There's been some recent discussion of rolling all the dice out in the open. It's encouraged by the designers, but apparently some people still feel the need to roll at least some of the dice behind a screen. This has been a tradition since D&D1, but is completely unnecessary in this game. However, to roll everything openly takes a bit of adjustment, some of which is outlined here:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/197716-i-roll-all-dice/?p=1974773

I thought it might be useful to flog this horse a bit further with an example...the horse may be dead soon, but it might have a bit of life left...

So in the post above, one change is making sure you only ask for rolls when you need to. You can assume the NPC is stealthy until you want the players to have a chance to inject narrative elements. When you ask for a roll, it's because you have something in mind for both success and failure.

Another change is that the player usually rolls when they are involved...they get the positive dice, opposed by the NPC's negative dice. However, this still works if you roll for the NPC, giving them the positive dice opposed by the PC's negative dice. There are some Talents the PCs can take that can affect NPC rolls against them. It's only fair to give them the option. You can flip the benefit (e.g.: give boosts where a Talent removes setbacks) but it's not as precise.

This is how I'd narrate the results of a PC's Vigilance vs Stealth (flip it if you're rolling openly for the NPC):

Failure + 3 Threat: "Something is not right, and it's creeping you out, your hair is standing all on end. You take a Strain, and you have a setback on your next action."

- it doesn't matter what the NPC dice pool is for this result, the PC is at a complete disadvantage, and the NPC can capitalize on the setback.

Failure + 2 Advantage: "Something is not right. You look back and briefly catch a face looking in your direction, then a tall Ithorian walks in front of you and the face is gone. It might be nothing, but if you saw them again you might recognize them."

- I might change this up depending on the opposing dice:

If the NPC dice pool is low I might say "You're sure someone is following you. They don't seem very good at it, but a tall Ithorian walks in front of you and the person seems to have ducked back into the crowd. You can't see them now."

If the NPC dice pool is high I might say "You're sure someone is following you and briefly catch a face looking in your direction. You can't tell if they've seen you notice them, but then the crowd swirls and they're gone. It might be nothing."

Success + 3 Threat: "You spot someone looking in your direction, and it occurs to you you've seen that face recently. You lock eyes for a moment and you (recognize/remember/get a good look), but the crowd shifts and they're gone. Take a Strain, and you have a setback on your next action."

Success + 2 Advantage: "You're being followed, you know this. Through the reflection in the shop window you can see them keeping tabs on you and your party. They don't seem to have noticed that you've spotted them. You can take a boost on your next action, or maybe you have another idea..."

- Again, I might change this up depending on the opposing dice. Narrating the NPC's apparent skill can take the impact (if any) out of the reveal.

Just some thoughts...

huh. these are all great ideas. Thanks!

Solid stuff! Quick question on style, let's say two PCs get the same result, do you describe their reaction as the same or do you vary it slightly?

Also, I appreciate the prior link. I've been rolling behind the screen and your post made me realize it is a hold over from d&d. Your reasons have convinced me to roll openly. Thank you for taking the time to put it so articulately.

Solid stuff! Quick question on style, let's say two PCs get the same result, do you describe their reaction as the same or do you vary it slightly?

Just MHO, but for the example above, I would only let one PC in the party roll Perception/Vigilance. It seems to be another D&D tradition to let everybody roll, but all you're doing is guaranteeing success. It makes it almost impossible for the GM to pull off any kind of stakeout or ambush. Of course, I impose the same restrictions on the NPCs, so it should balance out.

If the party is just travelling, I would let them pick who rolls. If they are travelling discreetly, taking pains to avoid notice, I might let another PC trained in the relevant skill assist with a boost die, or if they are taking even further measures they might get an upgrade + boost. (This isn't exactly RAW, but I find the dice add up quickly, especially with Force Sensitives.)

If the party is busy, then it might be the case that the perceptive scout is too busy using Skulduggery on the rustiest lock on the planet to notice anything, so the Perception/Vigilance falls to whoever isn't preoccupied. This shakes things up a bit since it pulls people out of their chosen rolls a bit, and is a good way to encourage non-monolithic builds.

All that said, if the *outcome* of the Perception/Vigilance is going to be different for each PC, then letting them all roll is fine. Each result will be tailored to wherever each PC is looking, or whatever they are specifically looking for.

This works the other way too. If the PCs are the ones being stealthy, one roll is good enough for a narrative montage of "getting across the city to the spaceport without being spotted". Other trained PCs might provide boosts, while untrained PCs might provide setbacks. But if the PCs each have to cross a prison yard and not be pinned by the searchlights, then each PC might have to roll on their own, perhaps with boost from other PCs as they make it successfully across, with advantages spent to "show the way to the next guy".

Yeah, that make s a lot of sense and mirrors my experience, with them all rolling dice, their constant success gets a little boring for me. They are largely in the "there's a way to win this" mode from d&d as well, so hopefully doing it differently will encourage them to change their thought patterns.

With the stealth, I've been using the rule that players can give other players their extra successes and that seems to work decently. Still, a single check bears thinking about.

Thanks again Whafrog

Thanks again Whafrog

Glad it's of use. I was hoping to start a discussion, and would love to hear how other people handle open-rolling and avoid giving too much away to the players to a non-thespian group

Yeah, that make s a lot of sense and mirrors my experience, with them all rolling dice, their constant success gets a little boring for me. They are largely in the "there's a way to win this" mode from d&d as well, so hopefully doing it differently will encourage them to change their thought patterns.

One last thought on this, because players might balk if you suddenly change up how it's done.

To me, in a Perception/Vigilance check, it's unfair to the NPCs to give *every* PC a chance to see *all* the NPCs. So you could have a situation where there is one roll for the PCs against one opposing pool from the NPCs. However, if you wanted the consequences to be different for each PC (say you had a particularly nasty ambush in mind), you could have each PC roll against a different NPC/group. So a single PC's success is limited to one or two groups of NPCs they succeeded against, and everybody in the PC's party can become aware of them. Meanwhile, the PCs who fail can surely see there is something is going down, but won't know the locations of other opponents, or even if there *are* other opponents. In short, those who fail have to suffer some kind of penalty for failure.

So if the players balk at the change to a single roll, they might accept the second option despite the potential negative consequences for a few of them.

Wow, that is really sound advice! I will take it. Thanks whafrog! I am glad my campaign hasn't started yet, so I don't need to fret abourt changing something.

I've run games where the players rolled all the dice and where I rolled only in the open (running D&D no less). But lately I've mellowed a bit and see the advantage to secret behind-the-screen rolls. This is primarily done for pacing reasons so I can minimize the amount of "game speak" done during the session. But it also allows me to keep the players in the dark about certain aspects so we can role-play the encounters.

Let's say the PCs are being chased by some Stormtroopers who round the corner and the roll comes up as a fail with a couple Threat.

If I'm rolling in the open it goes like:

GM: The stormtroopers round the corner and fire at you.

GM: [roll]

GM: The blaster bolts zip by you and one of the stray bolts hits the controls on the blast door causing it to shut.

Whereas, if I'm rolling secretly, I know the outcome before I begin describing the result.

GM: Stormtroopers round the corner aiming their blasters at you so you quickly shoot the controls of the blast door and seal them off.

IOW, I can roll for the NPCs while the PCs are taking their actions and, armed with that knowledge, it allows me to describe the results with a much greater variety of possibilities. The main goal of which is to make the combat seem as if it's all happening at the same time rather than, BTB, where every combatant stands still while each character takes his own action.

For talking encounters, I never roll things like Deception in the open. Instead, I'll roll the dice and factor the results into how I portray the NPC. If the PC succeed, I'll lie unconvincingly whereas if the PC fails, I'll try to lie as best as I can.

I do agree in principle that die rolling should be kept to a minimum. But, to me that's a completely different issue.

Let's say the PCs are being chased by some Stormtroopers who round the corner and the roll comes up as a fail with a couple Threat.

If I'm rolling in the open it goes like:

GM: The stormtroopers round the corner and fire at you.

GM: [roll]

GM: The blaster bolts zip by you and one of the stray bolts hits the controls on the blast door causing it to shut.

Whereas, if I'm rolling secretly, I know the outcome before I begin describing the result.

GM: Stormtroopers round the corner aiming their blasters at you so you quickly shoot the controls of the blast door and seal them off.

If the GM rolls Threat, that's up to the players to decide what happens. I wouldn't narrate a player's actions by telling them they shoot the controls.

If the GM rolls Threat, that's up to the players to decide what happens. I wouldn't narrate a player's actions by telling them they shoot the controls.

Fair enough. But that has nothing to do with my main point that rolling in the open forces the game mechanics to be inserted into the narrative whereas rolling behind a screen does not. That's fine in the cases where the PC is the one doing an action where the outcome is obvious. The player will be building the pool and interpreting the results.

Additionally, what about times when you don't want to player to know certain fact. Using your example, if the player is trying to sneak past a couple guards but, unknown to the player, the area is also being watched by a skilled bounty hunter. If you adjust the difficulty by the bounty hunter's Perception, then the players will automatically know of his existence, even if they fail their roll.

I've gotten into the habit of rolling for NPC actions and some PC action (Stealth, Deception, etc). For me, it's just a case of adding more tools to my toolbox. But, then again, my priority is to minimize the game mechanics intrusiveness into the ongoing narrative as much as possible.

BTW- The book does state the it's the GM prerogative to spend Threat. So this is really a different debate.

Additionally, what about times when you don't want to player to know certain fact. Using your example, if the player is trying to sneak past a couple guards but, unknown to the player, the area is also being watched by a skilled bounty hunter. If you adjust the difficulty by the bounty hunter's Perception, then the players will automatically know of his existence, even if they fail their roll.

One of the points I was making is, using your example here, there is no point rolling for or even involving the bounty hunter. If you don't want the players to know a certain fact, then they don't know it. Simple and done.

But that has nothing to do with my main point that rolling in the open forces the game mechanics to be inserted into the narrative whereas rolling behind a screen does not.

Right. I'm saying there is no point rolling *unless* you want the game mechanics to be inserted into the narrative.

There's another problem with secret rolls that actually change outcomes: unlike early versions of D&D, this system is loaded with various PC abilities that can affect the outcome of those rolls. Aside from the sheer number of always-on talents that you now need to remember and take into account (is your memory always that good?), it means that the PCs can't use destiny points, per-session or other limited talents, assists, etc.

Well, those things don't get to affect the roll? Well, you'd better be giving the players an XP discount on all of those things because they're being arbitrarily denied the full value of them.

Sorry for the interruption, but this is in the same ball park so asking for opinions.

Players raised on old school D&D have been trained to search for everything. As in, they enter a room, the Thief begins searching for secret doors, traps in chests, etc. This was usually d20+bonuses against a target number only the GM knew about. So, even if they rolled high and there was nothing to find, the failure didn't give any insight that there was nothing to find in the first place. Perhaps the target number was very, very high. There was still some suspense left. This doesn't translate to FFG narrative well.

Players enter a small factory's warehouse and a PC says he looks around for anyone hiding in the shadows. The GM knows there is no one there. A Perception roll is made with the GM supplying a bogus difficulty, stealth, vigilance of an opponent or whatever. The GM will say no one was found regardless of the roll since he didn't wish anyone to be there. A failure on the roll is fine. The player knows he failed and so won't know if there is someone he missed or not. But on a success the player will know there was no one to find in the first place while the PC himself should still be suspicious.

Solutions? The GM could suddenly change his planned narrative on a success and throw something new in like a factory worker, that has nothing to do with the story-line, scared, hiding in a corner, that the PC found. Another thought I've had is to divide the roll between the GM and Player, but I'm not sure if it would work well? On an action with possibly unknown results, the Player rolls the good dice provided by his PC's skills and abilities. The GM rolls the bad dice (real or faked) behind a screen. The Player can look at how well he rolled and have an idea of whether he thought he failed or not, but there will still be some mystery since he didn't see what the difficulty dice rolled.

That's pretty much what I do too. When an NPC is trying to do something that affects the player, that player rolls. Your example is really interesting though as the case of stealth is maybe the most problematic one, and the way you manage it keeps the mystery while keeping the character active. And that's what roleplaying is all about, in the end. Last session I didn't roll a single dice, and that's fine with me since we're all working together anyway to interpret advantages and successes.

My only exception for now are attacks. Not that I want to hide them (the system is pretty forgiving so I never felt the need to fudge the dice), but I use a screen to hide my notes and it would be impractical to move the screen for combats, especially since the combat rules behind it are really useful, and I don't want to stand up every time to roll in front of my screen.

Players raised on old school D&D have been trained to search for everything. As in, they enter a room, the Thief begins searching for secret doors, traps in chests, etc. This was usually d20+bonuses against a target number only the GM knew about. So, even if they rolled high and there was nothing to find, the failure didn't give any insight that there was nothing to find in the first place. Perhaps the target number was very, very high. There was still some suspense left. This doesn't translate to FFG narrative well.

Great question.

First, I'd ask what the value of that suspense is. If your players are like mine, that kind of mystery can breed all kinds activity that serves no purpose while they try to uncover the secret they think you're hiding. So it's a relief to be able to say "you're absolutely sure there is nothing else to be found", so they (and you) can move on with the story. I find unfounded player suspicions to be the worst culprit for game derailment. If the players are suspicious, it should be (when possible) for a valid reason.

Second, but somewhat contradictory to the first point, is that not all information needs to be revealed on a simple success. If you take a look at the published modules they make good use of that. Beyond the Rim was what first convinced me to abandon all secret rolling, and part of it was the way searched information is revealed. When the players are on the Wheel and trying to find information about the fate of the treasure ship, basic success only gets them so far. They can spend advantages to learn further details, and triumphs to learn even more. But it's structured in a way that makes it difficult to get all the information out of one roll. They might have to talk to several people.

You can do the same thing in a "search the room" scenario, where the PCs might need several advantages to find the hidden vault, or they can piece together several other clues that suggest the presence of a hidden vault (a post-it note with codes on it, various personal messages with hints, etc). So now, success or fail, they have a legitimate reason to be suspicious.

Players enter a small factory's warehouse and a PC says he looks around for anyone hiding in the shadows. The GM knows there is no one there. A Perception roll is made with the GM supplying a bogus difficulty, stealth, vigilance of an opponent or whatever. The GM will say no one was found regardless of the roll since he didn't wish anyone to be there. A failure on the roll is fine. The player knows he failed and so won't know if there is someone he missed or not. But on a success the player will know there was no one to find in the first place while the PC himself should still be suspicious.

In that situation, I don't see a problem with the player knowing. They looked in the shadows and don't see anybody. The reward for success shouldn't be more doubt. Is the player going to play the PC differently? Maybe the PC will break into song and blow the whole op? There's an easy solution to that, and that is that things can change from round to round. Patrols return, the security guard comes back from the bathroom, the lights flip on because the owner forgot something in the office... Basically I wouldn't be hampered by the fact that there was no one in the shadows, and the PCs successfully identified that. And I don't think the players (at least my players) would act in such a way that their knowing that fact changes how their PCs approach a situation...and not because they're thespians, but because they know things can change round to round.

Nobody signs a contract agreeing to only play as the designers and developers intend. We spend our money and take a product home, that's the end of the contract. Once you've got it home it's yours to use however you like (qv all the threads about this system being great for westerns, fantasy, steam punk, and et cetera). FFG police won't be stopping by your sessions to enforce their game rules.

Just play.

On an action with possibly unknown results, the Player rolls the good dice provided by his PC's skills and abilities. The GM rolls the bad dice (real or faked) behind a screen. The Player can look at how well he rolled and have an idea of whether he thought he failed or not, but there will still be some mystery since he didn't see what the difficulty dice rolled.

I generally roll publically, I have no problems with the players seeing my dice and it helps me to have them make suggestions for Threats etc. However occasionally I like to have the players make a roll where they don't know the result. In those cases, I use the strategy Sturn has suggested. The players roll the "good" dice and I roll the "bad". They have a sense of how well they did, and can make a guess as to if they succeeded, but don't know for sure.

I have only used it a few times, once when a space suit with a slow leak was being repaired. The player knew he'd done an ok job of fixing it but didn't know for sure if they had succeeded. Since they failed with multiple threats, I decided that it had not succeeded, but that this would not be obvious for 10 minutes. Very bad for them. When their air supply alarm went off 10 minutes ont he hull of the enemy ship later they had to decide wether to abort the mission or try to break into the ship. It was tense and fun in a way that would not have happenend if the players knew the result.

I've also used it when the mechanic has build single-use gadgets that they plan to use for a mission, such as remotley hyjacking a vehicle. I let the player roll early on, so they'd have a sense of how well they'd done and mayeb decide to try again if they thought it hadn't worked, but wouldn't know for sure until mid middion.

I wouldn't suggest it for normal use but when used occasionally and creatively I think it adds a certain amount of tension and occasionally having to make things up on the fly when they go wrong, classic Star Wars adventure style.

When I first started I just had the players roll all of their own dice, both good and bad. But it was becoming too time consuming waiting for everyone to sort out the dice and figure out how the threats/failures/etc balanced out. So now I just do what others have already mentioned in this thread and have them roll their greens and yellow while I roll the difficulty die behind a screen. They trust me not to screw them over and it makes it easier for me to tell a story. If they're trying to figure out if they're being lied to and they're aware they fail the dice roll, then I can't very well tell them that the NPC is being honest, because they're looking at the same die as me and know that they failed. I like being able to say "he seems sincere and honest" on a failed check without the players knowing what's going on.

The only time I hide my roll is when a Force Sensitive NPC makes force actions, as I don't want the players to know he is force sensitive, but it applies right now only to the F&D campaign.

The only time I hide my roll is when a Force Sensitive NPC makes force actions, as I don't want the players to know he is force sensitive, but it applies right now only to the F&D campaign.

If that's the ONLY time you hide your rolls they may start to notice...

The only time I hide my roll is when a Force Sensitive NPC makes force actions, as I don't want the players to know he is force sensitive, but it applies right now only to the F&D campaign.

If that's the ONLY time you hide your rolls they may start to notice...

There was suspicion but they left it alone after understanding my reasons.

Sorry to necro this thread, but I had something come up recently that I thought I'd ask about here.

One of the uses for Deception is that it can be used to set a false trail. So, my PCs are heading through the wilderness and they know there's a bounty hunter out there looking for them, and they try to lead him astray. They roll their Deception check - difficulty provided by the Bounty Hunter's stats - and fail. So the players know that they haven't managed to mislead the Bounty Hunter. But there's no way the characters could have known this information at the time: in fact, they wouldn't know until the Bounty Hunter caught up with them (or didn't, as the case may be). My players aren't that experienced; they do their best to keep player knowledge separate from character, but they're not brilliant at it, and it changed the way they played.

Broadly, I agree with Whafrog - dice should be rolled openly. But this did present a dilemma. One solution I thought of later was to not have the players make the check at the time; instead, they wait until the moment that the Bounty Hunter would have entered the action to make the check. If they succeed, he doesn't arrive; if they fail, he does. I like this idea, but it feels like it could add a lot of book keeping...plus it seems like it'll make a mess of spending Advantages and Threats.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

One of the uses for Deception is that it can be used to set a false trail. So, my PCs are heading through the wilderness and they know there's a bounty hunter out there looking for them, and they try to lead him astray. They roll their Deception check - difficulty provided by the Bounty Hunter's stats - and fail. So the players know that they haven't managed to mislead the Bounty Hunter. But there's no way the characters could have known this information at the time: in fact, they wouldn't know until the Bounty Hunter caught up with them (or didn't, as the case may be). My players aren't that experienced; they do their best to keep player knowledge separate from character, but they're not brilliant at it, and it changed the way they played.

This would have been one of the uncommon times I've rolled the "bad" dice. By looking at the results of the "good" dice they would have known they had covered their trail pretty well or pretty badly, but wouldn't have known for sure.

I'm with Sturm here. On very rare occasions I will make hidden rolls, usually when I don't want the players to see the dice I'm using (and thereby knowing exactly how good an NPC is at a given task). If the NPC is the active character I make the whole check behind the screen, and if the PC is the active character I let them roll their ability dice while I roll the difficulty dice in secret. It's the best way to handle those rare situations that I've been able to think of.