Some skill checks are supposed to be made in secret (Disguise, Linguistics for forgeries.) However, there are other skills which seem like they also ought to be made secretly (I'm thinking specifically of Sense Motive.) It seems to beg for metagaming when you know your check result, because it leads to situations like, "I rolled a 2, so even though my check result indicates he's telling the truth, I still think he's lying." The character believes the lie, but the player continues to disbelieve it.
Do other people think this is a problem? I know I'm still not at the level where I can completely tune out metagame information, try as I might, so personally I'd rather have these things done in secret.
I realize this could be onerous on the GM, so perhaps it should only be done when the stakes are relatively high.
There are other skills which seem like they would preferably be done in secret as well (once again, making accommodations against overloading the GM): Bluff, Disable Device (on traps,) Stealth, and Appraise (as if anyone ever uses it.)
So, what skills do people roll in secret? Does anyone have good/bad experiences with this?
This is a common issue that comes up and different GMs deal with it differently.
In some cases a GM will rely on players' ability to avoid meta-gaming because they believe important game-impacting rolls should always be made by the player, not the GM. Other GMs believe that it is virtually impossible to avoid meta-gaming so they make as many skill checks in secret as possible.
I am sort of midway between the two extremes. I roll a lot of "secret" skill checks to avoid the possibility of meta-gaming, but I look for every opportunity for the player to make the rolls so that they feel they are actually in control of their character. I pretty much do this on a case-by-case basis.
To answer your specific question about skills rolled in secret, usually those are:
Perception checks when the players are unaware of something and having them roll a check will alert them that something is up.
Checks for things like disabling traps so that they don't know for sure if they were successful.
Knowledge checks if having the player roll a knowledge check would give away something and promote meta-gaming. Sometimes I will tell the player to make a knowledge check roll but not tell them what sort of knowledge since saying "Make a knowledge: planes check" would give away the situation. Other times it's just basic monster knowledge stuff.
On occasion I will roll both sides of an opposed skill check for the same reason, because asking the players to roll gives away a potential surprise.
How do I do all these rolls without giving away the situation myself? I roll dice randomly during the game all the time specifically to make my players learn to ignore me rolling dice.
How do I do all these rolls without giving away the situation myself? I roll dice randomly during the game all the time specifically to make my players learn to ignore me rolling dice.
Hahahah, I love this!
|
One GM I know has us write our Sense Motive modifiers on our initiative cards that he uses. He assumes we always take a 10 on sensing motive, unless we say that we are sensing motive and roll for it.
This system seems fair for lots of other skill too. When I GM I prefer a rules light game and let the storytelling do the work for this kind of stuff.
One GM I know has us write our Sense Motive modifiers on our initiative cards that he uses. He assumes we always take a 10 on sensing motive, unless we say that we are sensing motive and roll for it.
This system seems fair for lots of other skill too. When I GM I prefer a rules light game and let the storytelling do the work for this kind of stuff.
I do take ten on some skill checks, just for the sake of time. But my problem with that approach is that it takes away the potential for randomness both in the execution of the skill by the PC and the randomness in the challenge itself. Every lock is not the same. Rolling dice to determine the outcome of opening a lock was not originally conceived of only as a means to represent differing levels of skill application, but also differing levels of possible environmental challenges.
So just for the sake of variability I do roll dice in some cases where taking 10 might be easier.
|
Put me in the "it depends on the situation" camp. I usually don't bother rolling for the players when I GM. But a few weeks ago, I ran "Murder on the Throaty Mermaid", which is a Pathfinder Society scenario that revolves around a murder mystery. I asked everyone for their perception and sense motive modifiers in advance, and made ALL checks for those two skills in secret every time. Given the nature of the adventure, it as necessary to avoid metagaming. Nobody complained.
Appraise, Disguise, Linguistics (for forgeries), Perception, Sense Motive and Survival (for getting lost/finding bearings) are the six I keep on-hand, though I've been considering keeping Knowledges written down, as well.
|
If a player rolls a 2 on a Sense Motive check and I'm the GM, I don't actually roll an opposed Bluff check, I roll for evens/odds. Evens, I say the NPC is telling the truth, odds I say he's lying.
If you rolled Sense Motive, rolled a 2, and the GM told you he was lying, what would you do? Would you assume he's actually telling the truth, or are some NPC's really that bad at lying?
It depends on what the PC's skill level is. If they have a high enough skill value, a 2 could easily be a success in an opposed roll. I wouldn't automatically make it a 50% chance just because they rolled a 2.
We've done things different ways. Having everyone's skills behind the screen is really just too much work for the DM. It also means the players aren't really 'playing.'
However, I DO have the ability to rationalize rolls. If I roll a 2 on a sense motive... then I don't know if he's telling the truth or not. I can play that.
It's basically poker. I don't think he's holding as good of cards as he says... but I'm JUST not sure...
Honestly, I have more issue with the HIGH rolls. If we're level 3-4 and we're rolling in the high 20's-low 30's... then it's practically a 'guaranteed' I as a character and a player are 100% sure that nothing is sneaking,hiding,trapped... based on my awesome roll and the odds of 'random npc' beating THAT...
One exception we did recently, was my thief who would get a perception check everytime he was in 10' of a trap. That's a bit metagamey... If I'm asked to roll that, then we know what's happening and everyone panics... What we did was have me roll about 30 checks, write them down on a paper, and give it to the DM. Then whenever the situation came up, he crossed off the next on the list. If I failed, I was non the wiser till the trap went off.
It was ONE rogue, with ONE specific Talent... I'm not sure I'd want the DM rolling EVERY Sense/perception/opposed roll out of sight for EVERY character...