The Gaming Den

I hate them. To elaborate:

A hidden roll is how I'm describing any roll the GM is advised to make instead of the players for dramatic effect. I think the GM might as well just make up the result at this point.

I can certainly understand the appeal although. The players not knowing how obvious they're being at stealth or whatnot can be fun. But every time I've tried I feel like I'm either taking out an important aspect of the game or being bastardly.

Thoughts?

Hidden rolls are almost mandatory for perception and crap to reduce metagaming. Nothing is worse than saying "Roll a spot check" because it announces there's something to find. By letting them know there's a check they now know there's something to find.

Unless you roll random spot checks.

'I got a 29, what do I see?'

'You manage to spot the dog shit before you step in it.'

TOZ wrote:Unless you roll random spot checks.

Yeah but that's just a waste of game time and why bother doing that when you can just roll them hidden.

Not if you roll everything in the open.

Passive checks I don't mind being hidden ... active checks should always be rolled by the player. I've seen it argued move silently checks should be rolled by the DM for instance, which I think is insane.

Hidden rolls should be used to prevent metagaming.

Psychic Robot wrote:Hidden rolls should be used to prevent metagaming.

In the bonus strips for Order of the Stick "Dungeon Crawlin' Fools", there's a scene where the party attacks the beast guarding the Tower of Dorukan. The monster flicks Roy while saying "2". At which point the party runs off.

Hilarious to joke, but very lame if it happens.

Some people have players roll a set of perception tests and then write them down, bringing them up later as needed. The players still get to make their rolls and feel like they are having an impact, but the game doesn't take metagame breaks.

Still, it's kind of a pain in the ass.

-Username17

DarklingPerhaps wrote:A hidden roll is how I'm describing any roll the GM is advised to make instead of the players for dramatic effect. I think the GM might as well just make up the result at this point.

What's the difference between the DM tossing a cube of plastic onto the table and the player?

If it's a spot check for example, what's to stop the DM from simply auto-failing whatever the player rolls? Both are "fudging" the roll equally.

I only roll for the PCs if it's something they would miss (passive spot checks, etc) anyway, but I don't see anything particularly bad about it. Sometimes I'll even roll NPC attacks away from the PCs eyes if I don't want them metagaming how tough a bad guy is.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

Psychic Robot wrote:Hidden rolls should be used to prevent metagaming.

In the bonus strips for Order of the Stick "Dungeon Crawlin' Fools", there's a scene where the party attacks the beast guarding the Tower of Dorukan. The monster flicks Roy while saying "2". At which point the party runs off.

Hilarious to joke, but very lame if it happens.

"the beast swings wide and only slightly catches you with the black of it's hand, but you still only barely manage to keep your feet against the blow"

"we run"

same thing really.

The point isn't who is rolling. It's that BS difficulties are BS while hidden checks are at least honest, even if they could look similar.

-Crissa

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Hidden rolls are almost mandatory for perception and crap to reduce metagaming. Nothing is worse than saying "Roll a spot check" because it announces there's something to find. By letting them know there's a check they now know there's something to find.

Thankfully my players don't do that. I can just have them roll spot checks when I need them and not worry about someone suddenly casting see invisible. I guess they will be a tiny bit more careful, but that is fine with me. It works out to the party having a bit of a talent for feeling danger approaching.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Hidden rolls are almost mandatory for perception and crap to reduce metagaming. Nothing is worse than saying "Roll a spot check" because it announces there's something to find. By letting them know there's a check they now know there's something to find.

Perception checks are about the only ones I keep hidden, as well. Not only does it let them know there's something to spot, but if they see a low roll, they'll likely want to check again.

Other than that, I've fully advocated rolling all other rolls right in front of the players. I think it increases tension in combat because they know I'm not pulling any punches or fudging in either side's favor. If the dice turn ugly, the fight turns ugly.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

Psychic Robot wrote:Hidden rolls should be used to prevent metagaming.

In the bonus strips for Order of the Stick "Dungeon Crawlin' Fools", there's a scene where the party attacks the beast guarding the Tower of Dorukan. The monster flicks Roy while saying "2". At which point the party runs off.

Hilarious to joke, but very lame if it happens.

If players cannot estimate the HP/Attack/Damage of a monster, combat becomes essentially random; its like feeding your actions into a black box and hoping that you don't die. I'm with Lokathor on this one; seeing monster attack rolls is quite legitimate, and not metagaming.

Well, it is metagaming, but it's not necessarily bad.

Hieronymous Rex wrote:
If players cannot estimate the HP/Attack/Damage of a monster, combat becomes essentially random; its like feeding your actions into a black box and hoping that you don't die. I'm with Lokathor on this one; seeing monster attack rolls is quite legitimate, and not metagaming.

I do agree to a point, but I believe that a DM should be giving the players proper description and have a good sense of storytelling and illustration to get the point across.

Lokathor's flavor text does the same thing, but the difference is that the OotS's version was a gag, while Lokathor's description is more of an "Oh... fuck sort of moment.

RobbyPants wrote: Other than that, I've fully advocated rolling all other rolls right in front of the players. I think it increases tension in combat because they know I'm not pulling any punches or fudging in either side's favor. If the dice turn ugly, the fight turns ugly.

Yeah, in combat, you really don't have to hide rolls. Whatever the PCs may learn from the rolls honestly doesn't help them all that much anyway.

The main things I do as hidden rolls:

-PC has to save against a hidden effect the others may not be aware of that may not trigger immediately (succubus charms a PC).
-PC uses perception check.
-PC uses sense motive.

Hiding rolls for combat purposes is generally only done if DMs want to fudge rolls.

I've been known to fudge rolls, but usually to help PCs survive. Well, it's more like fudging stats.

So if Monster X hits PC Bob on a 17, and the dice keep rolling high, I don't have a problem saying a 14 misses.