idea. The players still get plenty of chances to roll dice for other things that actually makes sense for them to be rolling.

[Nifft]

I'd rather have players roll everything -- so ideally, monsters would get passive Perception and passive Stealth, so players would roll against both.

The combat form of this would be player-only rolls for both attack and defense -- so players would roll an "AC Save" (maybe "Deflection check"?), and also players would roll "Will Attack" / "Weapon Attack" / etc.

D&D 4e can certainly do this.

D&D 5e can probably do this.

DungeonWorld (PbtA) does this by default, and that's part of why it's great.

[Pex]

But you aren't taking away a player's agency, in any way. The player was never "controlling their own fate" just because they rolled the die - since they don't get to choose when the die is rolled or what for.
Passive scores are fine, too, it's essentially the same thing since both are invisible to the player - either way does not grant them any more or less agency.
Thinking the person who rolls the die is somehow more "in control" is just superstition (unless you're cheating), and there's no reason to humor that idea. The players still get plenty of chances to roll dice for other things that actually makes sense for them to be rolling.

If it doesn't make a difference except the player feels better that he gets to roll the die why not let him roll the die?

[Thrudd]

If it doesn't make a difference except the player feels better that he gets to roll the die why not let him roll the die?

It doesn't make a difference to the outcome. It does make a difference to the perception and immersion of the players. At every point, effort should be made for the player's knowledge and perception to be as close to that of the character as possible. Every possible situation where "metagaming" could come up should be avoided if at all possible.

A player should not know there was something that their character failed to see or hear, a low roll might give that away - that a roll was asked for at all gives that away. Things invisible to the characters are ideally invisible to the players. A character doesn't know if they are sneaking quietly/carefully enough until/unless somebody sees or hears them - and they don't necessarily know that someone sees or hears them until something happens to alert them to that fact.

So there are real reasons to hide these sorts of rolls, and no real reasons to have the players make them.

[Tanarii]

In 5e, ideally none. That's exactly what the Passive score mechanic is for. Any time a check needs to be a secret to the player, ie any time they can't even know a roll was needed, nor the result of a roll.

Passive (wisdom) perception gets a special call out, because it's by far the most common check that requires a secret roll.

[Pex]

It doesn't make a difference to the outcome. It does make a difference to the perception and immersion of the players. At every point, effort should be made for the player's knowledge and perception to be as close to that of the character as possible. Every possible situation where "metagaming" could come up should be avoided if at all possible.

A player should not know there was something that their character failed to see or hear, a low roll might give that away - that a roll was asked for at all gives that away. Things invisible to the characters are ideally invisible to the players. A character doesn't know if they are sneaking quietly/carefully enough until/unless somebody sees or hears them - and they don't necessarily know that someone sees or hears them until something happens to alert them to that fact.

So there are real reasons to hide these sorts of rolls, and no real reasons to have the players make them.

That's not "should". That's your preference.

For some players it will take a while to get in the habit of understanding that a low roll is not an autofail. DCs aren't that high or the DM rolled low himself for the bad guy's opposed roll. I find myself reminding players of that, and they are pleasantly surprised when sometimes they do succeed. This is true for 5E and Pathfinder. They do get it eventually, except for my benign dedicated munchkin friend even after 12 years of playing with him. Can't win them all.

[Dragonexx]

I'll second (or third or fourth or whatever) rolling for things the player shouldn't know whether they succeed or fail at (some spot or listen checks, sense motive, ect.).

In forum PBP games I roll saving throws for players as well for the sake of expediency.

[Mastikator]

If it doesn't make a difference except the player feels better that he gets to roll the die why not let him roll the die?

I sympathize with the need to feel in control of the effort you put into your actions and its real affect on immersion for the players (which is important) but you know what also ruins immersion? When the flow of the game is disrupted because someone threw the dice funny and it fell off the table and under the sofa and now everyone has to wait for you to get the dice back and throw it again. Not only does it waste several people's time (which is disrespectful and shame on everyone who does it, including me (who should know better because I constantly complain about it (also triple parenthesis for the win))) it ruins immersion.

Most are too afraid of confrontations so it's better to just deny everyone their dice privileges and let the DM do it.


The best of all worlds would be to have an app on a tablet in the middle of the table that you can push a button to get an appropriate random number, that way players can get their immersion and nobody's time is wasted by That Guy™

[Pelle]

It doesn't make a difference to the outcome. It does make a difference to the perception and immersion of the players. At every point, effort should be made for the player's knowledge and perception to be as close to that of the character as possible. Every possible situation where "metagaming" could come up should be avoided if at all possible.

A player should not know there was something that their character failed to see or hear, a low roll might give that away - that a roll was asked for at all gives that away. Things invisible to the characters are ideally invisible to the players. A character doesn't know if they are sneaking quietly/carefully enough until/unless somebody sees or hears them - and they don't necessarily know that someone sees or hears them until something happens to alert them to that fact.

So there are real reasons to hide these sorts of rolls, and no real reasons to have the players make them.

I basically agree, but feel there are times when letting players know that the characters failed checks can be good for the session tension. It can for example make an ambush or assassination feel less like a screwjob.

[Frozen_Feet]

Most games I play are pretty neutral as to who is rolling the dice. It could be the GM, it could be the player, it could be whoever's closest to the proper die. The biggest reason to let players roll their dice is to keep their attention in the game. It keeps the players' eyes and thoughts on what's happening.

I have a preference for all dice to be rolled in the open, so everyone can see the result. If I feel like keeping secrets, I just don't tell what a roll is for.

[FreddyNoNose]

I basically agree, but feel there are times when letting players know that the characters failed checks can be good for the session tension. It can for example make an ambush or assassination feel less like a screwjob.

Just have them roll randomly every few minutes for no reason.

[Max_Killjoy]

I've always worked on the assumption that Players should roll their own skills to determine the success or failure of what it is they do. Lately, I've wanted to try something different and I had heard that some DMs roll skill checks for Players instead of having them roll it.

For example: You're floating down the river on a barge with just yourself and the pole guiding your boat. A flat barge with nothing to hide behind. You spy orcs on the riverbank and attempt to hide... in the open... on a barge floating down the river. Even a natural 20 can't prevent the orcs from checking it out this "abandoned raft" (and yes, you could HIDE under the barge but then you run the risk of splashing water... drawing attention from things in the water and NOT orcs, etc)

Or another example would be Sense Motive. If an NPC is bluffing the Party, by mere mention of "Make a Sense Motive check" leads the party to already believe that the NPC is lying to them. Natural PC suspicion should be allowed, especially if "Shady Tom, the town Alchemist" comes off as really shady. But I mean, in cases where things like that occur "You believe he's telling the truth." Breaking the chance and option for a PC to metagame.

So what other skills would you think it appropriate for a DM to roll instead of their players? Would it just be situational or would it be all the time?

The GM should only roll for players when it's absolutely crucial -- when asking the player(s) to roll would blatantly and openly telegraph something that would ruin immersion, suspense, etc, for the table. The cost in player agency that comes with taking the roll out of the players' hands, demands a critical benefit.

Your barge example has nothing to do with who rolls the dice, it's purely a matter of there being nowhere to hide. The dice can't enable the impossible.

[Dimers]

As GM I roll for players when the character wouldn't know how well they did, which basically boils down to knowledges and senses. I presume they do know how stealthy they're being ... though not whether an opponent has sensed them anyway.

Without question, this works best when the players can and do trust the GM.

[Tanarii]

The cost in player agency that comes with taking the roll out of the players' hands, demands a critical benefit.

Thats not what player agency means.

[Max_Killjoy]

Thats not what player agency means.

So you'd be fine with your GM making all the rolls for everyone?

Because most players I know wouldn't -- they'd feel that something critical about their character's success / failure had been taken out of their hands.

[Frozen_Feet]

Yeah, it's more about player involvement. When a player is rolling, their eyes are on the game and the feeling of participating is tangible - even if dice are doing all the decisions and the course of the game is not influenced by who rolls them.

[Knaight]

So you'd be fine with your GM making all the rolls for everyone?

No, but given rolls made in the open that objection is based entirely on rolling being part of the experience* and not agency in any way.

*To some extent dice are just physically fun to roll.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, it's more about player involvement. When a player is rolling, their eyes are on the game and the feeling of participating is tangible - even if dice are doing all the decisions and the course of the game is not influenced by who rolls them.

No, but given rolls made in the open that objection is based entirely on rolling being part of the experience* and not agency in any way.

*To some extent dice are just physically fun to roll.

If people don't like this being included under "agency", that distinction isn't important to my point. Call it involvement, call it having hands-on, call it whatever, it's the sense of having this important thing that drastically affects their character, in their hands, and not in someone else's.

If the roll is going to fail, a lot of players want it to at least fail coming out of their fingers and not someone else's.

[Beleriphon]

If people don't like this being included under "agency", that distinction isn't important to my point. Call it involvement, call it having hands-on, call it whatever, it's the sense of having this important thing that drastically affects their character, in their hands, and not in someone else's.

If the roll is going to fail, a lot of players want it to at least fail coming out of their fingers and not someone else's.

And that's usually a very human response to the idea that we have some control over what amounts to pure random luck.

I'm in the same boat as Max though either way. The DM/GM/Storyteller/Arbiter/whatever should only roll player skills when the players doing so would ruin some surprise or other mystery. If you tell the players to roll some kill involving finding things they're going to expect to need to find something, which is okay if the idea of the current in game activity is to find something. It gets to be different when you ask to roll for "figure out of that guy is lying" skills, because you've just telegraphed there is something about "that guy" that might, or might not be truthful.

The best way to think of it is would being told Bruce Willis is dead at the start of The Sixth Sense ruin the movie? Probably. Would being told The Village was actually a bunch of modern weirdos ruin the movie? Probably not, since it was awful.