How much if any "behind the screen" rolling do people do?
I am thinking mainly for skills checks
Unfortunately not all players are honest enough at the game to not horrendously meta-game about a failure they would not know about
Key examples are perception and sense motive.
These often lead to cases of what I think of as "chain rolling" where someone decides to roll and everyone else rolls OR others roll if they see a bad roll has come up
You also get unnatural situations where one player has rolled a 3 on Sense Motive and been told one thing and another 25 and told another and the person who rolled a 3 (at least in my games) just ignores what they were told
I'd like to take some of the rolls behind the screen - but not too many. Players like rolling dice after all
Which ones work for this?
One I am not sure on is disable device for traps. Would a rogue know they have messed up if they rolled a 10 or something like that? Or would they assume they have succeeded. I would lean towards them knowing but I am not certain...
With a trap if you fail by five or more 'something goes wrong,' generally the trap goes off, so they certainly know. It is not certain if they know they failed if they missed by 4 or less, I would probably lean toward them generally not knowing (until they test it), but in some situations it would probably be obvious. In any case, according to the rules this is indeed a secret roll.
There are numerous situations where you rolling for the players is justified (and even recommended.) You have given several good examples.
Perception is one of the most commonly used skills. Obviously when it comes to surprise rounds everyone should roll their own and it is obvious if they succeeded or failed. For other things, one trick is to have a designated 'spotter' and it is that persons roll that matters, the others can just try to aid another. This avoids the problem of if 5 people roll, their is likely to be at least one quite high roll so the party 'always notices' whatever it is. Another solution is to make sure that you occasionally ask for rolls when their isn't anything to notice, so they don't know that they missed something.
The biggest issue with any "hidden" rolls is that there are many play abilities to reroll stuff that apply to those rolls too. So IF any players have such a thing you'll need to figure out how to work it with secret rolls. Also take-10 is a thing and so they'll need to be able to do that instead of rolling too.
But all skill checks could be done by the GM and make things interesting story wise, but players like to roll as much as they can.
I personally am a fan of ghost rolls. I always make sure to look at each result, sometimes I even write down their ghost rolls and use them later as checks they don't even know are being made. This keeps the chain reaction ripple effect from happening. But everyone at my table, including me, rolls where everyone else can see the result. It doesn't matter if it's a roll between me and one player, everyone sees the dice be rolled, even if they don't know why. I don't cheat my table, they don't cheat me.
In the case of sense motive checks and the like, if an NPC says something and they all roll to see if he is lying or whatever, you give each player a post it note. If they sidebar to see who believed him, who doesn't, that's fine. But they have this side bar in front of the NPC, and any consequences of their distrust will follow.
But yeah, mostly ghost rolls to mitigate chain reaction ripple effect rolls. Say what it is even, roll perspective everyone. They all apply their modifiers, you now have your next perspective roll. What did they notice right then? Oh, its a beautiful day, you guys are very astute. Good job. In reality, you already know who is aware in a surprise round ambush up ahead.
I have little cards that I have players fill out and keep updated for me. On them, I have them list things like AC bonus, perception checks, etc.
Then, if a player wants to actively search for something I will have them roll perception. Otherwise I assume that they got a 10 and apply whatever bonus they've told me they have.
Before doing that when players wanted to say "search for traps". I would roll their check behind the screen and tell them their result. I use big heavy dice so it's obvious when I roll. I also have a rock I will sometimes roll when I know the result of their search won't make a difference. My players are aware of the rock and have accused me of rolling it when I roll a normal die and tell them they didn't find anything.
the re-roll abilities that some classes have are essentially built-in metagaming and so you'll need to decide how much you're willing to put up with.
I don't show rolls I wouldn't normally reveal when it comes to those abilities. But if they want to use a re-roll ability against monster X if I roll above result y, I'm fine with that and I'll let them know if and when their ability gets used.
I personally am a fan of ghost rolls. I always make sure to look at each result, sometimes I even write down their ghost rolls and use them later as checks they don't even know are being made. This keeps the chain reaction ripple effect from happening. But everyone at my table, including me, rolls where everyone else can see the result. It doesn't matter if it's a roll between me and one player, everyone sees the dice be rolled, even if they don't know why. I don't cheat my table, they don't cheat me.
In the case of sense motive checks and the like, if an NPC says something and they all roll to see if he is lying or whatever, you give each player a post it note. If they sidebar to see who believed him, who doesn't, that's fine. But they have this side bar in front of the NPC, and any consequences of their distrust will follow.
But yeah, mostly ghost rolls to mitigate chain reaction ripple effect rolls. Say what it is even, roll perspective everyone. They all apply their modifiers, you now have your next perspective roll. What did they notice right then? Oh, its a beautiful day, you guys are very astute. Good job. In reality, you already know who is aware in a surprise round ambush up ahead.
By "ghost rolls" do you mean asking for say 20 rolls in advance and noting all the numbers down and applying them as necessary?
In this instance I would also like to take them and randomize the order they come back around in (but that could be more work than I appreciate).
I will be playing on Roll20 so the visible rolls is not an option
I just randomly had them roll, say, perspective. I take note of each player's roll. Now, I have a legit perspective roll from everyone with their modifier added. I can use these results the next time I would normally require the party to roll perspective. Sometimes I end up with multiple perspective checks all lined up because I had them randomly roll perspective multiple times as they walked through town. I don't have to use them in any order, just as complete sets for the group, not picking and choosing through their results.
I do it with sense motive even if the person isn't lying and there is no motive to sense. Honest shopkeeper, yep, that's the price. Actually, the roll is to sense the intentions of a rogue they will run into when they leave town. The rolls are still legit with all their modifiers added, so I don't really feel like I'm tricking anyone.
On my small gaming table, my space is taken up by the module, rulebooks, and reference notes. I have to roll on an empty area of the playmat, out in the open. It does not seem to leak any information to the players that they could not obtain by reading my reaction. I have no poker face to conceal what I am thinking. And the players make all the rolls for their characters.
I have found in the Paizo modules that many high-level villains have no ranks in Bluff or Sense Motive. The module writer expected the party to rush at the villain with weapons drawn rather than talk to him. Thus, a roll of 3 could be a successful Sense Motive roll. As for getting two different responses to two different Sense Motive checks, that would make anyone suspicious, even if both players had rolled high.
I just use my best judgement when it comes to secret rolls and player re-rolls. If I don't think the player would be aware of a failure in his 'passive' skill check that I have made for him, he is not going to be allowed to added or re-roll anything. I know what it is like to be a GM and a player, and I know when to be lenient or not so lenient.
The players are unaware they got different answers to their checks unless they sidebar in front of the NPC. Which, right after he says something, everyone huddles together whispering do you trust this guy, to see who has a post it note saying he is lying, is rude, and the NPC has every right to react accordingly. But everyone who rolls gets a post it note, even if some are blank. Only a successful roll gets an answer on their post it note, and to compare notes requires the characters to actually talk amongst themselves in real time, right where they were when they rolled unless they excuse themselves away from the NPC to sidebar in private.
It was an almost flawless system that made encounters easy because the dice had already been rolled for who is aware of what.
While I favor Player's rolling as much as possible (that is the game, after all), I've recently begun doing private rolling. My formula is simple: If there isn't a physical aspect to the roll, I as GM will make it. However, I also tell them if they did poorly (2-7), average (8-13), or well (14-19). One's and Twenties have special results. My favorite example of why I do this is Sense Motive and Bluff.
All Player's will roll if they hear one player will. So, Player A gets a 1, Player B gets a 5, Player C gets a 10, Player D gets a 15, Player E gets a 20. Player E is POSITIVE it was a lie. Player A is POSITIVE it was a truth. Player's B and C think it was the truth, but can't be sure. Player D is convinced it was a lie. With that, all Players have to determine it for themselves, just like in real life.
Sounds complex, but no more than Combat, and really this is what I would consider Social Combat.
Oh, also, I pre-roll any of these checks that I wrote into the adventure, so I can just tell the players what they determine without them ever seeing me make the roll. Makes for some great RP moments.
I go pretty much by the book, though for expediency I usually have players roll Perception checks for events whose results will become immediately apparent regardless of their success (such as whether they are aware of an ambush). If the result will not necessarily be readily apparent (such as spotting a secret door or difficult-to spot loot), I'll roll for them using a pre-notated card containing their Perception, Sense Motive, Disguise, Bluff, Stealth, saving throws vs. onset effects, and other potentially "secret" rolls.
If rerolls are a thing, or if players want to take 10 on such things by default, I work it out with the player. "If I have a reroll left, I'd like to reroll any Perception check on which I roll an 11 or less", for example.
Everything else I roll in the open. If they get one-shot by an ogre hook crit, they deserve to see it happen rather than wonder if I was mad that they ate the last brownie or something. : )
Personally, I go both ways. I make it very clear to my players which rolls can only be done once, which ones can be done either once per party member or my new favorite "pick one party member with the highest bonus, and the rest may roll aid another", and which ones I will be using their passive, i.e. take ten. I have their perceptions all noted down at take 10 for travel, and if the player feels suspicious they can do a roll on their own (though they know they only get one). I, much like many of my DMs, lock player action. Example, you decide you're going through the door, I ask for perception or another skill, and they roll. Even if they get low, they still made the decision beforehand to use the door. Another player cannot grace save them unless their passive would be high enough.
The best way to avoid chain rolls and players going "Me too!" to sense motive rolls or perception checks is just to ask players to roll a d20. Players like rolling dice and it can be seen by some as "cheating" when the DM rolls and the players don't discover anything new.
It prevents "me toos" since they players have no idea along with leaving you with the ability to choose what they rolled for.
Out of curiosity . . . why are "me toos" a problem?
Because if one person from the group is talking to an NPC the whole party shouldn't get a chance to interrupt with their opinion because they were eavesdropping on the conversation. Or one person being near a hidden door doesn't mean everyone has a chance to see it. Or one person stepping out of a door into an ambush shouldn't have the support of the party inside for their perception check. Sometimes you are on an island, all on your own, even with a party of allies behind you.
Me too's and everyone aid the highest guy just makes it so they most always pass. Why even have checks at all if everyone gets a shot every time or can aid the person most likely to succeed anyways?
Out of curiosity . . . why are "me toos" a problem?
The biggest player problems I've had with it as the metagame, need to do everything players. I've had two bigs ones in the past few years.
The vigilante decides to roll perception and finds a secret door. The barbarian, who prior already searched a statue and had his moment, rushes over so that he can open it and check it out. This takes the scene away from the vigilante who it was built and likely intended for.
The party splits up, the cleric and bard go one way, the rogue and bard go the other. The bard needs to roll perception for her small group and they find kobolds. The uninvolved rogue decides he has 6th sense and backtracks at full speed, just so that he isn't missing anything.
Out of curiosity . . . why are "me toos" a problem?
If a character fails to disarm a trap by 5 or more, they know. They trap sets off.
If a player fails a knowledge check or sense motive, they don't know. Well, they shouldn't know. If a player passes a knowledge check, no body runs up and tries to roll another dice, but if they fail the do. How does the character know someone failed a knowledge roll?
If you fail a perception check, the players start to get meta-gamey and start being way more tactical than normal. (This isn't a me too, but is also a problem).
If a player fails a knowledge check or sense motive, they don't know. Well, they shouldn't know. If a player passes a knowledge check, no body runs up and tries to roll another dice, but if they fail the do. How does the character know someone failed a knowledge roll?
Knowledge is one of the ones I generally give each player. By it's own description, it's not re-do able, as well they're all trained skills, so only ones with ranks can get anything about it.
Additionally, the player chooses with their successes what information they want. Defenses, attacks, etc. Multiple trained characters can pool what they know to better fight a monster.
Because if one person from the group is talking to an NPC the whole party shouldn't get a chance to interrupt with their opinion because they were eavesdropping on the conversation. Or one person being near a hidden door doesn't mean everyone has a chance to see it. Or one person stepping out of a door into an ambush shouldn't have the support of the party inside for their perception check. Sometimes you are on an island, all on your own, even with a party of allies behind you.
Me too's and everyone aid the highest guy just makes it so they most always pass. Why even have checks at all if everyone gets a shot every time or can aid the person most likely to succeed anyways?
Everything you've mentioned is something the rules already say, explictly, that the GM should limit at their discretion. Never be afraid to say "no".
Out of curiosity . . . why are "me toos" a problem?The biggest player problems I've had with it as the metagame, need to do everything players. I've had two bigs ones in the past few years.
The vigilante decides to roll perception and finds a secret door. The barbarian, who prior already searched a statue and had his moment, rushes over so that he can open it and check it out. This takes the scene away from the vigilante who it was built and likely intended for.
The party splits up, the cleric and bard go one way, the rogue and bard go the other. The bard needs to roll perception for her small group and they find kobolds. The uninvolved rogue decides he has 6th sense and backtracks at full speed, just so that he isn't missing anything.
Re: the first part, where's the problem? If my buddy suspects there's something there and searches for it, and he's known for being right about these things, why wouldn't I go and help him find it? Do I have to sit there and flex my awesome barbarian thews?
Re: the second part, that's just straight-up poor roleplaying. No rules text can fix that.
Out of curiosity . . . why are "me toos" a problem?If a character fails to disarm a trap by 5 or more, they know. They trap sets off.
If a player fails a knowledge check or sense motive, they don't know. Well, they shouldn't know. If a player passes a knowledge check, no body runs up and tries to roll another dice, but if they fail the do. How does the character know someone failed a knowledge roll?
If you fail a perception check, the players start to get meta-gamey and start being way more tactical than normal. (This isn't a me too, but is also a problem).
These are good arguments for rolling such checks (except Knowledge) behind the screen, and the rules encourage you to do so. Re: Knowledge, I have had issues (as a GM and as the offending player) where players assume knowledge that another player had because they heard the information being provided--again, that's a roleplaying failure, but an easy thing to do by accident. I'm still working on a solution for that one--in some cases, I just make premade knowledge sheets for different DCs, but that only helps if you know in advance which creatures they're going to encounter.
Example:
Party of three running from a storm giant. Hides in a church.
Inside there are four pedestals near the door, two on each side, the kind that would have had water for washing hands entering the church. And a beam to deadlock the door from the inside.
I already had perception checks written down from earlier. So I already knew who would notice what.
The werewolf was strong enough to pick up the beam by himself to brace the door. He couldn't let go of it... oh no, MIMICS!
The other two were back to back centered between the pedestals, also mimics.
Point is, nobody could help the werewolf recognize that the beam was a mimic in the heat of battle. He picked it up without checking, but technically they did check, way earlier, when I made them roll still in the village.
It's a dice game, chance and failure with consequence makes it fun. And I'm not slowing down the battle with checks in the middle of a fight. It kills the surprise, things that I worked hard to engineer into my campaign. Nothing says prepare for something unexpected quite like a perception check.
Especially checks everyone can pass off to the right guy and then aid another to guarantee success. That's so pointless. Why even have checks at all?
Again, that's exactly what the rules say you should do, including limiting Aid Another to situations where it makes sense to do so. That's still "me too", though--it's just implicit instead of explicit, since you're doing it for them.
A question: If a player decides to look for secret doors in a room, do you allow the rest of the party to help, or is that somehow cheating? If you do allow it, how do you adjudicate it?
Because not everyone can aid another. Barring untrained skills, if you have one player talking with an NPC, and the other players are doing different things in the room, completely ignoring the conversation, they won't get a sense motive. But because only one thing can go on at a time, the player talking to the NPC rolls low, then suddenly the next player on the other side of the room decides he wants to roll.
Most of the "me too" just comes down to meta gaming. If there is a valid reason (everyone searching for a hidden door), sure roll and aid another. Trying to here a private conversation from across the room and detect lies? Nah.
The vigilante decides to roll perception and finds a secret door. The barbarian, who prior already searched a statue and had his moment, rushes over so that he can open it and check it out. This takes the scene away from the vigilante who it was built and likely intended for.Re: the first part, where's the problem? If my buddy suspects there's something there and searches for it, and he's known for being right about these things, why wouldn't I go and help him find it? Do I have to sit there and flex my awesome barbarian thews?
I perhaps didn't describe that right, as this was an instance I was the player of said vigilante. I had just made the roll, deciding to search an alcove while the others were checking out the rather obvious statue in the room. I was told I found something, and before I could announce this to the other players, continue investigating the overhang it was in, anything. As a player I had made no reaction to this knowledge. The barbarian dropped everything to come, essentially push me out of the way to take advantage of my successful check, with knowledge he shouldn't have.
He's a player I have a number of such issues with. I have brought it up to the GM that if the game is going to just center around him, then I don't want to play. However, he was a good example for your point of the "me too" problem. The players are a team, and roleplaying as a team, working as a team, is important. Some checks should not be "me too", and you're right. Appropriately the CRB does specify which skills should be single try only.
Because not everyone can aid another. Barring untrained skills, if you have one player talking with an NPC, and the other players are doing different things in the room, completely ignoring the conversation, they won't get a sense motive. But because only one thing can go on at a time, the player talking to the NPC rolls low, then suddenly the next player on the other side of the room decides he wants to roll.
Players can aid another with sense motive countering bluff, so long as you're right, they're all involved. I believe it's actually in either the CRB or UI but being under the scrutiny of multiple people increases the DC to bluff. This could apply both ways as the players aid anothering the main talking character. Or by remaining in eyesight, able to send non-verbal cues if their own sense motive check could beat the bluff where the speaker's failed.
As a GM however, I would have the players choose beforehand. They can aid another the soeaker, or try multiple player attempts to foil lies, whichever they feel more confident in. It also involves everyone in the scene at hand.
If the party is engaged in the same effort, outside of combat, then sure help each other out. Everyone is talking to the same NPC, everyone can roll sense motive. If they say beforehand that for this next conversation they want to aid the person with the highest sense motive skill, then I allow it. Everyone is talking to the same NPC, they are all trying to see if they are being misled, but they are trusting the one person in the party to make the call. And they said this was their intent before walking up to engage in the conversation. Same with looking for hidden doors or whatever. If one person is really good at finding doors and everyone wants to help them, sure aid another, roll your own, go for it.
Guy stepping out of a door into an ambush is all alone on this check. But I don't want to be like you open the door and... roll perception... Now you get hit with a shovel. No. You step through the door and SMACK, a shovel hits you in the face. Why no roll to see if I could have at least tried to dodge it? Because you already made the roll a little bit earlier and didn't know what it was for. Gotcha. The story goes on uninterrupted. You still rolled. Not like knowing what it was for would influence you to roll better.
I had a random thought, that I wonder wouldn't help with the "me too" situation. Though to be fair you should let your players know you're doing this.
in the Aid another description it says
"In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can’t aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn’t achieve alone."
what I'm thinking is, if a character's aid another check is more than 10 lower than the DC (of the check being aided, not the DC 10 aid another DC) then the character not only fails to aid, but actually provides a -2 penalty. The idea being that the character is so incompetent at the task that they actually get in the way and make it harder for everyone else.
Otherwise there's no reason for everyone not to at least attempt to do aid another, since even if I literally add 0 to the skill check I will help the "main" skill check character 50% of the time.
I had a random thought, that I wonder wouldn't help with the "me too" situation. Though to be fair you should let your players know you're doing this.
in the Aid another description it says
"In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can’t aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn’t achieve alone."
what I'm thinking is, if a character's aid another check is more than 10 lower than the DC (of the check being aided, not the DC 10 aid another DC) then the character not only fails to aid, but actually provides a -2 penalty. The idea being that the character is so incompetent at the task that they actually get in the way and make it harder for everyone else.
Otherwise there's no reason for everyone not to at least attempt to do aid another, since even if I literally add 0 to the skill check I will help the "main" skill check character 50% of the time.
Not a bad idea. However it's already built into the fact most skills cannot be at all aided without training in said skill. The devotion of at least 1 skill rank to an ability. Disable device is one such skill.
The post it notes I used were much to the same effect.
One time, as I explained the expansive cavern the party was in, I handed out post it notes based on their previous perception check. Everyone who passed the check got a blank note and just kept listening to my description.
The player who failed got a note that said Look Up. He did. And a Bulette fell from the ceiling and landed on him.
The actual perception check happened back in the village, I wrote down the results to use as positioning for my later engagement. It was seamless and fluid, never giving up the surprise to come, never slowing down combat or role playing.
I generally trust my players not to metagame excessively. If they roll low on Sense Motive or Perception, then they don't notice anything. That creates tension because they're worried their character is missing something important, but they can't do anything about it.