| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the beginning of each gaming session, I ask for 15 d20 rolls from each character (including animal companions and familiars).
If I need to make a "secret" roll, I cross off the next number on that character's pre-roll list.
Everyone is still rolling their own dice, but they don't get any meta information from being asked to roll at a particular spot in the adventure.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if a character is not aware of an effect, he is aware of any time he makes a saving throw. There are no secret saves. (I was running Pathfinder Society and using a mechanic for hidden saves, and a player pointed this rule out to me.)
Some times, you *do* realize your disguise attempt is rubbish, or your stealth attempt isn't very good.
Moreover, there are a lot of mechanics in the game that allow a player to re-roll a skill attempt, a saving throw, etc, under certain conditions. The Witch's Fortune Hex, for example. The player needs to know the number rolled, in order to make use of those mechanics.
(I was running Pathfinder Society and using a mechanic for hidden saves, and a player pointed this rule out to me.)
Link?
Is it a PFS rule or a Core rule?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Core Rulebook rule.
I'm not finding it on d20pfsrd tonight. I did find something related:
"A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack." (Under Magic.)
In PFS, it's more important, because there *is* a common mechanic that allows virtually every character to re-roll a failed saving throw or other d20 roll once per game session. Obviously, the player needs to know (a) that such a roll was made, and (b) the numerical result of the roll, but not whether it was high enough to succeed.
That sounds like it's for Saving Throws, but there are a lot more d20 rolls beyond that.
Perception checks are the big ones, especially Perception versus Stealth, or traps or anything else that isn't a malevolent spell.
I can see that PFS might require you to tell everyone each time, especially with re-roll requests available, but it seems like non-PFS games would not have to follow that rule
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disable Device, Disguise, and Linguistics specifically call out that the check is made in secret. (Player doesn’t know the result.)
There are other cases where the GM will want to know the players’ bonuses and (pre)roll results just so the players won’t have the metagame knowledge that a check was made: Stealth vs. Perception, Bluff vs. Sense Motive.
Personally, I have an excel sheet for most hidden rolls like fort and will saves, perception and sense motive checks, plus any extra modifiers and senses, and then just mass roll everything.
Had to check after Chris mentioned no secret saves; as far as I can see, that's definitely valid for spells (oops), but can't see anything like that for, say, diseases or delayed onset poisons. For those, it's actually fairly important to do those in secret because otherwise it has a lot of metagame potential. The odd assassination attempt fails pretty badly if they know they've just eaten a delayed onset poison, and my experience is that diseases don't work at all if they know they've failed a save.
I like CrystalSeas' pre-rolling thing, and I think I'll use that rather than my mass Excel rolling sheet in future.
Certain checks, particularly sense motive and perception, really should nearly always be done in secret, or at least have their results hidden. Just knowing the check's been made is dead giveaway, unless you're the sort of person who asks for things all the time to hide when there's a real one. Also there's a fairly big difference knowing you've just stuffed up your roll and you should try again and getting a 20 and knowing you're not getting anything else.
Disguise and stealth can arguably be done openly; they're the sort of thing where taking 10 is ideal anyway unless you're terrible at it or in combat so it's obvious if you've failed.
I suppose you could also just assume everyone takes 10 unless they specifically want to roll, which makes things a lot easier.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"From now on I'm making all attack and damage rolls on your behalf, so you don't learn anything about your opponents' armor class or hit points."
Would you want to hear that from a GM?
I think the drama of rolling your save or skill check, the dread of getting a 1, the relief of getting a 20, is such a central part of the game that removing it is far worse than the risk of metagaming.
My players make the vasy majority of their rolls themsleves. In the situations where it's important that they don't see the result of the roll, such as those listed by Belafon, and things they're unaware of, I make the rolls for them. My players know this and are absolutely fine with it. I wouldn't roll ability checks for them, unless they somehow fit into one of the above categories.
|
Players do indeed like to roll their dice. I think this sort of thing is ok, but less is more.
For skills, I wont have a player roll for disguise, forgery, profession, etc, until they are applying the roll. So if a player wants to forge documents, I wont have them roll until the moment those documents are being used. Its also relies on context of the situation. If the player's level of skill is outmatched by the task ill give them a wisdom roll to know that.
As a GM, I wish my players were more cool with me rolling certain things that are supposed to be secret (to avoid metagaming as much as possible) but I get a lot of push back form players the few times I tried it. Mostly went something like:
Player: "Hey! How come we got surprised by that monster, shouldn't we have gotten a perception check?"
Me: "You did get a perception check, I rolled it secretly, that's why I asked you to give me all that information about your skill checks and any circumstantial modifiers that applied to it."
Player: "Well we like to roll it ourselves!"
Basically (IMO as a GM) players like to have every opportunity to succeed and will use this as an excuse to try to get an extra roll if they failed. And ultimately I'd rather my players enjoy the game (and not fight with them over this) despite disagreeing strongly with them on this topic.
As a GM, I wish my players were more cool with me rolling certain things that are supposed to be secret (to avoid metagaming as much as possible) but I get a lot of push back form players the few times I tried it. Mostly went something like:
Player: "Hey! How come we got surprised by that monster, shouldn't we have gotten a perception check?"
Me: "You did get a perception check, I rolled it secretly, that's why I asked you to give me all that information about your skill checks and any circumstantial modifiers that applied to it."
Player: "Well we like to roll it ourselves!"Basically (IMO as a GM) players like to have every opportunity to succeed and will use this as an excuse to try to get an extra roll if they failed. And ultimately I'd rather my players enjoy the game (and not fight with them over this) despite disagreeing strongly with them on this topic.
The problem comes from abilities that might allow for a reroll the player doesn't know you rolled a 2 for them or that the roll you just marked off was a 4 so they don't know if they should have used an ability that allows a reroll on that check.
Preface: I don't play PFS. This is how I run my home games...
There is a lesson I learned from playing other game systems like Dungeon World and Fate: The players should always roll their own dice, but only when failure has dramatic consequence for the story. (Note: In Dungeon World, the GM never rolls any dice: All dice are rolled by the players.)
If the result of a failure is not important, or if you don't want to have to deal with the consequence of failure in a scene, don't bother rolling. Just let the PCs succeed.
I also let good in-character role-playing substitute entirely for some rolls. For example, if the PCs happen to describe that they're looking for something in exactly the place that it's hidden, OR the PCs really need that clue to continue their investigation, then I don't bother making them roll a Perception check: They just find it. Or, if they spin a convincing story to get past the guards, I just let it work. It depends on the story needs of the scene.
Rolling dice represents dramatic tension. For example, if the PCs are trying to bluff their way past guards by posing as Lady Whatshername and her retinue, then THAT'S the time I have the player roll her Disguise check to pass off as Lady Whatshername. Or, if they're trying to pass off a forged document, the PC rolls his Linguistics check at the time an important official is reviewing it.
I'll even hand-wave combat on occasion. If they encounter a bunch of street thugs that they can easily handle and I don't want to bother rolling out a fight that has an inevitable conclusion, I might say, "Okay! After a brief scuffle, two of the thugs are unconscious on the alley floor and the rest have scattered. What do you do?"
In my experience, DMs rolling on behalf of the players tends to lead to paranoid/angry players, because they can assume (sometimes rightly) that the DM is fudging rolls in his own favor.
I tend to handle a few things a little differently from how the rules play out, but here are a few highlights of my opinions.
Firstly: I use "Passive Perception." Each of my players tells me their +perception and I just add that to 10 for an effective constant level of awareness. I explain this to players and they usually agree to it, because the NPCs use the same rules. This ends up making sneakier types a little stronger, but if people are on watch or are looking for something, I allow them to roll it. If they're just walking around, passive.
Secondly: I don't tend to ask for rolls when people don't prompt me for them. Meaning: if someone is lying to the PC's, if they don't ask to roll sense motive, I don't prompt them to. This is for a few reasons. 1) If I ask them to, they instantly can meta-knowledge that the person is lying about something. 2) A person's ability to tell if someone is lying only matters if they care enough to pay attention. I use this to somewhat punish players who don't pay attention to the game. 3) In order to combat #1, I would have to start asking people to roll sense motive in random NPC conversations, which would just lead to paranoia.
Thirdly: The only times I've seen DMs really want to roll for their players is if their players have a history of fudging rolls. (Oh you just rolled your 15th natural 20 of the night Nick? Out of 17 rolls? My goodness you're lucky!) As such, my groups have adopted public rolls. We have a large die-tray in the middle of the table and a large d20. Attacks and saves are rolled there, while damage can be rolled independently at your seat, as well as most skill checks. This has the benefit of making sure players stay honest about the important rolls, while having the added benefit of adding a certain amount of theater/suspense to combat, with everyone looking on as the dice are cast.
Fourthly: I think taking away dice rolling from the players and conducting it behind your own screen in any substantial fashion does nothing but harm the game environment. It might add suspense to the game, but it also adds paranoia, and it sows distrust. Especially in some of your listed examples, like Knowledge checks. Why should someone not know the result of their knowledge check? A certain amount of meta-knowledge is expected in these games, so if someone rolls a 24, and the result necessary was a 25, they understand that this was some very difficult to obtain knowledge. Rolling low on a stealth, most stealthy types should be cognizant of their own failures. And I can't even fathom a world where hiding a str check to break something benefits the game in any way.
The problem comes from abilities that might allow for a reroll the player doesn't know you rolled a 2 for them or that the roll you just marked off was a 4 so they don't know if they should have used an ability that allows a reroll on that check.As a GM, I wish my players were more cool with me rolling certain things that are supposed to be secret (to avoid metagaming as much as possible) but I get a lot of push back form players the few times I tried it. Mostly went something like:
Player: "Hey! How come we got surprised by that monster, shouldn't we have gotten a perception check?"
Me: "You did get a perception check, I rolled it secretly, that's why I asked you to give me all that information about your skill checks and any circumstantial modifiers that applied to it."
Player: "Well we like to roll it ourselves!"Basically (IMO as a GM) players like to have every opportunity to succeed and will use this as an excuse to try to get an extra roll if they failed. And ultimately I'd rather my players enjoy the game (and not fight with them over this) despite disagreeing strongly with them on this topic.
Nah, that had nothign to do with it for my games because my players didn't have powers that gave them rerolls.
3 - that's how thing usually work if you have several experts on things (people with same knowledge checks). If the wizard doesn't recognize the demon, he asks the cleric if he knows any better. Your problem is with your critical failures with skills which skew the normal procedure in the game. We don't find fun in failing mundane tasks.
4.I've never seen anyone to not take 20 if there's time for STR checks.
On the main question, I like to roll checks in the open, even our DM rolls mostly in the open. For saves, I certainly wouldn't let you roll for me, ability checks makes no sense, while we do let some skills be rolled by the GM, because rarely will someone spend a reroll power on skills, and secondly we don't metagame the skills that much (we even roll against each other and play out dice results).
There are a lot of good ideas here.
I think some of them really depend on how descriptive of a GM you have. For example, with a STR check, seeing that the hinge on the door is starting to buckle when you try to break it would give a sense of how close your STR check came without necessarily needing a roll. It may even prompt another try or cause a player to give up when they see the door isn't budging at all.
I like the generally taking 10 for skills such as perception / stealth unless the players have an active reason for not taking 10.
I will admit to doing something different as a result of knowing a roll failed. Particularly with survival checks, I have followed the city cleric who never went out of town over the forest-raised ranger on a survival check in the woods before. Though, having a GM that describes that ranger as having a moment of confusion as he feels lost among the trees while the cleric receives a divine vision from their god would make a significant roleplaying difference.
Ultimately, it all comes down to trust. If I trust my GM to be fair and tell a good descriptive story, then I don't mind leaving some of my rolls in their hands. But if I feel my GM tends to miss things (even simply from forgetting a rule), or likes to screw their players (generally just walk away from these tables), or even if I just don't know that GM because of PFS / new table, then I tend to want more control over the successes and failures of my character.
Why wouldn't the guy with 1 rank roll? If he succeeds, he is the expert on the particular topic. I mean, it's the two guys with great knowledge about planes, but who don't know everything, and a guy who read a page about the succubus in the demon book. Again, you are letting your house rules color your thinking...the penalty for failed Knowledge check is not wrong information, but rather no information about specific topic.
In the instance of your house rules, it makes sense to roll secretly, as you and your players obviously enjoy in-character bickering about who is right on any given topic. And most of them being wrong. But it's not the standard assumption of the game. The standard assumption is that everyone with the skill and opportunity to use it (i.e. they are there) rolls the check and GM gives the info to those who succeed.
On the door breaking, the additional drama of not knowing whether the door is breaking or not is simply not worth the hassle. The DCs are in the core book and your players should know at least approximately what DC they need to beat. But you want to make a mystery about breaking the door, and they obviously think something like that is worth the drama. Good for you I guess, but don't expect cheering from the bleachers here.
My players trust me. And I only make rolls for them when it increases the dramatic immersion and enjoyment of the game. They're still rolling for themselves most of the time, with all the fun and drama that entails.