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).

I'll challenge the basic assumption: never mind the players, why can't the characters know they failed?

Maybe they waded into a stream to lose the trail, only to realize they left a broad swath of crushed plants behind them when they emerged to the other side. Nothing they can do about that, they have to carry on.

Maybe they intentionally smeared blood from a wound on the right tunnel in the subway, and proceeded down the left, but didn't notice until a few minutes later that they were steadily dripping blood, which left a clear trail.

Maybe the bounty hunter has mini tracking droids like the Inquisitor in Rebels, and they see one watching them before it ducks back behind a building.

The point is the character's knowing failure isn't alerting them to anything that derails your future actions. Anything the players plan to do to change their character's fate has no impact.

Consider all the movies you've seen where the protagonists realize their attempts aren't working, it's a pretty standard trope. I'd say the sense of dread that comes from the knowledge of failure is far more interesting and important than the mechanical hiding of details to separate character and player knowledge.

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).

I'll challenge the basic assumption: never mind the players, why can't the characters know they failed?

Maybe they waded into a stream to lose the trail, only to realize they left a broad swath of crushed plants behind them when they emerged to the other side. Nothing they can do about that, they have to carry on.

Maybe they intentionally smeared blood from a wound on the right tunnel in the subway, and proceeded down the left, but didn't notice until a few minutes later that they were steadily dripping blood, which left a clear trail.

Maybe the bounty hunter has mini tracking droids like the Inquisitor in Rebels, and they see one watching them before it ducks back behind a building.

The point is the character's knowing failure isn't alerting them to anything that derails your future actions. Anything the players plan to do to change their character's fate has no impact.

Consider all the movies you've seen where the protagonists realize their attempts aren't working, it's a pretty standard trope. I'd say the sense of dread that comes from the knowledge of failure is far more interesting and important than the mechanical hiding of details to separate character and player knowledge.

OK, you're right, my basic assumption was flawed - there is no implicit reason why the characters can't know they've failed. All of your suggestions would have worked well, would have been great, even...

...but is there not also a thrill, as a player, in not knowing? And there are plenty of movie examples for that too: Luke (and even Obi-Wan) had no idea they were being tailed by Garindan; Han never suspected Lando of selling him out to the Empire (and I can't help feeling there were plenty of failed checks there); the entire Jedi Council was repeatedly fooled by Palpatine. And that moment of realisation, when they discover they were wrong - that's great drama. (OK, so the Garindan thing isn't great drama, really, but you get what I mean, right?).

Like I say, I'm with you in principle - I like to get the players to roll as much as possible, and have things be open (which is what I did here), and I really love this system...but it just seems like there needs to be a way, sometimes, of not letting the players (or their characters) know whether they succeeded or failed.

I just don't have a brilliant way to do it yet.

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.

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.

This is the best solution I've seen so far, I think. Used sparingly - and with an explanation to the PCs as to why it's being used, why the total result is being hidden - I can see it being a useful tool. I might trial it in a session and see how it goes. Thanks.

...but is there not also a thrill, as a player, in not knowing? And there are plenty of movie examples for that too: Luke (and even Obi-Wan) had no idea they were being tailed by Garindan; Han never suspected Lando of selling him out to the Empire (and I can't help feeling there were plenty of failed checks there); the entire Jedi Council was repeatedly fooled by Palpatine. And that moment of realisation, when they discover they were wrong - that's great drama. (OK, so the Garindan thing isn't great drama, really, but you get what I mean, right?).

But you're assuming the character would know exactly what they failed at. I don't believe that is necessarily true. They might have suspected they had a tail, or Lando was going to betray them, or Palpatine was a Sith Lord...but if they fail their check, they have no idea either way. They can still know they failed:

"You roll to see if you can tell if Lando is lying, setting you up in some way." -- dice clatter -- "You can't tell. Lando has always kept his cards close to his vest, but that could mean anything. Maybe he doesn't trust you and the attention you might bring to his clandestine operation..."

You can still introduce these plot revelations, they aren't impacted by that failure.

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.

IMO, this is an excellent solution. For those times when the players need to be kept in the dark as to whether or not they are successful, it’s better to postpone rolling the dice altogether.

Use the narrative at the time, and let the players and characters think whatever they’re going to think based on the description, but they don’t find out the real result until later.

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.

Somehow I missed this. I like the first half...basically players don't need to roll anything until you want them to. But I don't understand the last bit about book-keeping or the mess of advantages and threats.

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.

IMO, this is an excellent solution. For those times when the players need to be kept in the dark as to whether or not they are successful, it’s better to postpone rolling the dice altogether.

Use the narrative at the time, and let the players and characters think whatever they’re going to think based on the description, but they don’t find out the real result until later.

I've used something similar for explosives that don't immediately get set off. Any roll(s) to place a mine or delayed explosive (set it, conceal it) are done so immediately. The "attack" roll is delayed until it's actually set off.

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.

Somehow I missed this. I like the first half...basically players don't need to roll anything until you want them to. But I don't understand the last bit about book-keeping or the mess of advantages and threats.

My concern there was that a) you've got to remember to make the check at a later date, which could easily get forgotten, and b) if you roll advantage on the check to lay a false trail, but you only roll it ages after the false trail was set, do the advantage apply now? Can they be used to upgrade checks that occur at this moment?

I guess, actually, these aren't exactly big problems - in fact I can't see them being a problem at all, now that I think about it again. Will have to test this in play to see how it works.

Thanks all.

Somehow I missed this. I like the first half...basically players don't need to roll anything until you want them to. But I don't understand the last bit about book-keeping or the mess of advantages and threats.

My concern there was that a) you've got to remember to make the check at a later date, which could easily get forgotten, and b) if you roll advantage on the check to lay a false trail, but you only roll it ages after the false trail was set, do the advantage apply now?

I would definitely avoid the idea of deferring a roll to a later time, there is just no point. If you want the bounty hunter on their trail, then he's on their trail. If they make their deception roll then maybe he's delayed, or they get some advantage later, but he's still coming...

It occurred to me that perhaps a better way to deal with your BH situation is to use the "chase" mechanic. It's not just for chases, the basic mechanic is really suitable for any situation where there is a race to a convergence/divergence point. This can be physical or mental, a standard physical race, a race between two mechanics fixing engines, or a race between two gamblers to see who can accumulate the most wins. Only the skill selection and usage is different. So if you wanted the PCs to have a chance to get away, then their failed roll just ensures the BH is still after them. It's no harm if the characters know, the BH still gets to pick the time and place.

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.

Somehow I missed this. I like the first half...basically players don't need to roll anything until you want them to. But I don't understand the last bit about book-keeping or the mess of advantages and threats.

My concern there was that a) you've got to remember to make the check at a later date, which could easily get forgotten, and b) if you roll advantage on the check to lay a false trail, but you only roll it ages after the false trail was set, do the advantage apply now? Can they be used to upgrade checks that occur at this moment?

I guess, actually, these aren't exactly big problems - in fact I can't see them being a problem at all, now that I think about it again. Will have to test this in play to see how it works.

Thanks all.

You can spend your Advantages/Threats, Triumphs, and Despairs at the time of the roll and even narrate the results retroactively if you want.

Players: "We want to mask our trail through the woods. That's, what, Deception? We grab some palm fronds and sweep the path behind us for a good hundred meters or so."

GM: "Yeah, no problem. Don't bother rolling. You do a pretty good job of it."

Later on the GM decides now is a good time to spring that bounty hunter on the party that's been following them. But has he managed to successfully track them through the woods?

GM: "Hey, grab your dice pool for Deception. The difficulty is two reds and a purple."

Players: "Uh... okay... We got no Successes but one Advantage."

GM: "Looks like you failed to cover your tracks really well. There's someone out there skulking about. Lucky for you, he seems to have been a little careless in his pursuit and he's made some noise alerting you to his presence. You can make Cool checks instead of Vigilance checks for initiative. But, yeah, roll initiative."

Alternatively...

Players: "Uh... okay... We got a Success and an Advantage!"

GM: "A moment of paranoia crosses your mind when you think about how well you covered your tracks. Somewhere in the distance you hear a flock of seanocks scatter into the sky. Now might not be the best time to rest."

As a rule of thumb, I encourage resolving dice rolls immediately. If the PCs are making a Survival roll to cover their tracks and fail then it makes sense to jump-cut to an ambush and either add a number of advantage dice to the antagonist's first rolls or setback dice to the PC's first rolls that correspond to the degree of net disadvantage.

Dice rolls in FFG SW encourage and reward immediate resolution, which is a pretty Star Wars-y thing. This means I'm not super into the idea of unsuccessful dice rolls coming back to haunt PCs. Bad decisions? Yes. Bad dice rolls? No.

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

As a GM, I try to avoid rolling dice as much as possible. I always try to make player roll the dice. When ever I roll, I always roll open. Except when I'm rolling dice for myself, to get inspiration, or determine some random element. Then I roll the dice open or hidden, mostly depending on which disturbs players less. Very often they don't even notice I roll. And these situations are fairly rare. Previous this kind of roll was hidden roll and I rolled D10 to get a random name for NPC I had to improvise.

This has been very interesting thread to read. Whole concept of player rolling good dice and GM rolling bad dice was new to me. Personally I don't like it, because I feel that it encourages the players vs GM mentality. But that's just my first thoughts about it, in context of our play group. YMMV. Have you who use that style noticed how it affects game? Does it have any effect?

Regarding the check to cover your tracks: why not have the Bounty Hunter roll his check vs the players' Deception? So the characters describe what they do, and it places a difficulty that any trackers have to beat to follow.

Though, to be honest, I think the Chase mechanic idea is a good one. The way I've been doing chases is like so:

At the beginning (or maybe end, I haven't settled yet) of each round, everyone makes their standard Athletics/Piloting roll. Pretty much standard. Each round, you can use your Action to try to give yourself a bonus, or your opponent a penalty. Often, you'll just be blasting at bad guys, and that's fine. But you can also go for crazy tricks. Being chased by stormtroopers through a city street? You might try a Coordination check to Parkour up a wall and over a fence, and if you're successful, you can raise the Difficulty of their next Chase check. Or a Streetwise check to take hard-to-see shortcuts, perhaps lowering the difficulty for yourself or your friend.

In this case, perhaps one of the group stays in the rear, making a Stealth check to cover the group's tracks. If his roll succeeds, he adds Difficulty to the pursuer's next chase check. Meanwhile the scout makes a Survival check to find the most efficient route, using his successes and advantages to lower the difficulty for the Diplomat, and to pass him Boost dice, because he really isn't cut out for cross-country. The Diplomat, in the meantime, forgoes a lot of his actions, instead spending his maneuvers to "aim," gaining Boost dice on his chase checks. When the scout finds a good route and lowers his difficulty, maybe he uses his talents to restore Strain.

The Bounty Hunter, in the meantime, is making Perception checks to follow their path, mechanics checks to keep his jetpack in working order to bypass obstacles, and so forth.

Being chased by stormtroopers through a city street? You might try a Coordination check to Parkour up a wall and over a fence, and if you're successful, you can raise the Difficulty of their next Chase check. Or a Streetwise check to take hard-to-see shortcuts, perhaps lowering the difficulty for yourself or your friend.

Or a Charm check:

"Please help us, where's a good place to hide? We'll get hung if we get caught!"

Or Coercion:

"Hide us in your storeroom, or we'll be back for you later."

Or Negotiation:

"Hey kid, 10cr says we went that-a-way."

Or Leadership:

"How long before those stormtroopers start coming for you? Help us now and we can turn the tide."

Or Deception:

"I got 5 kids to feed!"

Every skill in the book is usable in a chase.

Then I roll the dice open or hidden, mostly depending on which disturbs players less more.

Fixed that for you.

It is a very interesting discussion I think. I am very much for rolling openly, but situations such as the above are interesting little problems. I roll the negative dice in this situation and do the math. I then tell them if they had advantage or threat, and narrate ambiguity unless the result is rather decisive. I call it the group certainty. If they end up with like five successes, then they have good cause to believe they have succeeded in losing the bounty hunter for now. If they get many failures, then they don't have any real confidence. After all- while failure COULD be obvious and they know it, they could also not know that they failed. Same with success. I use the advantage or threat to help the narration along with any mechanical benefit.

The beauty of the system is that there are several good solutions to this problem, rather than an objective right and wrong as exist in many others.

The dice themselves provide so much narrative freedom that rolling behind a screen seems like overkill.

This game does a good job of forcing both GMs and players to manipulate the story and action to fit the dice rather than fudging and nudging the dice to fit the story. It's a very different thought process than the WEG D6 and D20/Saga systems.

This thread actually ties nicely with a recent discussion on NPCs making social checks. Mainly, it discusses not dictating how your players react, but having some in game effect to how the roll went. In this example, the team tries to cover their tracks and fail. Depending on how that was rolled (see below) they may or may not realize that they failed. Let's say they don't realize it. A lot of this is in wording, use descriptions of what they see, not what their characters think or believe. So, I would say "it looks like all traces of your passing are well removed." The players look at the dice and know they didn't do a good job, so one decides to "go over it once more." I would add a setback on this check now, or perhaps increase the difficulty because 1. the first attempt appears to have been successful, and 2. going back into an area you've covered up can actually disturb earlier work.

Now, maybe the example isn't great because the point of covering tracks is to buy time to get away from a bounty hunter, and re-trying takes time.

As to whether they even realize the failure, I would look at how the result was rolled. If there just weren't a lot of successes rolled, I'd say that it was pretty obvious their tracks were not well covered. If they did have a lot of successes, but they were canceled by the negative dice (representing the hunter's perception) then they actually did a pretty good job, the bounty hunter is just skilled enough to recognize a cover-up. You can also use advantages to recognize it. "This looks good, but I have a feeling this guy isn't going to be fooled.We'd better move more quickly now." You can then give Boost dice to Athletics or Resilience checks to push on.