In many other Role Playing games some GMs (or DMs) prefer to use hidden dice rolls using the PCs' stats to see if they succeed or fail, and describe (if it's a perception roll) what they see/hear. So for example, there might be a goblin ambush down the road, and so the GM rolled dice for each of the characters. The other characters may get the description of seeing something mundane, while the most keen-eyed character may have passed the hidden perception roll and the GM describe as them seeing some movements up ahead in the bushes. This way, the players don't suddenly tense up because they know they 'failed a perception roll'.

An alternative is for the GM to hide the difficulty rating, and let the player roll. So for example on a D20, they may have rolled a 12, and the GM describes that the player thinks he doesn't see anything. This lets the player roll the dice and see how well he did, but still not sure if it was enough.

For WFRP though, I have been toying around with these ideas. At first I was going for the entire hidden roll idea, but with the many dice and bonuses it's a lot of work for the GM (and I believe the GM has enough work already). Plus, players may want to roll dice on their own, and with things like observation rolls possibly being the majority of the skill rolls in the game, they will feel inactive when it comes to their ability.

Alternatively, I have been thinking about letting the players roll their beneficial dice (Characteristics, fortune, expertise, etc.) and the GM roll the difficulty dice and misfortune dice behind the screen. The player report what results he got, then the GM secretly calculate the final score and describe to the player, say, what the character thinks he see according to the final result. This method should give the benefit of players being in charge of their own dice rolls, but the difficulty and their final result being unknown to them, and left up to GM description and role playing.

Other rolls are still resolved the normal way (in one pool with GM assigning difficulty). I'm talking strictly about rolls which some GMs like to do 'hidden', like the aforementioned perception/observation rolls.

What do you guys think about this method? Anybody tried something similar? Are they better alternatives?

I use this same method. Players roll only the potentially "positive" dice (characteristics, fortune, expertise, stance) while I roll behind my screen all the rest.

It works quite fine, but I still miss the possibility of rolling for, let's say perception for example, without even telling the players what I am rolling for.

i also let them use their cahracteristic dice and any additions and roll the challenge myself.

if i wanted to determine something without them knowing what, i would make the total roll for them, but i have also never tried that...but good idea

what i sometimes do is, when i have for example 10 different random outcomes of a situation and they do not decide for either one of them or are not given the chance to decide, i take a normal d10 and then i just pick that number, that works pretty fine.

its also very funny to sometimes just take some dice and roll em, just for fun, that makes players MAD hehe. i use that alot when they get into long discussions leading nowhere.

just did it last session, the group argued for about 20 minutes on how to position them in a pretty big fight agains goblins and as they didn't get to a point i just started rolling a bunch of dice to make em a little nervous, since that didnt help too, i started really rolling an attack and hit em all strait in the face with stoneslings ;-) good method of pushing the game forward

I've given many thought about hidden rolls, but decided to go for open for numerous reasons.

But the main reason, for me, is that with open rolls the Players know that I will not fudge the dice to help/protect them. If a roll says they die, they die. I've had experience with this making players a bit more careful when it comes to foolish things

The obvious drawback is that players can see when they fail an investigation-related roll, and thus might know they missed a clue, but first of all I trust them to roleplay properly, but secondly I've told them that no matter how many clues they might miss, the campaign will never end, it'll keep on going...

Might sound like I risk lazy players, who never bother, but they fortunately love investigation, so they keep trying to find clues (and most of the time succeed )

From my experience, it works best for me when rolling hidden for checks based on a PCs senses. It is true that i should trust my players to play out a missed check properly, but that can be very hard (especially if they try to check if a NPC is lying or not using intuition. This will influence their further steps heavily). Also, it should be more fun when the players can feel with their characters and know the same as they do (walking into a "deactivated" trap is only half the fun when you know it is not).

What i found out makes little sense is hiding checks like athletics or an attack. If the outcome is clear immediately after the check is done, it is only more work to hide the challenge. Also, from an RPG view, the PC will feel when a task is difficult, so they should get that information. Hiding Fortune/Misfortune is a matter of taste. Not knowing how many of these I get is equally mysterious as not knowing why i get them.

Spivo said:

I've been thinking about this too. My group is pretty game-y, if you know what I mean. I really debated how to play with enemy aciton cards.. either on or off the table, all sorts of stuff. But in the end, I keep all the information open because it makes the challenges more interesting to us.

As for rolling for investigation-related rolls, first I don't roll if it's information they need to find to go forward, because what's the point of that. But otherwise, my guys are pretty good at saying, "crap, I guess I think this is a good idea. Well, let's go spring the trap." It's kind of like yelling at the movie screen.

One technique I've used with the idea of "Passive Perception" in lieu of hidden rolls is to ask the player(s) with the highest relevant Skill+Observation, "Would you like to gamble a fortune point?"

If he is willing to spend 1 fortune point, he gets the information automatically. (The only 'gamble' is how useful that information may actually be from the player's perspective)

If the player refuses, no rolls are made at that time -- when the situation changes and/or the players request an Observation roll, then rolls are made actively.

===

In relation to a player utilizing a skill such as stealth against passive perception of NPCs, I generally have a low-difficulty check that will only pass if the PC achieves a certain number of hammers. The player has an idea of his situation based on the roll, but isn't certain whether he has been detected. The DC required is generally based on number of people that might potentially spot him, attentiveness of those people, etc.

Those are good ideas however I always roll openly (and on my online campaign I tell the players what I'm rolling), don't use GM screens and always get the characters to roll for themselves no matter the check, especially observation. I find a failed observation check causes an amusing sense of dread and luckily my players are good enough not to meta game otherwise I would have some problems.

If your inclined to use hidden rolls I think you have some great ideas there and if I ever GM'd dishonest players I would use them in a flash.

RARodger said:

By doing so, don't you risk that your parties become just made out of warriors and the like? I mean, if no investigation rolls are needed, then why just not to invest everything in combat oriented skills, actions, talents, wounds...?

Yepesnopes said:

Because most of the time if they roll they can get more, better, or more clear information. But if the decision is between (in the extreme) finding the secret door to the rest of the adventure or going home in frustration. I mean, the better solution is to not design adventures which can stall because of a missed Observation roll. But even then, there's more to a RPG than combat and investigation... conincing people to act in a certain way. I guess in general I find investigation boring as both a player and GM. I'd rather see what players do with the information than hunting to find it.

(The excellent indie RPG Dogs in the Vineyard helped cement and clarify this opinion. It's the one game that improved my GMing skills across all games.)

I highly recommend this thread in which Steve presents the idea of clue cards (in this case for Eye for an Eye ). In my opinion this adds a LOT of fun and makes hidden rolls almost obsolete.

But this idea may also work so well for my group because we are old buggers playing only 4 hours every two or three weeks, having no memory of what had happen the other night, but all being totally into investigation. The clue cards are like heaven for my group :-) No more being in the dark because all messed up their observation rolls.