Last week another GM I play with had us doing all kinds of skill checks but in several cases (deception and stealth) he hid his dice pool and the results. He told me to make my check and tel him the results, which I did, then we moved on.
I didn't see anything specifically about hiding dice pools like this, am I missing something?
Hidden dice pools are a standard of GMing. It all depends on your players. It's difficult for all but the best players to be able to truly separate player and character knowledge. Knowing that you failed a stealth check will make your character act differently than if you didn't know. Knowing that you definitely didn't trick someone will affect future interactions.
Having only half the roll be hidden is a bit strange, but I don't see anything wrong with it.
There are no rules I have read. In general I have heard of this in RPGs, I never gamed with a GM that did it. I know some back in the day would do all the rolls and track hit points and such and never tell players the results but would just narrate how badly they felt wounded or how well they hit, etc.
As a GM I don't do hidden dice rolls. If a hidden dice roll is needed, I have the PC roll it as an opposed skill.
However, in a separate group I play in, the GM will sometimes roll the negative dice behind the screen. I have no problem with this. This is how the GM wants to roll it so I respect his decision.
It may tweak the odds a bit, but that doesn't bother me.
I've been doing hidden dice rolls for 3.5 decades, starting from D&D 1ed and up. But with EotE I finally weaned myself and my players off it, for the better IMHO. It does take a bit of getting used to, but it's worth it.
I've been doing hidden dice rolls for 3.5 decades, starting from D&D 1ed and up. But with EotE I finally weaned myself and my players off it, for the better IMHO. It does take a bit of getting used to, but it's worth it.
Agreed. EotE is so narratively driven that it doesn't really make sense. Cooperative storytelling is the whole point. Unless it's really important and/or really difficult to roleplay around, I doubt I'll use any hidden rolls.
Just to belabour the point a bit: at first I was dubious of this non-hidden rolling. Surely with any stealth or perception or any contested rolls would reveal too much to the players about their opposition. But the narratives the players have provided so far have been so overwhelmingly creative and inventive, it has been entirely worth it. Once the players embrace the narrative potential (and for my group, this took under an hour in the first session doing the Beginner box) the "reveal" is entirely irrelevant.
Hidden dice pools are a standard of GMing. It all depends on your players. It's difficult for all but the best players to be able to truly separate player and character knowledge. Knowing that you failed a stealth check will make your character act differently than if you didn't know. Knowing that you definitely didn't trick someone will affect future interactions.
Having only half the roll be hidden is a bit strange, but I don't see anything wrong with it.
The problem is that you shouldn't be making the roll until it matters, right? So, you don't even make that Stealth check until you failing it would have some sort of result. What is there to separate in that situation? Same with tricking someone--you wouldn't roll the Deceit check until it mattered.
Now, even in a situation with Deceit, where you were trying to get a Guard to let you by, if you know there are going to be immediate consequences, then go ahead and make the roll and narrate it in such a way that the PCs can't weasel out of it.
For instance, they try to get past a Guard. If the guard is going to attack or send them away them for failing the Deceit check, then there's no issue. But say the Guard is going to pretend to be fooled even if they fail? Well, you've got two good options.
1) Have the players roll Deceit. If they fail the Deceit roll, have them roll Perception. If they pass the Perception check, then they know the Guard wasn't fooled and they have a chance to back out. If they fail Perception, you just narrate them entering the building, and then boom, Ambush.
2) My preferred approach: have the players roll Perception. If they fail the Perception check, the Guard lets them through without a Deceit roll. Then, once the players are inside, you have them roll Deceit, and if they pass, its fine, but if they fail, boom, Ambush. If they pass the Perception check, then you make the Deceit roll immediately.
There's nothing wrong with them roleplaying the deception but not immediately rolling it if the results need to be applied after they make a decision. It's definitely not the first thing most GMs think of, but its very effective, as it keeps a bit of suspense going while they wait for the dice to actually hit the table.
Just have the PCs roleplay it, and then build the dice pool accordingly, and just let it sit there while they continue to narrate their way through whatever it is they're doing. Once that check would actually have an immediate result, then you toss them and see how it shakes out.
Whether its Deceit or Stealth, it works great. Say the PCs are trying to sneak past a security camera. They narrate the attempt, you build the dice pool and set it in the middle of the table, and it just sits there, taunting them. They continue to make their way through the halls, and come to a blast door and hit the panel. The door opens with a hiss.
GM: Roll the Stealth check.
Tension all up ins.
The problem with hidden dice rolls for Deception is it prevents the player from using talents like Natural Charmer which let them reroll their check.
Wouldn't the assumption be that it was failed thereby they react differently anyway?
Huh I assumed with the narrative dice style this wouldn't be necessary, how are advantages and threats dealt with if the players aren't involved?
Given the results depend on the imagination and creativity of those involved this sounds like a step back... was this an edge or age of rebellion game?
Wouldn't the assumption be that it was failed thereby they react differently anyway?
Huh I assumed with the narrative dice style this wouldn't be necessary, how are advantages and threats dealt with if the players aren't involved?
Given the results depend on the imagination and creativity of those involved this sounds like a step back... was this an edge or age of rebellion game?
I think it depends more on a given situation. If you're sneaking past guards and fail, initiative starts, so hiding the roll wouldn't matter then. But if you're trying to sneak past a security camera - things can vary. Alarm could go off instantly, whoever's watching the cameras could just tell guards to move to the area over comlinks, or could just let the players keep going if a trap is involved. So in these instances, where results may not be as obvious (and the players have a chance to switch their behavior to account for things they shouldn't know), the GM might want to keep the element of surprise by hiding the roll.
Personally, I just keep the rolls out in the open. If a player sees they failed, then they know they failed. If they try and do something out of character, I just ask them "And why are you doing that?" To which they'll pretty much concede they're breaking out of character and keep going on as normal.
Besides, it's more fun to see your players sweat a little, knowing that they somehow failed and have to reluctantly keep going on as normal.
Thanks for all the comments! I'm thinking about using this only for results that may not immediately be seen, like the security camera example. I guess you could hide the dice for every roll but there would be no player interpretation.
Today I will try some combinations and let you know how it goes.
It's your table, but again, don't forget about talents that let the player modify the dice pool by either removing setback dice, downgrading or decreasing the difficulty, or rerolling. If they're unaware of any impending doom, they may not be able to spend Triumphs or Advantage in an effective manner, either.
Most crucially, they won't know whether or not they should say, "I've got a baaaad feeling about this."
I've waffled about this one, and the discussion has sort of helped me decide to keep the dice open. Deve Sunstriker brings up a good point about using Talents that allow a re-roll. One of my main goals is setting opportunities for the players to use skills and talents they've invested XP in.
But on a related note. What about rolling an NPC's Deception Skill. Do you automatically roll the skill for an NPC that is lying, or do you wait for the players to ask if they're being lied to? In the past, I would normally not roll unless the players indicated they were suspicious. I think this goes back to d20, when it was "Sense Motive." But again, this discussion has me thinking. Perhaps I could invite the players to roll if they think something's up with the interaction. Instead of telling the players what skill check to make, I will ask them what they are trying to determine, using the Social Skill Interactions table on p113 (Core).
If the NPC is in earnest, and just wants to convince the PCs to help, it's probably Leadership. This is also the case of the NPC is trying to motivate them through means of their authority. (real or perceived)
The narrative dice make it pretty easy to adjust, if say, the players suspect an informant of lying to them, and he's actually telling the truth. I won't take the time on this post to go full Skill Monkey on how this would unfold, but Fiddleback's listeners probably know where I would be going with this.
Like a movie the story is all about the players. Secret dice rolls do not enhance this experience for them, it takes a dice roll that they should be centered on their action and makes the center of attention not a player but an NPC.
"Umm, we had a weapons malfunction... um.... we are all back to normal.... ahhh who am I kidding?"
Everyone in the room knew Han dropped a Despair on that roll...
It has been said before and I will reiterate, its all a matter of timing. Knowing that you failed is irrelevant if the timing of that knowledge will coincide with the realisation of the consequences of that failure. So the players fail a deception test, if you time the roll correctly then the failure becomes only part of the dice roll, you are now going to be called upon to narrate the effects of that failure.
Can I spend a destiny point on a hidden dice roll?
Besides with a hidden dice roll you are probably just looking at the binary result. What happens if you fail but have three advantage for the players? I think when you make a hidden dice roll you remove the parts of the game that makes the whole narrative dice system so much fun, you take your players out of the game and rather than being participants they are observers.
But on a related note. What about rolling an NPC's Deception Skill. Do you automatically roll the skill for an NPC that is lying, or do you wait for the players to ask if they're being lied to?
Best not to hide this either, because then how do the players interpret the 3 threat the NPC just rolled? In any case, I think combat is the only time I have the NPCs roll their own dice. In this case, the players would roll their Discipline opposed by the NPCs Deception pool; or if you want to hide things a little better about what they're rolling against, maybe use Perception vs the NPCs Discipline, especially if the NPC is telling the truth..
As others have said, it's a matter of style. I like to roll my dice out in the open because I trust them to play accordingly if the roll results in something bad for them; if we had someone that didn't, we'd talk about it instead of making rules around it.
But on a related note. What about rolling an NPC's Deception Skill. Do you automatically roll the skill for an NPC that is lying, or do you wait for the players to ask if they're being lied to?
Best not to hide this either, because then how do the players interpret the 3 threat the NPC just rolled? In any case, I think combat is the only time I have the NPCs roll their own dice. In this case, the players would roll their Discipline opposed by the NPCs Deception pool; or if you want to hide things a little better about what they're rolling against, maybe use Perception vs the NPCs Discipline, especially if the NPC is telling the truth..
That's a good way to think about, and it fits well with only making a roll when the players say they want to oppose. And I'm sure this will work with my current group, since they have been good about separating player knowledge and character knowledge. They also know that I expect them to act on the dice results if it turns out against them. My hesitation of doing deception rolls in the open is that I've had players who see the dice result where the NPC wins, and I tell them he's telling the truth. I may still be too paranoid about players meta-gaming with that information, but in truth, it hasn't been happening lately.
In another thread, someone brought up that rolling the dice is making an agreement to go with the results. So, with that in mind, I would be comfortable with making all rolls in the open.
My hesitation of doing deception rolls in the open is that I've had players who see the dice result where the NPC wins, and I tell them he's telling the truth.
This is why the players should roll. If they players roll and they succeed, they can be certain as to whether or not they are being lied to. If the players roll and don't succeed, they simply can't tell either way. There is no NPC "success" to give anything away, it's the PCs who failed to determine the truth.
I should mention that it's not true at my table that everything is open. The rolls are open, but the exact source of the dice pools might not be. I don't feel like I have to tell the players that they're rolling against the NPC's Deception or Discipline, though I might hint at things with offhand comments, eg "he seems to have a pretty good sabaac face". This way I'm free to increase/decrease, upgrade/downgrade, add boosts or setbacks, for legitimate reasons that the players may not be privy to. All this helps obfuscate the capabilities of the NPC, but keeps the player in control of the outcome.
There is a slight difficulty here in that a skilled NPC will be harder to read, even if they are telling the truth and really *really* want the PCs to believe what they're saying. In this case, a highly skilled NPC is his own worst enemy. In those cases I might downgrade or add boost dice...or maybe that's part of the plot
Personally, I just keep the rolls out in the open. If a player sees they failed, then they know they failed. If they try and do something out of character, I just ask them "And why are you doing that?" To which they'll pretty much concede they're breaking out of character and keep going on as normal.
This doesn't seem very fair, putting the player on the spot like that. You have no way of knowing what they would have done had the roll gone the other way so, in effect, you are playing their character for them. If so, just admit it and describe the entire scene without giving them the opportunity to change their course of action.
I work very hard to make sure that there is no distinction between player knowledge and character knowledge. It's the difference between the player being scared and the player pretending their character is scared.
This doesn't seem very fair, putting the player on the spot like that. You have no way of knowing what they would have done had the roll gone the other way so, in effect, you are playing their character for them. If so, just admit it and describe the entire scene without giving them the opportunity to change their course of action.
I work very hard to make sure that there is no distinction between player knowledge and character knowledge. It's the difference between the player being scared and the player pretending their character is scared.
I'm not forcing them to keep certain knowledge out completely; like I don't force a 1 Intellect character to be near-incapable at solving puzzles that's more about the players just solving than throwing skill checks at them, or tell them that their backgrounds wouldn't give them that knowledge and shut them down.
What I do, for example, prevents somebody who fails a stealth/social check (possibly with threat) from saying "I pull out my gun, commit my Force dice to upgrading incoming and outgoing attacks, and take cover" - when depending on the situation, they should have zero idea they messed up. Typically failing with a few advantage, I'll let them notice whatever's watching the area and duck back to where they were starting to stealth from. But sometimes a flat failure means they've got no idea it fails, but usually a failure with some threat will guarantee they don't know it fails.
Another example of keeping certain player and character knowledge separated, and this has happened with one of my groups before, is they split up, and one group gets themselves captured - the other group decides to 180 from what they're doing and run off to save the group. I shut them down immediately because how should their characters know this?
Personally, in my games, I'll usually always throw my players a line in some shape or form. Getting spotted won't mean their characters are likely to die and if part of the group gets separated and needs help, I'm going to toss in a loud-talking guard or obvious message over the PA about what happened (why it never occurs to them to flip a Destiny Pointy to trigger this stuff immediately - I'll never know). So when my players are more severely breaking character because of player knowledge, it's pretty much a pointless endeavor since I'm never going to penalize them solely for bad rolls.
And that's not to say allowing full-on metagaming or hiding rolls is a bad thing - to each their own; but for me and my groups, metagaming just shifts the story into where you may as well label everyone a force-sensitive with automatically occurring Forsee, and I find hiding rolls seems more unfair to me since everyone has to see everyone else's rolls, so why shouldn't they see mine?
...I find hiding rolls seems more unfair to me since everyone has to see everyone else's rolls, so why shouldn't they see mine?
I just want to say being the GM isn't about fairness. It's not you vs them. Your job is to ensure that everyone has a good time.
Rolling dice in front of the players as the GM isn't unfair to them (the players), hiding them is arguably.
There is an idea out there that the dice roll is a social contract between the GM and Player(s). So as the GM you form the pool with the players, explaining what each dice is for and why it is there. So you are darting from door to door, cautiously moving through the coridors.
"OK Guys time for a stealth roll, because you are all copying and helping each other who has the highest Agility? Now, who has the lowest stealth skill? OK the difficulty is 2 purple and a red. (Being the basic perception of the minions that may surprise the players.) You guys are moving from cover to cover and it is dark so I'll add a blue dice."
I always pause a bit here and ask if they want to add dice from talents, use destiny or just correct me if they thought the situation was different. Let's face it sometimes what is in my imagination doesn't compare to a players and when that happens I let the players correct me so that the narrative meshes with their expectation.
Now at this point I roll the dice. I use the iPad app and I have a program that allows me to display the app on my PC and another that on-casts my screen to the players. We are all friends of 20+ years and I have offered to allow them to roll their own dice but they like the open rolls.
At this point I veer off a bit from Lanthrops idea of metagaming: If the dice roll comes up bad, then it plays out right then and there. Depending on the dice you could have a variety of results, if the players surprise the bad guys then give them a bonus to their initiative roll, if they fair then maybe the bad guys get a bonus. Despair could be the bad guys get a free action as would a triumph be an action for a player.
Now you could lie a little bit, perhaps the players set of a silent alarm, think of C3PO and R2 in the control room. Perhaps just a dash of disadvantage causes a group of stormtroopers to be sent to investigate. Now, at this point the droids managed to bluff their way out of being discovered, so it wasn't too bad for the droids. But boy did life get interesting for the folks in the garbage compactor.
...I find hiding rolls seems more unfair to me since everyone has to see everyone else's rolls, so why shouldn't they see mine?
I just want to say being the GM isn't about fairness. It's not you vs them. Your job is to ensure that everyone has a good time.
The post wasn't trying to argue for fairness in sticking to the rules or keeping everything out in the open, it was mostly about about letting players still get chances to generally do what they were going to do if they metagame'd, but with the requirement that they first let something occur to where their characters can catch up in knowing what the players know (ie. players spending a Destiny Point, or more commonly, me tossing the information their way in a manner that makes sense in the story); and to the smaller extent that it's difficult to ask for player input on narrative dice if you're blocking the dice. Unless you outright tell them the results, at which point, there's no point in blocking the dice.
Edited by Lathrop
...I find hiding rolls seems more unfair to me since everyone has to see everyone else's rolls, so why shouldn't they see mine?
I just want to say being the GM isn't about fairness. It's not you vs them. Your job is to ensure that everyone has a good time.
The post wasn't trying to argue for fairness in sticking to the rules or keeping everything out in the open, it was mostly about about letting players still get chances to generally do what they were going to do if they metagame'd, but with the requirement that they first let something occur to where their characters can catch up in knowing what the players know (ie. players spending a Destiny Point, or more commonly, me tossing the information their way in a manner that makes sense in the story); and to the smaller extent that it's difficult to ask for player input on narrative dice if you're blocking the dice. Unless you outright tell them the results, at which point, there's no point in blocking the dice.
I wasn't referring to your whole post which is why I didn't quote your whole post.
