For the most part it is GM preference and style, as there is no right or wrong answer to this question.
For How I play:
All checks are in the player's hands, except the odd save or skill situation where they can't know if they passed or failed a skill check. i.e. know if their disguise is any good in sneaking passed some guards disguised as servants returning from a daily errand.
Assuming they don't metagame too much based on the rolls, I let them roll everything. Makes them feel better.
When a failed roll gives information I will make the roll.
EG everyone in the group wants to roll a survival to see what way they need to go at the fork. In this case i roll for each of them and tell them what way to go.
I will also do it with stealth on occasion if its possible the NPCs may pretend not to see them on purpose.
To sum it up, its arbitrary for us :)
By no means or ends an experienced GM, I have run a few modules and one campaign. An issue I have been trying to figure out was what checks to ake for the players? Is it all skill checks or just certain ones?
My players will definitely metagame from the rolls. I roll any checks where I don't want them to know how difficult the DC is. Sense Motive, Perception, Bluff, etc. I used to be more easy going about this, but I have one player who almost never fails a check... know what I mean?
Also for saves I will roll them if the PC's don't know they are saving against something - like detect thoughts and illusions.
the traditionals are things like searching for traps or secret doors, survival checks to find tracks.
these days I let the players roll almost everything themself, we have one DM in our group who makes rolls for us on a seemingly random pattern, things like stealth checks or knowledge, his reasoning is to keep us emerged in the story. the effect on my is the opposite, I HATE when he does this and I lose any interest in the story because I feel like a puppet
Things that they can fail on and try again. However they might not know whether or not they failed till a little bit later.
I let them roll everything pretty much, there are a couple situations where I don't in order to keep something secret - but other then that, they get to roll everything. They're pretty good about not a meta-gaming and if it seems like they are then I just ask them how they know to do whatever it is they're doing and they usually realize what they're doing and do something else.
|
Aeglos - +1
I have long since given up rolling ANYTHING for the players. If they aren't to know what the outcome is, don't tell them. This was made considerably easier by the idea that on a skill roll, a 20 is not an auto success, and a 1 is not an auto-fail. All they know is that they rolled well, or poorly.
If it's a save, and I don't want them to know it's a save, I just call for a D20 roll. If it's really important, I will then ask what total for perception that gives them, and go 'Not enough'. They don't need to know they just made a successful save.
Yeah, basically this.
Remember, too, that the dice can do bad things to PCs. Failing a save-or-die roll shouldn't be on your hands. Call for the d20 roll and adjudicate it from there. Let it be their own luck that decides it.
I would have TPK's if i rolled for my party. I will occasionally ask them to roll for nothing however, or ask for the roll at the start of the night i know is comming at the end of the night
I would have TPK's if i rolled for my party.
I am not sure I get this. Do you mean that you tend to roll badly?
I would have TPK's if i rolled for my party.I am not sure I get this. Do you mean that you tend to roll badly?
Yup.
Yup.I would have TPK's if i rolled for my party.I am not sure I get this. Do you mean that you tend to roll badly?
I don't mean to thread-jack here (that is the term, right?) but to what do you attribute that kind of thing?
I mean I will admit that it seems like I roll pretty crappy a lot of the time - especially when I am DMing. But then I tell myself that this is not possible, and it is just becasue I make a lot of rolls.
OK I will concede that certain dice might not be toatlly balanced, and they may have a tendency roll certain numbers. But even this is difficult for me to agree with.
But do you really think that certain individuals tend to roll better or worse than others - regardless of the dice they use?
Basically, any roll where the player knowing the result can lead to metagaming. IE, if the player rolls a 20, they proceed with confidence, but it they roll a 1, the proceed cautiously. The problem is that the character does not know they rolled a 1.
That being said, I love an idea I picked up around here. Let each player roll several d20s at the start of the session. The DM records the results, and then uses those rolls when they need a roll from that player.
But do you really think that certain individuals tend to roll better or worse than others - regardless of the dice they use?
well, with 6 billion humans on the planet some of them are going to have worse random or semi random events happen to them than others.
But do you really think that certain individuals tend to roll better or worse than others - regardless of the dice they use?well, with 6 billion humans on the planet some of them are going to have worse random or semi random events happen to them than others.
While I realize that there is no proof scientifically for it I totally believe in luck. For example one guy I know rolls at least five 1's every single game and might get a 20 every four games regardless of the dice he uses. Another guy I know generally rolls fifteens and upwards I've seen him roll three 1's in the entire six years of playing with him.
Mind you if you want a more...scientific possibility it is concievable that we affect the outcome somehow mentally. I'm basing this on that they've discovered matter changes depending on if it's being observed by someone.
I've found that since placing all my dice on the highest number when not rolling them that they actually have rolled higher more often.
Anyways I'm going to stop yammering and meander off now.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player I like the GM to make a lot of skill checks for me. I trust me friends and it adds a bit to the game to not be able to just look at a die and decide I failed to find a hidden trap or didn't sense that the captain of the guard was lying to me just because I rolled a 2. It's more immerse if those rolls, at least for me, happen behind the screen.
Same with spells with random durations. It's supposed to be random so I'd rather not know, 3.5 actually stated the GM was supposed to roll that one in secret. Anything to help cut down on the meta-gaming.
As a list:
Perception (For trap finding)
Disable Device (For traps, not static DC stuff)
Bluff
Sense Motive
Disguise
Stealth
I could even see maybe Appraise too...
|
I like the idea of making then roll an arbitrary number of d20s at the beginning of the night and as they are presented with problems (ie perception for traps, stealth, sense motve, etc.) that I might have rolled for them. It solves both the problem that my players metagame, and then they dont have to feel like they failed because I failed.
At our table...anything involving perception. Nothing creates more suspends disbelief better than having to roll to notice something and fail, then subsequently having to pretend you arent aware that trouble is afoot. Our DM goes one better and has us roll 20 or so drops of the ol' D20 every couple of sessions, this way he can just use one at at time and cross them off.