So, I usually GM games. One thing that comes up kind of often, in games I've run, or played, is the GM rolling for something, without telling the players what's up. Maybe they were just rolling to see if something happens, and it didn't, or perhaps just as a means to ratchet up the tension, when truly nothing's there, but it happens. Other systems might have a "passive Perception", or something, where the GM decides that the PCs aren't actively trying, so the NPC can benefit. With this system, however, there is Threat, and Despair, which, in the case of the NPCs, I believe, the players get to spend/allocate. If they don't know what I'm rolling for, how can they deal with these results? Is there just no room for the GM to do stuff that the players are unaware of? My NPC Slicer is in the base's systems, currently spying on them, through the security cameras, but if I roll for it, I sort of have to tell them, and then they know the hacker is there. How do you deal with things the players are unaware of, in a system where they have choices of things in those unknown NPC's results?

I'd be tempted to get players to roll Vigilance to see if they notice the camera's moving to follow them. Anything they cannot be aware of they are of course unaware of. You don't need to tell them what they are looking for, maybe just "include bonuses to vision".

you can decide what to do with the advantages and threats you roll with your NPC. Just try to be fair.

When you roll on secret it would be perfectly fair to decide for the PCs

On the matter of threat/despair that the PC's would be able to determine, what you might do is have those negative values, result in the PC's being made aware of the role by some method.

For example, perhaps you are rolling to see if the Big Bad is able to activate an ancient computer system in the dungeon, thus activating security systems that the PC's would have to deal with. He succeeds, but he rolls 2 threat, and 1 despair. I would probably just arbitrate what those results were, and say something like "While you all traverse the ruined hallways of this abandoned temple, you begin to notice some blinking lights along the wall panels. In fact, you see what appears to be an access portal that is blinking, apparently someone, or someTHING is reactivating the systems. A cursory glance at the display screen shows a message -Internal Defenses Activated, all personnel remain in authorized areas for their own safety-" Then, this would give the PC's a chance to react. Perhaps slice into the system and try and counter the defenses, or at the very least they are now made aware of the defenses before they actually encounter them.

I probably wouldn't ever allow them to provide input on the negative results, as that would tip their hand to something you might not want the players to know yet. But just play it fair, and apply a realistic and relevant penalty based on the results, and you should be fine. If their is simply no way that makes any sense to inform the PC's, then just be sure to inform them of the negative results when they do encounter it.

"You finally enter the main chamber of the temple, and you see the Sith Apprentice standing atop a platform, overlooking the room. However in the corner, you see a cluster of Roger Roger droids, frantically trying to reactivate a Battle Droid, but they seem to be fumbling over each other in the process. You hear the Sith Apprentice yell at them --I can't believe you idiots installed the processor backwards! How is that even possible! That droid was supposed to be functional before the fools from Coruscant get here! Hurry up!--" Thus, they can infer that the negative results ended up in the droid being disabled at the start of the fight, instead of being there to fight them. That's how I would handle it at least. If the players don't make the connection, then just tell them. "Well I rolled for the defenses of this fight, however the droids rolled horribly, and basically ended up shutting the battle droid down instead. Yeah...that's what 1 Despair and 3 Threat will get you. So yeah, currently that droid isn't a threat you have to deal with! However if the Rogers can get it up and running, it will come into play. So you have a breather at this point, make good use of it!"

That's how I would handle it personally. I don't believe that the players should be informed on every single dice roll. They aren't the ones running the game, you are. Some things are supposed to be hidden from them, both as PC's, and as players.

3 hours ago, venkelos said:

With this system, however, there is Threat, and Despair, which, in the case of the NPCs, I believe, the players get to spend/allocate. If they don't know what I'm rolling for, how can they deal with these results? Is there just no room for the GM to do stuff that the players are unaware of?

Not technically. Some do, but according to RAW the GM determines what the negative dice results are. He should be open to suggestions, of course, and there are some talents that PCs can use to exploit a despair or something, but those are exceptions, not the rule.

And there is a "passive Perceltion" skill--it's called Vigilance.

On a related note, what do y'all do in situations where PCs are actively looking for traps, secret doors, etc.? I now they're not the norm in this system like they are in D&D, but they do come up, like in a bank heist, say. Would you tell them the difficulty? Or roll the difficulty dice in secret? I'm worried of a situation where they ask to check for traps on the bank vault door, so I tell them "roll a Daunting Perception" check. Even if they fail, they know that there's got to be something on that door, since the check was so hard.

21 minutes ago, SavageBob said:

On a related note, what do y'all do in situations where PCs are actively looking for traps, secret doors, etc.? I now they're not the norm in this system like they are in D&D, but they do come up, like in a bank heist, say. Would you tell them the difficulty? Or roll the difficulty dice in secret? I'm worried of a situation where they ask to check for traps on the bank vault door, so I tell them "roll a Daunting Perception" check. Even if they fail, they know that there's got to be something on that door, since the check was so hard.

Well, regardless of the result, what I would say is "You don't see any signs of a trap." Whether they fail or succeed. Just to try and keep a tiny bit of uncertainty to the result.

Sadly, this system isn't like D20, where you can keep the target number to yourself, and simply have them roll it. Since they know definitively if they succeed or not, it does remove some of the mystery of it.

If you want to keep it uncertain and tense, and maintain the fact that just because they searched, doesn't mean they actually found the trap that is there. I would probably adopt a system of rolling the difficulty dice myself, and have them simply roll the positive dice. Then tell them. "You don't see any signs of a trap." All the while grinning wickedly. If there is a trap there, and they discover it, then obviously yes, they see signs of a trap. But if it's either they fail the roll, or there is simply no trap at all but they don't know that, the answer should be "You see no signs of a trap."

3 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

If you want to keep it uncertain and tense, and maintain the fact that just because they searched, doesn't mean they actually found the trap that is there. I would probably adopt a system of rolling the difficulty dice myself, and have them simply roll the positive dice. Then tell them. "You don't see any signs of a trap." All the while grinning wickedly. If there is a trap there, and they discover it, then obviously yes, they see signs of a trap. But if it's either they fail the roll, or there is simply no trap at all but they don't know that, the answer should be "You see no signs of a trap."

In general, I appreciate that this system doesn't encourage the D&D-learned behavior of "searching for traps" in every corner. But it is necessary for some scenarios, and for those, I like your proposed solution. I think I'll try rolling the difficulty dice in secret (having them roll their positive dice) when I run my group's upcoming foray into a Hutt treasure vault. >:D

Be sure to factor in any talents they have that might improve the dice pool (removing setback dice, downgrading difficulty, etc etc) when you make the roll. Just because they can't see the results doesn't mean they shouldn't benefit from any talents that would normally apply.

I have my players roll 30 of each dice type (ability, proficiency, boost, setback) plus 40 purples and 20 reds, and I record them all in order. Then when they are making a "passive" check, I look up their stats/skills on my character cheat sheet (primary skills used for this are perception, vigilance, cool, discipline, streetwise and knowledge skills - plus applicable talents), and cross off the dice needed to create the roll. I generally ignore threat and advantage, but I do allow player's to use Triumph or Despair, while still maintaining a lot of secrecy about what is going on.

My general rule of thumb is that I only use this list if the players have NO IDEA about what is going on. For example, if they said they were searching an area for a bomb, I would have them roll it out right there. But if one of the character's is a Demolitions expert, and he walks into a room with a booby trapped bomb, I will automatically pull the dice to have him do a passive Perception or Vigilance check to notice that there is something off.

I like to print out little cards on WHAT the character's noticed/knew, and then I just let the player's read it. I like to make four versions for each "result", so there will be a Failure, Success, Triumph, and Despair version of each card. The key is, the player's don't know WHAT they rolled, so they'd don't know if the information is good, bad, awesome, or horrible. This really adds to the fun, as people make a bunch of assumptions based off their perceived knowledge that may or may not be good, which leads to all sorts of fun.

This system also allows players to choose what they share with the rest of the group, which adds another new element that usually requires players to exclude their OOC information.

As far as rolling in secret, I don't like doing this. Rather, I use the rule of cool. Is it more interesting for the BBeG to have activated the ancient computer thingamajig? Then he did.

Otherwise put it in the player's hands. As someone mention above, when you have an NPC slicer spying on the players, have the PLAYER roll to notice the camera.

In short, I shy away from any instance that would leave the player staring into space while I roll dice and do figures behind the screen. Because they're dumb and start drooling if left alone for too long.

I haven't done any traps in this system. Thinking about it, I like the suggestion to have them roll it and give a vague and mildly intimidating answer. Because while they may not currently be afraid, they will be. They will be.

I never roll secretly. If there's a chance they see things I openly ask them to roll. Threat/Advantage will dictate what and how much they learn. If I need to "roll in secret" I simply tell them something happens and narrate things. I never leave it to chance. Rolls belong to the players. Nothing should be in secret IMHO.

40 minutes ago, scotter23 said:

I never roll secretly. If there's a chance they see things I openly ask them to roll. Threat/Advantage will dictate what and how much they learn. If I need to "roll in secret" I simply tell them something happens and narrate things. I never leave it to chance. Rolls belong to the players. Nothing should be in secret IMHO.

But there are things that happen in the world that are outside the PC's awareness, as well as the players. Sure it doesn't happen as a general rule, but it does happen. They aren't omniscient and omnipresent, so there is always the possibility that something important happens that has no input from the PCs/players. Why would you include them in those situations when it's basically breaking a meta wall and giving them information that they really shouldn't be privy to, at least not yet anyway.

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

But there are things that happen in the world that are outside the PC's awareness, as well as the players. Sure it doesn't happen as a general rule, but it does happen. They aren't omniscient and omnipresent, so there is always the possibility that something important happens that has no input from the PCs/players. Why would you include them in those situations when it's basically breaking a meta wall and giving them information that they really shouldn't be privy to, at least not yet anyway.

For me I don't mind any sort of meta knowledge by the players. For my type of games as both a player or GM I want everyone at the table to be fully aware of the setting because for me that allows them to better play into the fiction we are creating at the table. Obviously that isn't the only way to play RPGs but that's my head space for sure.

I'm reading through the Trail of Cthulhu rulebook at the moment, and they address a similar issue with the "Sense Trouble" skill (their equivalent to Vigilance): "Players never know the Difficulty Numbers for Sense Trouble before deciding how many points to spend [e.g., rolling]. ... The Keeper does not roll in secret, so even a failed roll allows the group to sense that something is amiss. They just don't know exactly what this is. Think of it as the game system equivalent of tension-building eerie music in a horror movie."

The hidden Difficulty Number of Trail would be like hidden difficulty dice in this game. I'll try this during tomorrow's session and see how it goes.

I have a bad feeling about this.

One method that might work is have players roll their vigilance at the start of a scene and record their result. Then when whatever trap / hidden action takes place roll the difficulty dice and compare the recorded result, if you want to confuse the players or keep it hidden add some green dice to the roll just to add tension.

But I agree, any advantage or threat for the players should be spent to give the players clues as to what just happened. In the case of excessive advantage / threat, I'd just arbitrate some of it as strain damage vs the hidden npc since that is a basic result.

I've been testing out rolling the difficulty of knowledge checks behind the screen. The reason behind this is the players usually meta game when they fail knowledge checks. Because I'm rolling the difficulty, they don't know if they succeed or fail, they just get what information that is appropiate for the end result and it keeps them more on their toes regarding the information.

I've only been doing this with knowledge checks, as it seems to be the most meta-gamed type of check in the game system due to the player knowledge vs character knowledge thing.

16 hours ago, Yoshi Tonic said:

For me I don't mind any sort of meta knowledge by the players. For my type of games as both a player or GM I want everyone at the table to be fully aware of the setting because for me that allows them to better play into the fiction we are creating at the table. Obviously that isn't the only way to play RPGs but that's my head space for sure.

My issue is based on the type of players I've gamed with. Many of them are incapable of not acting on meta knowledge they have, even if there is no reason for them to do so. And they will be passive aggressive at the table if you try and point that out. Basically, I'm talking about the jerk players.

And not just that, but I also have one friend, who will derail the game by predicting what's going to happen. For example, if I let them be aware (for some insane reason), that the Big Bad was gathering troops on some other planet, he would constantly chime up, any time I mention a new plot element "Oh, this is probably Big Bad's doing! And if we involve ourselves we'll be shipped off and enslaved!" Which is pure, wild speculation on his part. He mostly does it in jest, but I find it to be very disruptive at the table. So, I opt for the "the less he knows, the less he can derail" method of GMing. Simply to minimize his outbursts. And for the jerk players, it also keeps them from doing things that are clearly meant to offset the foreshadowing they've been given.

4 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

I've been testing out rolling the difficulty of knowledge checks behind the screen. The reason behind this is the players usually meta game when they fail knowledge checks. Because I'm rolling the difficulty, they don't know if they succeed or fail, they just get what information that is appropiate for the end result and it keeps them more on their toes regarding the information.

I've only been doing this with knowledge checks, as it seems to be the most meta-gamed type of check in the game system due to the player knowledge vs character knowledge thing.

Can you give an example of a check you might do this for? Maybe I'm using Knowledge skills wrong, but I've been running it like this:

PC: What do I know about this evil cult?

Me: Well, they're pretty obscure. You could try Outer Rim or Lore to see what you know, but it's going to be a Daunting check.

PC: Well, do I know anything about their species?

Me: That's easier. Give me an Easy Xenology or Outer Rim check.

What kind of meta gaming are you seeing in these kinds of situations?

Just now, SavageBob said:

Can you give an example of a check you might do this for? Maybe I'm using Knowledge skills wrong, but I've been running it like this:

PC: What do I know about this evil cult?

Me: Well, they're pretty obscure. You could try Outer Rim or Lore to see what you know, but it's going to be a Daunting check.

PC: Well, do I know anything about their species?

Me: That's easier. Give me an Easy Xenology or Outer Rim check.

What kind of meta gaming are you seeing in these kinds of situations?

Example:

*PCs encounter an Aqualish Bartender whom they need to get information from about a disappearance in the city*

PC: Do I know anything about this species? Anything that could help me here to get this guy to talk?

Me: make a Xenology check. Difficulty is X

PC: I got 2 failures & 1 threat.

Me: You haven't spent much time learning of their species but you believe this individual has a relaxed disposition. Whether that's the norm for their species is hard to say. You do seem to recall the species has a weakness to alcohol regarding their tolerance levels.

*PC completely ignores the result of the knowledge check they made because they know the information is faulty due to a failed roll with threat*

That is the kind of meta-gaming I'm talking about. Choosing not to act on the information given because as a player they know they failed the roll, though their character should not know it's bad information. It only applies in instances where the player fails the knowledge check, as with success, they get what they were looking for and there's no problem. My solution, as I said, I am still testing, is to show the player the difficulty & allow them to modify the dice pool as desired but once modified, I would roll the difficulty on my side of the screen. I'm still playing around with the concept. I might even test out making the roll for them entirely once the dice pool is set.

It's something that's done in other RPGs, Mutants & Masterminds for one, where the GM rolls for all knowlege type of checks so that the player isn't sure if they succeeded or failed and the information given is less prone to be meta-gamed.

22 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

But there are things that happen in the world that are outside the PC's awareness, as well as the players. Sure it doesn't happen as a general rule, but it does happen. They aren't omniscient and omnipresent, so there is always the possibility that something important happens that has no input from the PCs/players. Why would you include them in those situations when it's basically breaking a meta wall and giving them information that they really shouldn't be privy to, at least not yet anyway.

Like I said... if it's something that happens outside their knowledge, I don't make it something I need to ROLL for. I just do it or I don't. I narrate it when it's time. Or I don't. I don't say to myself, "Let's see if a patrol spots them..." I simply decide if a patrol spots them or not based on how the game is going. If the players roll 4 threat so they trip a silent alarm... I don't roll to see if they do... I just do it.

5 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

Example:

*PCs encounter an Aqualish Bartender whom they need to get information from about a disappearance in the city*

PC: Do I know anything about this species? Anything that could help me here to get this guy to talk?

Me: make a Xenology check. Difficulty is X

PC: I got 2 failures & 1 threat.

Me: You haven't spent much time learning of their species but you believe this individual has a relaxed disposition. Whether that's the norm for their species is hard to say. You do seem to recall the species has a weakness to alcohol regarding their tolerance levels.

*PC completely ignores the result of the knowledge check they made because they know the information is faulty due to a failed roll with threat*

That is the kind of meta-gaming I'm talking about. Choosing not to act on the information given because as a player they know they failed the roll, though their character should not know it's bad information. It only applies in instances where the player fails the knowledge check, as with success, they get what they were looking for and there's no problem. My solution, as I said, I am still testing, is to show the player the difficulty & allow them to modify the dice pool as desired but once modified, I would roll the difficulty on my side of the screen. I'm still playing around with the concept. I might even test out making the roll for them entirely once the dice pool is set.

It's something that's done in other RPGs, Mutants & Masterminds for one, where the GM rolls for all knowlege type of checks so that the player isn't sure if they succeeded or failed and the information given is less prone to be meta-gamed.

Ah, I've had and seen this problem in the past. The solution I used may be a bit of a time sink but it works.

What you need to do is have the players roll for everything, now the important thing here is that most of these rolls are meaningless or to put it another way, the PC asks a question that their character would automatically know the answer to, you tell them to roll and they get that 2 failures & 1 threat, but you still give them the correct information. Maybe it took a moment for them to recall or whatever, but now if they ignore the information they could end up hurting themselves.

PC "What warehouse did they say our cargo was being held at."

GM hmm should know in character that it is warehouse B123 "Roll me an average knowledge X skill. hmm the result 1 failure and 2 threat. You stop to think about it and remember that the cargo is being stored in warehouse B123."

Now if they ignore the information they end up wasting time, maybe they even need that cargo to steal something they themselves smuggled in and decide to go after a different warehouse sure that B123 is the wrong answer.

So I tried the "roll the difficulty dice in secret" trick at tonight's game. It came up for a few Perception checks and a Knowledge check. I made sure that the player rolled all positive dice, and any negative dice from setbacks or upgrades I made with Destiny Points. At the end of the session, I asked the players what they thought, and they all said they liked it. They said it made things tenser, more mysterious. They also interrogated a guy during the session, and they suggested I should have rolled his resistance in private, since by seeing the difficulty they knew how tough he was to crack.

At any rate, the hidden difficulty trick seems to work for my group. I'll give it another whirl next game, knowing we can always move back to the fully out-in-the-open system if people prefer later down the road.