GMs Hiding Rolls: Yes or No?

[PossibleCabbage]

Honestly, I think that "rolling for perception checks when there's nothing there" or "rolling sense motive when the speaker isn't lying" is essential to keep players from concluding "I had to make a check, so there must be something there/somebody lying."

A vigilant person noticing something that turns out to be nothing is a lot more realistic than "every noise you hear in the dark is a monster, and not a cat or something." I mean, how would you even run a horror game if every perception check corresponded to something real and not something imagined/blown out of proportion?

[My Self]

TheCR155 wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

TheCR155 wrote:

they changed the course of an entire questline because of it.

Please send your players my way, if you have no further use for them! I WANT players who act on information, seize initiative, set their own goals, and derail the story. I WANT players who don't follow the railroad. I WANT to constantly have to keep on my feet and keep my wits about me, not knowing what's coming next but knowing I'm going to have to make all the NPCs react appropriately to something I never saw coming.

When I want to control the storyline, I write short fiction. It's fun and satisfying and doesn't require anyone else to tag along for the ride, unless they decide to read it. But when I play a game, I want to play, not dictate. I want the other participants' input. I want to be surprised.

Yes, I always roll in the open. The baddies are built strictly by the rules, and I don't fudge the numbers or the dice. In fact, I use hero points, which effectively give the players, rather than me, a limited ability to fudge a roll. For the few rolls that need to be secret -- this comes up for Perception a lot -- I use passive checks, as if the PCs are always "Taking 10." Again, no hidden rolls.

---

Not everyone likes that, mind you. It's a personal preference, and I've had players leave the game because they were specifically looking for a more passive experience, one in which they could coast on the rails. There's nothing wrong with that, but it pays to be clear up front about what kind of experience people are looking for.

My original post was not about players acting on their own initiative and aggressively ripping my rigidly defined story away from me with some unexpected action I couldn't handle. It was about players using knowledge from outside the game to influence their actions within it, with no thought for roleplay, whether hidden rolls are the solution, and how to deal with such players if hidden rolls are frowned upon. I'm glad you're so...

So the problem isn't willingness to defy a preconstructed narrative, the problem is that the PCs are metagamers and murderhobos. That's not something that hiding rolls is going to magically fix. You'll make the metagamers work in overdrive if you give them less information, but it will probably be impractical for, say, combat. And it won't solve your murderhobo problem - you'll need to adjust your group expectations for that. Lots of murderhobos are murderhobos because being amoral, selfish, and murderous gets you good loot, which lets you survive better. Not only that, but lots of players get a kick out of destroying the official storyline and killing things that were obviously not meant to be killed, or too difficult to kill. If you disincentivize murder, you might be able to curb murderhoboing. This could include baking the magic item into not-supposed-to-be-killed allies, so when they die, the loot dies, having the police show up, giving them a significant negative reputation for murder (shopkeepers close up shop and leave, everyone hires more guards, most wanted posters start appearing, eventually towns simply close up) and giving them incentives to be not-crazy-evil.

[HWalsh]

To the original poster:

You are the GM. If you want to roll in secret? Do it. You're in charge. If the PCs have a problem with it then YOU are under no obligation to run for them. Simple as that.

I once ran a game where I had a player try to insist I run using a certain rule their "old gm" used. I didn't like it. I said no.

The player raised a stink.

I smiled, nodded, said, "Alright."

Then I put my GM folder away.

I looked at the troublemaker and was quite polite as I said, "I'm sorry. I didn't realize you didn't want me to run. I'd much rather be a player, so by all means, please take over."

[Thornborn]

Glorf Fei-Hung wrote:

Thornborn wrote:

In the chaos of my gaming room, I have a clear squarish plastic bottle (once held onion flakes or such) with four color matched pairs of d6/d10, read for high-low and digits as d20s, always in a certain order.

Are you saying you were using d10's (or some other combination of dice) to simulate d20 rolls? I'd like to know how you were doing that to have it accurate?

Red d6, Red d10, Blue d6, Blue d10, etc...

Red d6, 123 = Red is low
Red d6, 456 = Red is high
Red d10, 1-10 = 1-10 if low, 11-20 if high

So, 3,8 becomes an 8, and 4,8 an 18.

This method dates from a time d20 were harder to get than d10. Also, I really favor the sound of rattling a pair of dice in my hand before rolling, and miss it when it's absent.

[Steve Geddes]

I leave it to the players to choose. They've always preferred behind-the-screen but this campaign we're rolling in the open and I think they might be changing their minds.

Personally, I don't think it makes much difference as DM - if your table are fans of fudging then the DM just needs to fudge in different ways. If you're more a 'take the dice as they come' group then it doesn't make much difference which way you go.

[Tacticslion]

Sometimes. Delends on what's happening, and why. Also, if it's convenient to format it that way when posting.

Spoiler:

Sometimes it's just easier to leave stuff in a spoiler than to pull it out and show people.

[Kirth Gersen]

TheCR155 wrote:

It was about players using knowledge from outside the game to influence their actions within it

I've often posted about the guy I played with whose character's prized possession was his flaming sword. The first time the group encountered a troll, he said, "I drop my sword and draw my dagger."

Everyone at the table stared blankly at him.
I said, "You ALWAYS use your sword! You yell 'flame on!' every time we meet a monster! And now all of the sudden you don't want to?"
Player (proudly): "Well, my character wouldn't know that fire hurts trolls! I'm not metagaming!"
Me: (headdesk)

There definitely comes a point at which the efforts of the "metagame police" are self-defeating. In this instance, the poor player was so traumatized by previous DMs that he resorted to blatant metagaming in order to avoid the appearance of metagaming.

[Kileanna]

I roll in secret, not only to avoid metagaming but to avoid killing PCs in ridiculous ways. I hate when a bad roll kills a character for no good reason so I sometimes have to fake low damage rolls. But I never do it to save a character with a self destruction instinct. If they want to die, that's not my problem xD
I'm mostly a fair GM and I don't like faking rolls but I don't like them losing their characters in a random fight.

[Kirth Gersen]

TheCR155 wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Not everyone likes that, mind you. It's a personal preference, and I've had players leave the game because they were specifically looking for a more passive experience, one in which they could coast on the rails. There's nothing wrong with that, but it pays to be clear up front about what kind of experience people are looking for.

I'm glad you're so proud of your unique style, but please refrain from patronising behaviour.

P.S. Are you so defensive over your choices that, when someone points them out as being equally legitimate to their own, you somehow see that as some kind of attack and make snide replies? Might you be projecting just a tad?

[Andre Roy]

GM's roll should be secret for multiple reasons (in no particular order):

1) Avoid the players from metagaming;
2) Fudge a roll;
3) Keep the suspense of the unknown;
4) Keep the result of an action unknown (in particular thief or Knoweldge skills);
5) Suprise rolls;
6) and I probably forget a few.

That's why we have GM screens (aside from the nifty tables) it's there to help both the GM and the play to immerse into the story by adding an unknown element.

eg:
Is my opponent a strong one rolling poorly or not?
Are we walking into an ambush? Should we take precaution?
Did I succeed by check and there nothing there or did I flub it?
etc.

[Bill Dunn]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

P.S. Are you so defensive over your choices that, when someone points them out as being equally legitimate to their own, you somehow see that as some kind of attack and make snide replies? Might you be projecting just a tad?

Alternatively, your post actually came across to him as condescending. I can totally see his point. You mention players being more passive or coasting on rails. It's pretty easy to interpret those as negative connotations despite saying that there's nothing wrong with that. Particularly when the terms you use for your preferred games are so dynamic and positive.

[Brain in a Jar]

If you as a GM always roll in secret then how do you handle abilities that require knowledge of the roll?

"Misfortune (Ex): At 1st level, as an immediate action, you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made before the results of the roll are revealed. The creature must take the result of the reroll, even if it’s worse than the original roll. Once a creature has suffered from your misfortune, it cannot be the target of this revelation again for 1 day."

Pro-Secret roll or not the game has abilities that kinda assume the rolls are in the open. (Aside from the game tells you to roll in secret for certain skill checks.)

[Kirth Gersen]

Bill Dunn wrote:

You mention players being more passive or coasting on rails. It's pretty easy to interpret those as negative connotations despite saying that there's nothing wrong with that. Particularly when the terms you use for your preferred games are so dynamic and positive.

My description for riding rails is passive because... wait for it... riding rails is passive. So is watching TV, and I do that all the time. Sleeping is even more passive, and I'd like to do a lot more of that. The fact I don't like it in game is sheer personal preference. The only way to perceive an insult is to declare that passivity is in all cases insulting. Which it isn't. It's just a preference.

[The Sword]

Not only is my method of rolling dice better than everyone else's, I also crack my hard boiled eggs from the pointed end. Anyone who does it the other way is clearly doing it wrong.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

If you as a GM always roll in secret then how do you handle abilities that require knowledge of the roll?

"Misfortune (Ex): At 1st level, as an immediate action, you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made before the results of the roll are revealed. The creature must take the result of the reroll, even if it’s worse than the original roll. Once a creature has suffered from your misfortune, it cannot be the target of this revelation again for 1 day."

Pro-Secret roll or not the game has abilities that kinda assume the rolls are in the open. (Aside from the game tells you to roll in secret for certain skill checks.)

Handling that instance is quite simple, regardless of whether you are rolling dice in secret.

For example, let's say we have an Ogre attacking a fellow PC, or the Ogre is affected by something that grants a saving throw. If the creature/NPC is rolling a D20, the GM can ask the player with that ability if he wants to use that ability, or that, if the player wants to use the ability, the GM will tell him that he has to specify that he's using the ability. In the case of multiple attack rolls (which can be identified within the first instances of combat), the GM may also state that he has to specify which roll is being affected (the first or second attack), though in this case, the GM would clarify what would be eligible effects, and the players can work from there.

In addition, if the PC tried to affect the creature again, regardless of the actual result of the modified D20 roll, the GM can say "No, it's no longer an eligible target for that revelation." And the PC doesn't know whether the ability made a difference or not (though he knows that it's been used on the enemy, which is what matters).

So, sure, there are most likely abilities that require open rolls, but this isn't one of them.

[Brain in a Jar]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Handling that instance is quite simple, regardless of whether you are rolling dice in secret.

For example, let's say we have an Ogre attacking a fellow PC, or the Ogre is affected by something that grants a saving throw. If the creature/NPC is rolling a D20, the GM can ask the player with that ability if he wants to use that ability, or that, if the player wants to use the ability, the GM will tell him that he has to specify that he's using the ability. In the case of multiple attack rolls (which can be identified within the first instances of combat), the GM may also state that he has to specify which roll is being affected (the first or second attack), though in this case, the GM would clarify what would be eligible effects, and the players can work from there.

In addition, if the PC tried to affect the creature again, regardless of the actual result of the modified D20 roll, the GM can say "No, it's no longer an eligible target for that revelation." And the PC doesn't know whether the ability made a difference or not (though he knows that it's been used on the enemy, which is what matters).

So, sure, there are most likely abilities that require open rolls, but this isn't one of them.

But you won't know when to use the re-roll of misfortune if you don't see what the number on the dice is.

If the DM rolled a 3 in secret for the ogres attack and you have to guess as to when you use Misfortune you might end up helping the ogre.

You need to see the dice in order to use Misfortune appropriately. (The ability isn't roll twice and take the lowest.)

[Skeld]

I make some rolls in the open, but most of my rolls are hidden. Even taking it a step further, I make some rolls for the players (such as Sense motive and Disable Device and the occasional saving throw). I do this for the same reason laid out by Haladir.

-Skeld

[ArthionAtWar]

As Skeld said, when I DM there are some rolls I will make in the open for effect. However it is few and far between. I would instantly stop rolling in the open if the players started doing such things as metagaming to that extent.

I've also rolled for my players for some critical items such as "sense motive" since they shouldn't know if they don't detect anything sinister because of a bad roll or because it's the reality.

[Bill Dunn]

I typically roll in the open mainly because I'm too lazy and my part of the table is too cluttered to set up my screen. That said, my players don't scrutinize my rolls. They do use results to gauge an enemy's AC, but that's by observing their own results.

[Serisan]

There are things that should be rolled secretly, for sure - spells like augury, for example, where the text explicitly calls for the GM roll in secret. Technically, Disable Device checks are supposed to be secret according to the CRB, but I've never played them that way.

I have been known to ask the GM questions like "Does my character get the impression that the attacker that hit me did so because of luck or skill?" This typically is for open-roll GMs that are sitting further away from me. My players (even PFS randoms) tend not to abuse my open rolling policy when I GM.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think there's two ways to get Misfortune to work correctly if you're rolling in secret, and they hinge on different interpretations on "result is revealed".

1) If someone has Misfortune, announce a numerical value and ask if they want to reroll before saying if it's a hit or a miss.

2) If someone has Misfortune, announce it's a hit or a miss and ask if they want a reroll without saying what the number is (e.g. if the monster hits on a 2, and rolled a 2, they can reroll but have a 95% chance of still hitting, but the player doesn't know that.)

We did the 2nd, which makes Misfortune a little better, and players never mind that sort of thing.

[TheCR155]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think there's two ways to get Misfortune to work correctly if you're rolling in secret, and they hinge on different interpretations on "result is revealed".

1) If someone has Misfortune, announce a numerical value and ask if they want to reroll before saying if it's a hit or a miss.

2) If someone has Misfortune, announce it's a hit or a miss and ask if they want a reroll without saying what the number is (e.g. if the monster hits on a 2, and rolled a 2, they can reroll but have a 95% chance of still hitting, but the player doesn't know that.)

We did the 2nd, which makes Misfortune a little better, and players never mind that sort of thing.

One of my players in another game has Misfortune, and we basically have a tacit agreement that if an attack roll is 15 or higher I announce it. He usually warns me when he's likely to want to use the ability for other things, like a crucial save, beforehand; if he does I roll in the open.

[ccs]

I roll in the open. Because:
1) Any screen I'm using is invariably in the way.
2) I don't care if the players see the roll or draw conclusions based upon that.
3) Our table is 4'x5'. And even though I'm rolling bright yellow dice with black #s? Only two of the players can likely see the roll without standing up to look. The guy on my left? He's too lazy to backwards engineer any "secret" info from my d20 roll. The guy on my right? His eyes are so bad he can't read his own dice....
4) We're all long term friends & gaming vets. We KNOW the #s. Or have a really really good idea of the expected range at any given point in the game. So after a round or two? That "secret" info isn't a secret anyways.

[TOZ]

TheCR155 wrote:

In short, my question is this. Is it unreasonable for me, as a GM to want to hide my rolls in order to avoid this kind of thing? If so, what other steps can I take in order to reduce the impact of metagaming?

No, it is not unreasonable. You can avoid announcing the total of the roll, but that will only slow down the identification of stats. What you will need to do is talk to your players about your concerns and see if you can come to a compromise.

[Boomerang Nebula]

I hadn't really thought about this issue until I read this thread. For our group the way the GM screen and table are arranged makes it difficult for the players to see the GM's rolls and vice versa. For really important rolls the GM might come out from behind the screen but that is just for dramatic effect, for the most part rolls are made in secret and we have an honesty system that goes both ways.

Regarding the opening post, I don't see a genuine problem. Does it really matter if players metagame?

[TOZ]

Some people think so.

[My Self]

Metagaming heavily alters the game balance. Knowledge skills become significantly less important if your GM doesn't significantly alter, disguise, or custom-design their monsters, although it is still useful for plot points. This also applies to a lesser extent with Spellcraft and Appraise (but who ever uses Appraise?). While martials can usually only attack against one sort of AC, casters can usually target 3 or 4 different defenses. For divine casters, that would be Will, Fortitude, and regular AC, for arcane casters, Will, Reflex, Fortitude, and Touch AC. And while there are more things resistant to caster special effects, a sufficiently knowledgeable caster player will recognize this and select the appropriate spell to save themselves a turn of being ineffective. A Wizard who has never read a word of Lewis Carroll will know not to Fireball or Sleep a Jabberwock, despite Fireball being their favorite spell, and Sleep being their first level signature shutdown.

And, as the OP mentioned, it lets players go straight for the jugular in terms of loot.

[Inlaa]

As a player, I prefer the mystique that's kept when GMs roll things secretly. I like being in the dark, and when I know I can trust my GM and that my GM can trust me, I like letting them roll in secret.

Moreover, I let them roll my Perception and Sense Motive checks for me. It's more fun that way.

[Ryan Freire]

Moreover if you get that series of unlikely rolls that is going to bring the campaign to a halt in an unsatisfying and undramatic way you can pretend they weren't nearly so good.

[TheCR155]

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

I hadn't really thought about this issue until I read this thread. For our group the way the GM screen and table are arranged makes it difficult for the players to see the GM's rolls and vice versa. For really important rolls the GM might come out from behind the screen but that is just for dramatic effect, for the most part rolls are made in secret and we have an honesty system that goes both ways.

Regarding the opening post, I don't see a genuine problem. Does it really matter if players metagame?

I generally have a problem with players doing for free something which you explicitly need other abilities or rolls to do under the rules.

Usually this boils down to "If: you want to do something that seems possible from a real world perspective, there exists a feat which allows you to do it that you don't have, and there aren't good circumstantial reasons, then you're not allowed to do it. If you could just do that then the feat is worthless, and nobody would consider taking it."

Metagaming falls under the same banner. As My Self said, it significantly reduces the usefulness of otherwise useful skills and some feats, which actively warps the balance of power in the game away from those who have specialised in non-combat areas. If we're in a situation that can be made far easier by a decent Knowledge or Spellcraft check, and there's a PC who's designed a very knowledgeable character, the last thing you want is for that player's stat investment to be completely ignored and made useless because your other players know the stuff already and are metagaming.

[My Self]

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Regarding the opening post, I don't see a genuine problem. Does it really matter if players metagame?

It matters if the table is having fun or not. I've had a player who knows the CRB and bestiaries in and out, and can probably spit out the exact text of the latest ten Wizard spells backwards. Finding and building monsters that he didn't recognize on sight or couldn't counter effortlessly consumed a decent amount of prep time I would rather have spent writing story branches or fleshing out descriptions. I was pretty happy when I could build a plot-relevant or visually interesting creature that wasn't immediately chewed up and spat out by a pair of spells or swift 2d6+(too much) pokes to face, or have its name, stats, and special abilities called out within the first 30 seconds of combat. On the other hand, the other players enjoyed each other's company much more than the ins and outs of the monsters they faced, and were fine when I had to wing it with the story after a particularly customized battle. All in all, it worked out alright. But then again, this same guy held up another game we were playing (I wasn't GMing) for 15+ minutes, trying to haggle a sales price to return a dead ally's body and possessions to her wealthy family, because he (correctly) deemed her sword to be valuable (and keen) from her number of attacks and critical range.

[Jader7777]

Remember to hide those giant novelty D20s.

[Boomerang Nebula]

My Self wrote:

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Regarding the opening post, I don't see a genuine problem. Does it really matter if players metagame?

It matters if the table is having fun or not. I've had a player who knows the CRB and bestiaries in and out, and can probably spit out the exact text of the latest ten Wizard spells backwards. Finding and building monsters that he didn't recognize on sight or couldn't counter effortlessly consumed a decent amount of prep time I would rather have spent writing story branches or fleshing out descriptions. I was pretty happy when I could build a plot-relevant or visually interesting creature that wasn't immediately chewed up and spat out by a pair of spells or swift 2d6+(too much) pokes to face, or have its name, stats, and special abilities called out within the first 30 seconds of combat. On the other hand, the other players enjoyed each other's company much more than the ins and outs of the monsters they faced, and were fine when I had to wing it with the story after a particularly customized battle. All in all, it worked out alright. But then again, this same guy held up another game we were playing (I wasn't GMing) for 15+ minutes, trying to haggle a sales price to return a dead ally's body and possessions to her wealthy family, because he (correctly) deemed her sword to be valuable (and keen) from her number of attacks and critical range.

I really don't see any of those as big issues. Regarding selling the sword for instance, I don't see haggling for 15 minutes as holding up the game, that is the game! And if he gets some more gold for his troubles good for him. Where is the harm?

As a GM I find metagaming to be a really useful tool. For example: giving advice to newbies, helping the party along with extra clues at an impasse and setting the mood (look out the GM is doing his serious face again, this spells trouble). As a player I have metagamed to help the GM, for example our characters were sent on what looked like, in character, a suicide mission. But it was clear, out of character, that it wasn't really a suicide mission and that if we didn't go along with the mission it would wreck the adventure so I helped pursuade the other players to attempt the mission. In my opinion the downside of metagaming is overblown and the benefits rarely discussed.

[The King In Yellow]

I have always disliked the term 'metagaming'

Call it what it really is - cheating.

Now, having said that... The rules are what the players and DM cooperatively decide they are. If all involved are ok with people using out of character knowledge, then it is no longer against the rules, and thus not cheating.

However, unless that has been decided, it really is just cheating.

Deciding what constitutes in-character vs out-of-character knowledge can be difficult at times, yes. There are often a lot of visual clues that would be obvious to our characters, but we as players do not think about. As a simple example, a dex based melee attacker and a str based melee attacker (imo) -look- very different when fighting, even if all the bonuses to attack and damage are the same. (Not all DMs are descriptive about things.)

"The creature lumbers towards you"
"The creature dances forward"

Choosing the first to hit with a reflex save is not metagaming or cheating.

When the player reaches over to lift the cardboard cutout from the base to read the name of the creature, so he can decide to have his no-knowledge skills, (never encountered or heard about this creature before) fighter draw his cold iron weapon, that is cheating. It is no different then claiming to have rolled high enough on the dice on a knowledge check.

And let us be honest here, people... Making use of a skill or feat your character does not actually have -is- blatant cheating.

[Tableflip McRagequit]

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

I really don't see any of those as big issues. Regarding selling the sword for instance, I don't see haggling for 15 minutes as holding up the game, that is the game! And if he gets some more gold for his troubles good for him. Where is the harm?

The harm is that some of us only get a very limited amount of gaming time in a given week. If one player is going to use system mastery to nit-pick and steal 8.3% of my group's three hours for something that none of the rest of us are enjoying or getting anything out of, and then suck the mystery out of every combat encounter by reciting the stat blocks verbatim and getting mad if there is any variance in the monsters that he can't account for and do that every week...

...well, I think by this point my response should be clear enough.

[Goblin_Priest]

TheCR155 wrote:

I've been GMing Pathfinder games for a little while now, and got into the habit of concealing most of my rolls. I've never really done it for any particular reason, I've just found that hidden information tends to make the experience more immersive for players.

Recently I've started GMing for a group in which several of the players insisted that I roll out in the open. At first I agreed, I don't fudge rolls so it makes little difference from my perspective whether the players see me roll or not. However, those players have also begun using information from my rolls to find things out about enemies which their characters have no way of knowing, such as exact hit chances and (in the case of hostile NPCs) level, and are fully acting on this information.

This, I do object to, since from my perspective this is blatant metagaming. There have been some seriously egregious examples of this, such as deciding to kill a friendly NPC who was engaged in a training bout with one PC. On the first round he performed three attacks as part of a FAA, so they assumed he was too high a level for them to be able to deal with. However, on the next FAA I rolled a 7 on the first attack and missed, then a 10 on the second and hit (clearly indicating a Haste effect). Based on the character's class this told them that his level was 10 or under (thus they could likely win if they surprised him) and that he was wearing some kind of Haste giving item, which they wanted. None of this information should have been freely available to these characters, and yet they changed the course of an entire questline because of it.

As a result of this, I would much rather return to concealing my rolls, however I know this suggestion will be vehemently opposed by the players.

In short, my question is this. Is it unreasonable for me, as a GM to want to hide my rolls in order to avoid this kind of thing? If so, what other steps can I take in order to reduce the impact of metagaming?

EDIT: It should be noted that the combat occurred out of...

To each their own, I guess. This last campaign, I started out with secret rolls. Some players grew suspicious over the most random stuff, so I now mostly open roll. I don't really care if they meta-game. I usually explicitly state the stats of their foes; AC, attack bonus, HP, etc. Makes it simpler for everyone when everyone knows what they are hitting for. Gives a better pace. Sure, I'll keep some suspense for bosses and such, I won't reveal all their core abilities and stats, but when I spawn mook type #4 times 8 and mook type #7 times 6, it'll all become painfully obvious soon enough. We discourage overly blatant metagaming, but for the most part, there would be visual cues to guide a character in making the decisions the players opt for: the dude with more AC has bigger armor or displays better reflexes, the dude with more HP is bulkier and more impressive, etc. Raw stats give the players insights into what their characters would perceive, without having to narrate every little detail and leaving them guessing.

The players turning on a friendly PC to loot his gear, though, is just... wow. The very definition of murder hobos... I would possibly heavily punish this kind of attitude in-game. Murdering random allies is not a good way to make friends...

That being said, I was under the impression that you can roll your attacks in the order you like, no? I don't know anyone who does that, but if it's true, you could decide that some enemies roll their weakest bonus attack first. This could keep them guessing. You could also vaguely hint at possible enchantments or buffs that could very well trigger on a second attack but not the first. Don't give any details, just keep them guessing. Make stuff up every now and then to show that metagaming is not fail-safe. Once they know the GM isn't afraid to go beyond (or against) the books, knowing them by hearth (or having the pfsrd on hand) isn't as reliable anymore.

[PossibleCabbage]

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Regarding the opening post, I don't see a genuine problem. Does it really matter if players metagame?

I mostly use a screen to hide my notes (sometimes I write stuff in BIG LETTERS because it's important I not forget it), so I roll behind the screen mostly because it's easier than standing up or rolling off to the side.

So the complementary problem is, does it really matter if the GM doesn't want to roll openly if it's inconvenient because of the geometry of the table setting?

[Chengar Qordath]

When I GM I tend to go back and forth on the matter. Aside from a couple circumstances where hidden rolls are really important (like bluff vs sense motive) I've seen pros and cons to both sides. Hidden rolls give you a bit more flexibility to fudge things as needed, but open rolls can get the players more excited and invested in the game.

It also avoids any potential drama from players who have a run of bad luck; important since my dice always seem to roll much better when I'm GMing than when I'm playing. With open rolling, we all have a laugh about how the dice gods are being crazy: with hidden roles, the players might start wondering if I'm fudging against them. Sure, players should trust their GM and all that, but sometimes a little openness makes it a lot easier for them to do that.

Of course, I'm also completely unbothered by stuff like my players figuring out what AC or attack bonus their opponents have. Much like Kirth, I've often seen players wind up metagaming in an effort to avoid metagaming.

[Cydeth]

The OP's group would rub me the wrong way, I admit it. I have no problem with figuring out what buffs are through observation or the like, but when they literally can't even see the fight from where they are? My respect starts to drop. And at that point I'm going to start asking them if they're alright with enemies doing the same thing.

However, this is about dice rolling. I used to use a GM's Screen all the time, mostly for the charts on it, and because a couple of older players would 'accidentally' peer at my notes/the monster I had out. It was too much of a pain to roll in the open, at a large, rectangular table, so I rolled behind the screen. Never got a single complaint, either.

On the other hand, now I roll in a dice tray that's beside my laptop. Sometimes the player sitting next to me looks at it, and cringes at the unnatural number of 20s that my dice roll when targeting players. (Seriously, my dice hate PCs. If I'm playing in a game, I roll garbage. GMing, same dice, I roll a minimum of 4 20s out of 10 rolls.)

I don't mind if they look, honestly, as long as they aren't analyzing everything. Honestly, if it got to that point, considering that I build custom NPCs and monsters, I'd probably go to Pathfinder Unchained's quick monster creation rules, and good luck to them figuring everything out.

[Boomerang Nebula]

The King In Yellow wrote:

I have always disliked the term 'metagaming'

Call it what it really is - cheating.

Now, having said that... The rules are what the players and DM cooperatively decide they are. If all involved are ok with people using out of character knowledge, then it is no longer against the rules, and thus not cheating.

However, unless that has been decided, it really is just cheating.

Deciding what constitutes in-character vs out-of-character knowledge can be difficult at times, yes. There are often a lot of visual clues that would be obvious to our characters, but we as players do not think about. As a simple example, a dex based melee attacker and a str based melee attacker (imo) -look- very different when fighting, even if all the bonuses to attack and damage are the same. (Not all DMs are descriptive about things.)

"The creature lumbers towards you"
"The creature dances forward"

Choosing the first to hit with a reflex save is not metagaming or cheating.

When the player reaches over to lift the cardboard cutout from the base to read the name of the creature, so he can decide to have his no-knowledge skills, (never encountered or heard about this creature before) fighter draw his cold iron weapon, that is cheating. It is no different then claiming to have rolled high enough on the dice on a knowledge check.

And let us be honest here, people... Making use of a skill or feat your character does not actually have -is- blatant cheating.

I can see your point. If you equate metagaming with cheating, well then I can see why that is undesirable. My own view is that all the rules are optional, not set in stone. What matters is the story as agreed to by the player and GM. It is hard to break the rules when they are so flexible, making metagaming a non-issue for me. Consequently I give the players a lot of latitude. My response to the fighter using cold iron would likely be: destiny is with you today, indeed the fey creature is vulnerable to your attacks.

You could argue that the player got an unfair advantage (and is therefore cheating) or you could say that he is the hero of the story and has that edge explained as: destiny, luck or divine insight, etc. that is not available to your regular hero.

For arguments sake let's say metagaming is cheating. It is not a very effective form of cheating, my players are just as likely to jump to the wrong conclusion as the right one. My experience is that the metagaming issue is often exaggerated, usually when there is a genuine issue at a table the root cause is lack or respect between players or player and GM and the metagaming is a red herring.

[Bongo Pipeweed]

Sometimes, like, I'm sitting at the table, and it totally hits me. "I'm, like, in a game playing a game, man." And when that happens, I'm meta-meta-gaming and it's a total trip, man. Major advantage too.

Think about it.

[Boomerang Nebula]

LOL

[David knott 242]

Sometimes metagaming is necessary. If you are enjoying the game and your character is faced with a decision whose options include breaking up the party or keeping the party together, you would generally want to limit your choices to those that would keep the party together.

[DrDeth]

My Self wrote:

So the problem isn't willingness to defy a preconstructed narrative, the problem is that the PCs are metagamers and murderhobos. That's not something that hiding rolls is going to magically fix. You'll make the metagamers work in overdrive if you give them less information, but it will probably be impractical for, say, combat. And it won't solve your murderhobo problem - you'll need to adjust your group expectations for that. Lots of murderhobos are murderhobos because being amoral, selfish, and murderous gets you good loot, which lets you survive better. Not only that, but lots of players get a kick out of destroying the official storyline and killing things that were obviously not meant to be killed, or too difficult to kill. If you disincentivize murder, you might be able to curb murderhoboing. This could include baking the magic item into not-supposed-to-be-killed allies, so when they die, the loot dies, having the police show up, giving them a significant negative reputation for murder (shopkeepers close up shop and leave, everyone hires more guards, most wanted posters start appearing, eventually towns simply close up) and giving them incentives to be not-crazy-evil..

Your analysis is sound, but:

There's actually even a better way. Look, murderhoboing is actually pretty rare in Pathfinder.

But rather than trying to solve a OOC problem IC, like with "significant negative reputation for murder (shopkeepers close up shop and leave, everyone hires more guards, most wanted posters start appearing, eventually towns simply close up) and giving them incentives to be not-crazy-evil" you just do this.

Stop the game. Tell them that is not the game you want to run. It is NOT fun for you as the DM. Tell them you want a heroic style game. If they are not willing to play one, you cant be their DM.

Lots less work. And some people need the direct approach.

[Inlaa]

DrDeth wrote:

My Self wrote:

So the problem isn't willingness to defy a preconstructed narrative, the problem is that the PCs are metagamers and murderhobos. That's not something that hiding rolls is going to magically fix. You'll make the metagamers work in overdrive if you give them less information, but it will probably be impractical for, say, combat. And it won't solve your murderhobo problem - you'll need to adjust your group expectations for that. Lots of murderhobos are murderhobos because being amoral, selfish, and murderous gets you good loot, which lets you survive better. Not only that, but lots of players get a kick out of destroying the official storyline and killing things that were obviously not meant to be killed, or too difficult to kill. If you disincentivize murder, you might be able to curb murderhoboing. This could include baking the magic item into not-supposed-to-be-killed allies, so when they die, the loot dies, having the police show up, giving them a significant negative reputation for murder (shopkeepers close up shop and leave, everyone hires more guards, most wanted posters start appearing, eventually towns simply close up) and giving them incentives to be not-crazy-evil..

Your analysis is sound, but:

There's actually even a better way. Look, murderhoboing is actually pretty rare in Pathfinder.

But rather than trying to solve a OOC problem IC, like with "significant negative reputation for murder (shopkeepers close up shop and leave, everyone hires more guards, most wanted posters start appearing, eventually towns simply close up) and giving them incentives to be not-crazy-evil" you just do this.

Stop the game. Tell them that is not the game you want to run. It is NOT fun for you as the DM. Tell them you want a heroic style game. If they are not willing to play one, you cant be their DM.

Lots less work. And some people need the direct approach.

While I would say that murderhoboing is pretty common (usually to less awful degrees than described), I definitely agree with DrDeth's message 100%.

Talk to your players and work it out OOC. Make them understand you want to tone down the murderhoboing. They're heroes, or are supposed to be. Ask them to act like it and get more into character. They'll get their fair share of loot, and the game will go on; but you'll be much happier if you talk it out with them.

(Especially since they'll realize that you are, y'know, the guy taking the time to set up these dungeons and adventures for 'em.)

[DrDeth]

The Sword wrote:

[

It's not that they don't trust me. However charater death is a big thing in our games. Personally I don't like killing characters. We limit res by mutual consent so death is more often than not death.

What do you do then, ask the player to leave the game?

As I posted before:
For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.
Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?

[lemeres]

TheCR155 wrote:

However, those players have also begun using information from my rolls to find things out about enemies which their characters have no way of knowing, such as exact hit chances and (in the case of hostile NPCs) level, and are fully acting on this information.

I think that could be justified in character.

While the characters certainly do not have things down to numbers, they can think 'yeah, this guy is pretty tough to get in a good hit on' or 'this guy's is strong and hard to dodge'.

Even the haste item could be justified- "His swordsmanship is not that good, but he is still very fast. How is that? Is it some magic?"

Gauging differences in strength and recognizing possible magical effects seems like an important thing for adventurers. It is something that their life depends on, after all- you tend to learn that quick. So it is in character to judge things like that.

I prefer that hidden rolls be for things that give more direct information. Such as knowledge checks and sense motive checks. If the players know they rolled poorly, then they instantly assume the info is false and act on that. But the bad roll indicates that they don't have enough information to make a correct decision. That is blatantly metagaming for things outside of character.

[wraithstrike]

Matthew Downie wrote:

taks wrote:

If you have to open roll so your players can trust you, there are bigger problems at your table than dice rolling.

taks wrote:

Not only do I roll mostly hidden, I roll a few dice here and there to keep them on their toes. My groups get complacent on occasion.

taks wrote:

Generally speaking, I fudge in their favor. Though I have pushed a roll or two towards a baddie, it's only been to extend a combat by a round or so to make sure everyone gets something out of it. We play APs which tend to have filler fights that don't make it past the ranger's first attack.

If your players trust you despite fudging and prank-rolling, you have some pretty trusting players.

I used to do that, and I had a GM who used to do it. He never fudged against the party, and rarely fudged to save anyone. If he got superhot dice he might do it. You also have to know that anyone can die, and the GM doesn't play favorites.

[Alni]

I suppose others have weighed in already so... I roll in secret so that I can fudge the occasional roll, don't like killing the party so I might pretend that was not a critical, sometimes the battle goes on for too long so... hem hem... "the bad guy missed the reflex save". Also, I'm new to GMing with rules so I've screwed up the CR more than once, rolling secretly helps correct the mess.

Generally though its a matter of trust.

[Amanda Plageman]

Haladir wrote:

A GM should always conceal rolls, pretty much for the reasons you cite.

Unless, in a specific case, it's more dramatic not to.

And, it's my opinion that a bad die roll should not get in the way of a good story...so I do occasionally ignore rolls in the name of making the experience more fun. (E.g. to avoid a meaningless PC death, like if Cultist #3 happens to roll max damage on a critical hit with a scythe.)

I almost always hide my die rolls, and will continue to do so. I've only ever had 1-2 'complaints' on the subject, 1 of which was a matter of curiosity ("Hey, why do you hide your rolls while <GM X> rolls in the open?"

My reasons are pretty much what has already been said: to heighten dramatic tension; to diminish player metagaming; and because on a very rare basis, I am willing to fudge a die roll (but only on the player's behalf- never against them).

I do make one exception: If I anticipate that an attack has a reasonable chance of killing a PC, and I have already decided privately to 'let the dice fall as they may', then I roll in the open, allowing everyone to see the PC's life hanging in the balance.

The GM is never obligated to roll in the open. Some choose to, some don't, some do both.