He doesn't say what it is for. He just says roll a d20 and tell me the number and then I will add my own personal numbers to that roll and tell you the outcome. Can a Dm really do this? Or should the Dm tell the player what the roll is for so that the player can add the necessary numbers into the roll?
The DM can definitly do this. DMs normally tell checks are what for, but doesn't always have to, especially if it's to keep you in the dark and not know what's cause it if you failed.
Is the player allowed to ask the Dm what the roll is for, before rolling the d20?
The player can definitly do this. But the Dm doesn't have to tell him anything if he has reasons to.
I normally tell my players what a check is for unless i want to keet it secret. It's even more stressing and bound to intrigue when you ask for a roll and do not reveal much more....
The DM does not have to tell you why you are rolling a die. He doesn't have to tell you the number on a die when he rolls it. It may be that he wants to hedge against metagaming.
As an illustration, I may want my players to make a passive perception check. I ask them to roll. I could roll for them instead. But after the roll I give them some piece of information. "You heard a stick crack off to your left. It sounds like it could have been made by a deer or another animal about that size."
In the last combat I managed as a DM, the Bard cast Bane on a group of bandits. I rolled their saving throw. They asked who made their save. I marked it on my notes and responded, "I'm not going to tell you." You may think that is being a poor sport, but I consider it preventing metagaming. The party would not know who made their save and who did not. But as DM I have to keep track of it. If they request, I would mark the figures as having been on the receiving end of a Bane Spell, but I wouldn't tell them which ones made their save.
IMO the caster should know if their spell even did anything.....
If they all made their save and they are concentrating on a spell for no reason thats being an extremely poor sport as a DM.
Sanvael made good points when a "you don't need to know" situation may occur, but those situations shouldn't happen so much.
Passive scores exist for a reason. It keeps the player from having to roll so much or constantly state that the character is making checks and also keeps behind-the-scenes things behind-the-scenes that reduces metagaming.
Making someone roll for something the player shouldn't know makes the player perceptive to something happening which requires more effort on the player to avoid metagaming.
Passive scores don't cover all situations, though. So, there is merit to a player rolling a d20 without knowledge of why, but for everyone's sake, that should be a rare situation, and that is on the DM to manage.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Yeah I remember doing that in 2nd edition. The Dm I was playing with back in 1995 would roll our attacks and damage and other things because the books back then relied on the Dm making most of the stuff up off the top of his head. He created the story and the whole world. Later on when he felt confident that we were learning about how to handle our Characters ( I HATE THACO) he gave us the opportunity to roll our damage. And then later roll more dice that applied to the 2nd edition homebrew he was running in the Campaign.
I feel like people aren't even reading your responses, they're just elaborating on their philosophies for pure sport. I think it's reasonable to assume that you understand the basic social contract of D&D, that the DM has authority over the rules etc etc, considering you've been playing since 1995.
The DM does not have to tell you why you are rolling a die. He doesn't have to tell you the number on a die when he rolls it. It may be that he wants to hedge against metagaming.
As an illustration, I may want my players to make a passive perception check. I ask them to roll. I could roll for them instead. But after the roll I give them some piece of information. "You heard a stick crack off to your left. It sounds like it could have been made by a deer or another animal about that size."
In the last combat I managed as a DM, the Bard cast Bane on a group of bandits. I rolled their saving throw. They asked who made their save. I marked it on my notes and responded, "I'm not going to tell you." You may think that is being a poor sport, but I consider it preventing metagaming. The party would not know who made their save and who did not. But as DM I have to keep track of it. If they request, I would mark the figures as having been on the receiving end of a Bane Spell, but I wouldn't tell them which ones made their save.
IMO the caster should know if their spell even did anything.....
If they all made their save and they are concentrating on a spell for no reason thats being an extremely poor sport as a DM.
So let me get this straight. The DM is a bad DM if he does not tell a player if the spell cast has any value? Sorry...just no.
Yes that is what I am saying....if you make a caster sit there and do nothing for a full fight because they have no idea if ANY of the creatures were affected thats just being an ******* IMO....especially for something like Bane where you have no idea if they are being affected.
Something like Slow or Hypnotic Pattern sure you could do this because its obvious they are being affected.
But something like Bane? Why?
Like if some are and some aren't its fair to say at least ONE is affected and let them guess. I wouldn't do this but its at least "fair" IMO.
My DM in one game does this now and then, when they want to have us roll something without us knowing what it is. Though it's rare. I think it's valid, if there's a reason for for it. Maybe someone is scrying on you for example and they want you to make a wisdom save, but they don't want to tip off what it is, so they have you do the roll and then add the modifiers behind the scenes.
Having someone roll and not telling them why should be used sparingly I think. But now and then I think it's fine to use when you still want the player to do the roll themselves, but their character wouldn't know what they're rolling for.
We also play digitially and would generally have it roll twice and the DM would determine behind the scenes if advantage or disadvantage apply to it as well.
My DM in one game does this now and then, when they want to have us roll something without us knowing what it is. Though it's rare. I think it's valid, if there's a reason for for it. Maybe someone is scrying on you for example and they want you to make a wisdom save, but they don't want to tip off what it is, so they have you do the roll and then add the modifiers behind the scenes.
Having someone roll and not telling them why should be used sparingly I think. But now and then I think it's fine to use when you still want the player to do the roll themselves, but their character wouldn't know what they're rolling for.
We also play digitially and would generally have it roll twice and the DM would determine behind the scenes if advantage or disadvantage apply to it as well.
Rolls for stuff like scrying on the players makes sense. Using it in combat makes no sense IMO....
Like Mind Sliver....do you just not tell the players if the creature took damage?
Its rare enough that it would not produce a visible effect (Bane being the one I am thinking of) but otherwise its not going to come up much but there is 0 reason to make a player sit there for a full combat with no idea that Bane didn't effect any of the creatures. Its just a dick move.
My DM in one game does this now and then, when they want to have us roll something without us knowing what it is. Though it's rare. I think it's valid, if there's a reason for for it. Maybe someone is scrying on you for example and they want you to make a wisdom save, but they don't want to tip off what it is, so they have you do the roll and then add the modifiers behind the scenes.
Having someone roll and not telling them why should be used sparingly I think. But now and then I think it's fine to use when you still want the player to do the roll themselves, but their character wouldn't know what they're rolling for.
We also play digitially and would generally have it roll twice and the DM would determine behind the scenes if advantage or disadvantage apply to it as well.
Rolls for stuff like scrying on the players makes sense. Using it in combat makes no sense IMO....
Like Mind Sliver....do you just not tell the players if the creature took damage?
Its rare enough that it would not produce a visible effect (Bane being the one I am thinking of) but otherwise its not going to come up much but there is 0 reason to make a player sit there for a full combat with no idea that Bane didn't effect any of the creatures. Its just a dick move.
I agree when it comes to your spells like that, in the bane case above for example I would let them know who was affected. Especially with concentration spells where the spellcaster is conciously holding onto the spell mentally. I also tend to rule that if something dirupts a concentrated spell then you know. For example if you're concentrating on invisibility on the rogue while he scouts ahead, and the rogue attacks something and breaks the spell, the caster would know in my game that their spell just ended.
The mystery roll is something I only endorse when you want the player to be able to roll to determine what happens with their character but don't want them to know what it is yet, I wouldn't apply it to someone's own spells.
The DM does not have to tell you why you are rolling a die. He doesn't have to tell you the number on a die when he rolls it. It may be that he wants to hedge against metagaming.
As an illustration, I may want my players to make a passive perception check. I ask them to roll. I could roll for them instead. But after the roll I give them some piece of information. "You heard a stick crack off to your left. It sounds like it could have been made by a deer or another animal about that size."
In the last combat I managed as a DM, the Bard cast Bane on a group of bandits. I rolled their saving throw. They asked who made their save. I marked it on my notes and responded, "I'm not going to tell you." You may think that is being a poor sport, but I consider it preventing metagaming. The party would not know who made their save and who did not. But as DM I have to keep track of it. If they request, I would mark the figures as having been on the receiving end of a Bane Spell, but I wouldn't tell them which ones made their save.
IMO the caster should know if their spell even did anything.....
If they all made their save and they are concentrating on a spell for no reason thats being an extremely poor sport as a DM.
So let me get this straight. The DM is a bad DM if he does not tell a player if the spell cast has any value? Sorry...just no.
Yes that is what I am saying....if you make a caster sit there and do nothing for a full fight because they have no idea if ANY of the creatures were affected thats just being an ******* IMO....especially for something like Bane where you have no idea if they are being affected.
Something like Slow or Hypnotic Pattern sure you could do this because its obvious they are being affected.
But something like Bane? Why?
Like if some are and some aren't its fair to say at least ONE is affected and let them guess. I wouldn't do this but its at least "fair" IMO.
A caster can do a ton of non-conc things in an encounter. To say that char is hamstrung for the entire encounter because they don't know if Bane is working or not is completely untrue. Do you think it is "fair" if an NPC Warlock cast Hex on your char, and the DM gives your char zero knowledge of this?
You would know for sure based on the damage you get so its not really a similar situation. Hex you would know as the spell describes you as physically marked, you take extra necrotic damage, and you would have DIS on certain ability checks so there are several ways that the warlock themselves would know that you are hexed....beyond the fact hex doesn't require a save and just happens. I am not sure what you even mean with your example?
There is no way for that caster to even ensure their bane hit or not....what do you want them to do to identify if it worked?
They can't even perform an action to know if it hit so they just have no idea as the rolls are all in the DMs hands. They would have to target that save on several creatures just to test the theory of it and yes that is stupid.
My DM in one game does this now and then, when they want to have us roll something without us knowing what it is. Though it's rare. I think it's valid, if there's a reason for for it. Maybe someone is scrying on you for example and they want you to make a wisdom save, but they don't want to tip off what it is, so they have you do the roll and then add the modifiers behind the scenes.
Having someone roll and not telling them why should be used sparingly I think. But now and then I think it's fine to use when you still want the player to do the roll themselves, but their character wouldn't know what they're rolling for.
We also play digitially and would generally have it roll twice and the DM would determine behind the scenes if advantage or disadvantage apply to it as well.
Rolls for stuff like scrying on the players makes sense. Using it in combat makes no sense IMO....
Like Mind Sliver....do you just not tell the players if the creature took damage?
Its rare enough that it would not produce a visible effect (Bane being the one I am thinking of) but otherwise its not going to come up much but there is 0 reason to make a player sit there for a full combat with no idea that Bane didn't effect any of the creatures. Its just a dick move.
I agree when it comes to your spells like that, in the bane case above for example I would let them know who was affected. Especially with concentration spells where the spellcaster is conciously holding onto the spell mentally. I also tend to rule that if something dirupts a concentrated spell then you know. For example if you're concentrating on invisibility on the rogue while he scouts ahead, and the rogue attacks something and breaks the spell, the caster would know in my game that their spell just ended.
The mystery roll is something I only endorse when you want the player to be able to roll to determine what happens with their character but don't want them to know what it is yet, I wouldn't apply it to someone's own spells.
Yeah I agree with your take completely and is IMO the best way to handle secret rolls.
The concentration mechanic comes into play with something like Bane. You are actively extending the effects of the spell. This heavily implies that you are aware of the effects you are extending. If everyone saves, you are not concentrating.
You cannot say definitively what a 1d4 penalty on saves and attacks looks like, but it's entirely reasonable to say that it has a noticeable effect, especially to the person who is casting and maintaining the spell. Personally, I like to leave these kinds of things up to the player. If it were me, I might describe Bane as a distracting light in their eyes (Light Domain) or ghostly spirits swirling around them (Grave Domain) or spectral vines hampering them (Nature Domain).
So if it could be either interpretation but one of the interpretations entirely screws over the caster and relies on extremely arbitrary judgements based on what spell effects are noticeable or not, I know which interpretation I'm going to go with.
The concentration mechanic comes into play with something like Bane. You are actively extending the effects of the spell. This heavily implies that you are aware of the effects you are extending. If everyone saves, you are not concentrating.
You cannot say definitively what a 1d4 penalty on saves and attacks looks like, but it's entirely reasonable to say that it has a noticeable effect, especially to the person who is casting and maintaining the spell.
So if it could be either interpretation but one of the interpretations entirely screws over the caster and relies on extremely arbitrary judgements based on what spell effects are noticeable or not, I know which interpretation I'm going to go with.
Exactly....if no spell effects are present why would you have them believe that they have to hold concentration on something that is not even effecting anything? Its silly.
The Dm usually responds by saying, "Just give me the roll and don't ask why" Well I ask why. Then after the roll is made, the Dm then tells the person rolling that it was for a deception check or a strength check or something like that.
I also want to point out that some abilities and skills make no sense as blind rolls, and strength and deception both fall into that category. Deception is an active thing you try to do. So is acrobatics or persuasion or animal handling or performance, etc. It makes sense for several of the mental abilities of the character to have a form of passive or unconscious action, but trying to do it with everything doesn't make sense to me.
I dislike Passive Perception. It's a bad mechanic, and a tool that only works when you are running a module written by someone else who doesn't know the characters. If I put in my game "A character with Passive Perception 15 or higher notices the acid scars beneath the door, indicating the acid drop trap" then I already know which PCs in the party have that PP. Therefore PP is just me deciding who will notice and who won't - it's a binary system of yes/no. So instead, I write down all the PCs Perception proficiencies and when there's something that they might want to notice, I ask every player to roll a d20, and then I work out their perception. They don't know what they're rolling for. If I ask every character to make a perception check out of the blue, unfortunately they now know that there's something up.
I may even sometimes ask one or more players to roll d20s for no reason at all just so that they don't know that there's something potentially happening. If you're wary of traps and every time there is a trap in the room, I make you roll Perception, then even when you fail the check, you actually know there's a trap. It's like a red flag.
Other reasons you might be rolling a dice for me without knowing why:
An NPC is trying to cast charm person or another such spell on you, and you don't know that they are. You're making a saving throw. If you resist it, you don't immediately know that there was someone trying to cast on you.
You are rolling for a regional effect such as the weather (important in my game since I have a Tempest Cleric who likes to Call Lightning)
You are rolling for me for effects on Magical Conditions from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
You're rolling the Random Encounter check for me. I prefer you to be the implement of your own destruction.
You're rolling for Persuasion, but if you fail then I don't want you to know that's what you were rolling for - why would you? I wouldn't tell you the DC anyway.
There is any other random effect in play that you simply can't possibly know about.
Sometimes I'm trying to roleplay my character without having to roll a dice, because I believe that with good articulation and conversation in a social environment among friends that sometimes good roleplaying doesn't need to involve the dice. Our Dm is a first time Dm and is trying to do exactly what the books say to do but he lacks the expeirence to recognize good roleplaying by the players.
Are you also a first time player? If not then I'm surprised you have not encountered DM's doing this before, it's pretty standard. I find that when someone is saying "I am doing this really well, and the DM is bad" this probably isn't true - you're just frustrated. It's the DM's game; they have put fifty times more work into it than you; they get to run it how they want to.
Because the books don't tell him what to do or they don't explain better as to what to do in certain situations he thinks just rolling a d20 and adding in his own made up numbers that there will be an outcome whether it be good or bad for the players character and that we should just go with his answer without an explanation.
You're simultaneously saying that (a) the DM rigidly adheres to the rules, and this bothers you, and (b) the DM is "adding in his own made up numbers" and you find this a problem. You don't like either outcome. Clearly, you want roleplaying to be a resolution to some encounters without a die roll. That is for the DM to decide. Whenever the DM sets a DC for an ability check, you don't know what that is either. Persuasion, Deception and Performance are all part of the game so the DM isn't deviating from the rules here. But the best thing to do here is to say to the DM "I feel like sometimes I've made a compelling argument, but the NPCs don't always seem to take notice of what I was saying. Could we have more transparency in the game about how the NPCs are reacting? I don't understand their decisions sometimes, and it's making me feel that my roleplaying isn't having an impact." Personally if someone makes an undeniable argument to an NPC, they persuade them. If it's a strong argument, advantage. If it's weak, disadvantage on the roll.
As a final point of consideration, do you know which things in the game the DM controls without rolling dice at all? The answer is everything that happens in the game because even when a die is rolled, the DM has chosen for it to be rolled. So what if the DM is making rolls to see if outcomes will be good or bad, applying their own modifiers? At any point in the game, the DM can just say "The sky opens, a comet streaks through. Rocks fall on you. You die."
Learn to trust your DM, or quit the campaign. You can't play the game if you feel you're in opposition to the DM - you are both working collaboratively. Complaining about how they make their rulings - over which they have absolute authority, and power to deviate from the rules whenever they see fit (see page 4 of the DM guide, where this is explicitly stated) - is only going to make you feel frustrated, and the DM is doing nothing wrong.
That was a whole wall of text rendering a sculpture of your gaming ideals ... and isn't actually in dialogue to facts the poster is presenting. I'm going to bold the specifics, not to be hostile but to show the simple circumstances the poster is presenting that you're manifesto is just missing. Tell me when in the heck does it make sense for a secret or blind roll (roll d20, no I'm not telling you, just roll) when its a STR or Deception check for the character? When would a character be unaware they weren't using their STR capacity or being deceptive. I mean you're right, but you're so disengaged from what the player is presenting to protect your ideals of the game (which in no way are being threatened here, and never is) that you're response almost belongs under its own topic.
I feel like people aren't even reading your responses, they're just elaborating on their philosophies for pure sport. I think it's reasonable to assume that you understand the basic social contract of D&D, that the DM has authority over the rules etc etc, considering you've been playing since 1995.
This. I just highlighted what I feel is the most over the top example.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Yeah I remember doing that in 2nd edition. The Dm I was playing with back in 1995 would roll our attacks and damage and other things because the books back then relied on the Dm making most of the stuff up off the top of his head. He created the story and the whole world. Later on when he felt confident that we were learning about how to handle our Characters ( I HATE THACO) he gave us the opportunity to roll our damage. And then later roll more dice that applied to the 2nd edition homebrew he was running in the Campaign.
I feel like people aren't even reading your responses, they're just elaborating on their philosophies for pure sport. I think it's reasonable to assume that you understand the basic social contract of D&D, that the DM has authority over the rules etc etc, considering you've been playing since 1995.
Have you read the OP? He doesn’t mention anything about playing since 1995. To be honest, I think someone playing for 25 years would not be asking “Is the dm allowed to ask us to roll a d20 without telling us why?” I have been playing since the 1980’s and that is just basic knowledge for anyone with more than a few sessions under their belt.
”Tell me when in the heck does it make sense for a secret or blind roll (roll d20, no I'm not telling you, just roll) when its a STR or Deception check for the character? When would a character be unaware they weren't using their STR capacity or being deceptive.“
There are many occasions where a blind roll as you call it would be inappropriate, but I fail to understand why you focus on these two. The OP, and by extension us, has absolutely no clue what the role was for. It could just as easily been an insight check, a survival check to understand the relevance of something dangerous in the environment. It could have been literally anything. Focussing on 2 uses where everyone already agrees it would not make sense to use a blind roll is the very definition of an utterly pointless and puerile argument.
That was a whole wall of text rendering a sculpture of your gaming ideals ... and isn't actually in dialogue to facts the poster is presenting. I'm going to bold the specifics, not to be hostile but to show the simple circumstances the poster is presenting that you're manifesto is just missing. Tell me when in the heck does it make sense for a secret or blind roll (roll d20, no I'm not telling you, just roll) when its a STR or Deception check for the character? When would a character be unaware they weren't using their STR capacity or being deceptive. I mean you're right, but you're so disengaged from what the player is presenting to protect your ideals of the game (which in no way are being threatened here, and never is) that you're response almost belongs under its own topic
Seems you don't really understand anything that I wrote. I'm replying to the OP's post directly.
I wouldn't ask someone to roll Deception or Strength checks without them knowing it. However, the OP opened with:
" I ask the Dm is this roll for a ability check or is it for perception or intimidation or deception. He doesn't say what it is for. He just says roll a d20 and tell me the number and then I will add my own personal numbers to that roll and tell you the outcome."
So in the first place, he doesn't know what the roll is for at all, and the post is about social interaction. In the next post:
"We could be shopping in a store. We could be walking down the hallway in a dungeon. We could be trying to do something as a group. Sometimes it does have to do with a ability check or a skill check. Then after the roll is made, the Dm then tells the person rolling that it was for a deception check or a strength check or something like that."
So this contradicts what the player has complained about in the first post: not knowing what the check is. It doesn't matter if they know if it's a Strength check, or a Dexterity check if they find out before the roll, or after - the player still knows what they rolled, and what their score is. I find it very weird for a DM to ask for checks in this way, but ultimately the outcome is the same. The only difference is the timing of whether they know about it before, or after the die is rolled. This is not what is described in the original post. The only relevant point in the post is when this is being made for social interaction checks or perception type checks, further enhanced when the OP goes on to say:
Sometimes I'm trying to roleplay my character without having to roll a dice, because I believe that with good articulation and conversation in a social environment among friends that sometimes good roleplaying doesn't need to involve the dice. Our Dm is a first time Dm and is trying to do exactly what the books say to do but he lacks the expeirence to recognize good roleplaying by the players. If the book doesn't say what to do in certain situations he gets frustrated. Because the books don't tell him what to do or they don't explain better as to what to do in certain situations he thinks just rolling a d20 and adding in his own made up numbers that there will be an outcome whether it be good or bad for the players character and that we should just go with his answer without an explanation.
This is what the player is really asking about. They are not really asking about Dexterity and Strength checks. The posters fixating on that are fundamentally ignoring the issue that the OP has in order to talk about ability checks for things that are pretty clearly not what the OP is interested in.
Next up:
The Dm I was playing with back in 1995 would roll our attacks and damage and other things because the books back then relied on the Dm making most of the stuff up off the top of his head.
If you're posing on a forum asking whether the DM can make rolls in secret, then it doesn't matter how much experience you have. You're asking for help on a forum. Ask, and ye shall receive.
It's sometimes best to try to read all the nuance and intent behind posts so you can be helpful. You've targeted the least important part of anything the OP said.
”Tell me when in the heck does it make sense for a secret or blind roll (roll d20, no I'm not telling you, just roll) when its a STR or Deception check for the character? When would a character be unaware they weren't using their STR capacity or being deceptive.“
I'll forgive your adherence to quoting conventions on this forum because you're evidently agitated at being lumped with the bloviators.
There are many occasions where a blind roll as you call it would be inappropriate, but I fail to understand why you focus on these two.
Read the OP, everything they wrote as their concerns became more coherent and get back to me.
The OP, and by extension us, has absolutely no clue what the role was for. It could just as easily been an insight check, a survival check to understand the relevance of something dangerous in the environment. It could have been literally anything. Focussing on 2 uses where everyone already agrees it would not make sense to use a blind roll is the very definition of an utterly pointless and puerile argument.
They cited deception and STR, I admit that the writer is a little unfocused, but as the OP provided more clarity, the manifesto brigade completely ignored it in their defense of their presumption of the DMs play style. I don't think it's puerile to actually take up the OP's actual position. Rather, like ChoironFire, I think it is a special sophomorically adult form of childishness to write a few thousand words standing on principle and not acknowledge the exception that's apparently actually being discussed by the OP, as I and others did, by not reading the few words of the poster sympathetically. Taking up what was actually written isn't puerile; but launching a manifesto of disproportionate length without addressing what was actually written is high infantilism. That is, in fact, utterly pointless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That was a whole wall of text rendering a sculpture of your gaming ideals ... and isn't actually in dialogue to facts the poster is presenting. I'm going to bold the specifics, not to be hostile but to show the simple circumstances the poster is presenting that you're manifesto is just missing. Tell me when in the heck does it make sense for a secret or blind roll (roll d20, no I'm not telling you, just roll) when its a STR or Deception check for the character? When would a character be unaware they weren't using their STR capacity or being deceptive. I mean you're right, but you're so disengaged from what the player is presenting to protect your ideals of the game (which in no way are being threatened here, and never is) that you're response almost belongs under its own topic
Seems you don't really understand anything that I wrote. I'm replying to the OP's post directly.
I wouldn't ask someone to roll Deception or Strength checks without them knowing it. However, the OP opened with:
" I ask the Dm is this roll for a ability check or is it for perception or intimidation or deception. He doesn't say what it is for. He just says roll a d20 and tell me the number and then I will add my own personal numbers to that roll and tell you the outcome."
So in the first place, he doesn't know what the roll is for at all, and the post is about social interaction. In the next post:
"We could be shopping in a store. We could be walking down the hallway in a dungeon. We could be trying to do something as a group. Sometimes it does have to do with a ability check or a skill check. Then after the roll is made, the Dm then tells the person rolling that it was for a deception check or a strength check or something like that."
So this contradicts what the player has complained about in the first post: not knowing what the check is. It doesn't matter if they know if it's a Strength check, or a Dexterity check if they find out before the roll, or after - the player still knows what they rolled, and what their score is. I find it very weird for a DM to ask for checks in this way, but ultimately the outcome is the same. The only difference is the timing of whether they know about it before, or after the die is rolled. This is not what is described in the original post. The only relevant point in the post is when this is being made for social interaction checks or perception type checks, further enhanced when the OP goes on to say:
Sometimes I'm trying to roleplay my character without having to roll a dice, because I believe that with good articulation and conversation in a social environment among friends that sometimes good roleplaying doesn't need to involve the dice. Our Dm is a first time Dm and is trying to do exactly what the books say to do but he lacks the expeirence to recognize good roleplaying by the players. If the book doesn't say what to do in certain situations he gets frustrated. Because the books don't tell him what to do or they don't explain better as to what to do in certain situations he thinks just rolling a d20 and adding in his own made up numbers that there will be an outcome whether it be good or bad for the players character and that we should just go with his answer without an explanation.
This is what the player is really asking about. They are not really asking about Dexterity and Strength checks. The posters fixating on that are fundamentally ignoring the issue that the OP has in order to talk about ability checks for things that are pretty clearly not what the OP is interested in.
Next up:
The Dm I was playing with back in 1995 would roll our attacks and damage and other things because the books back then relied on the Dm making most of the stuff up off the top of his head.
If you're posing on a forum asking whether the DM can make rolls in secret, then it doesn't matter how much experience you have. You're asking for help on a forum. Ask, and ye shall receive.
It's sometimes best to try to read all the nuance and intent behind posts so you can be helpful. You've targeted the least important part of anything the OP said.
I know you think you're being empathetic, but you're not. You're cherry picking nuance and insight to adhere to your disproportionate manifesto in a not at all holistic or empathetic manner. You think you're helping, but that's your conceit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Yeah I remember doing that in 2nd edition. The Dm I was playing with back in 1995 would roll our attacks and damage and other things because the books back then relied on the Dm making most of the stuff up off the top of his head. He created the story and the whole world. Later on when he felt confident that we were learning about how to handle our Characters ( I HATE THACO) he gave us the opportunity to roll our damage. And then later roll more dice that applied to the 2nd edition homebrew he was running in the Campaign.
I feel like people aren't even reading your responses, they're just elaborating on their philosophies for pure sport. I think it's reasonable to assume that you understand the basic social contract of D&D, that the DM has authority over the rules etc etc, considering you've been playing since 1995.
Have you read the OP? He doesn’t mention anything about playing since 1995. To be honest, I think someone playing for 25 years would not be asking “Is the dm allowed to ask us to roll a d20 without telling us why?” I have been playing since the 1980’s and that is just basic knowledge for anyone with more than a few sessions under their belt.
The thing is, yes, sometimes blind rolling is integral to suspense or what have you, but more often than not letting a player know why they're rolling actually increases player engagement. I mean I know of DMs who actually just make around 100 d20 rolls in advance, and similar dice pools records of every other polyhedral in the game and just draws them off a list as the die are needed and no one rolls in a session. Arguably the game goes by more swiftly, but something seems off which I think opens some vulnerability to the weird known unknowns being defended here. Moreover, this puts all the calculative labor (simple arithmetic yes, but still labor) on the DM. I think the labor of the game actually needs to be shared, and more openly, for a good table to thrive, otherwise players are going to feel like they're along for the ride.
In the end, the DMs prerogative to show their cards or explain the mechanical need for a particular dice roll is an "absolute" per manuals. But as is the case with many absolutes, that prerogative can be abused to the detriment of the game being played. It is not clear at all based on the OPs account whether the DM in question is actually playing well or not. There is in fact a way to address nuance and lack of clarity, the majority of the responses in this thread aren't doing that, embarrassingly so. I know most posters are fairly shameless, but I'm actually embarrassed to be part of the DDB community when I see someone with a inarticulate but valid concern woodchippered to the word count levels we're seeing here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The DM can definitly do this. DMs normally tell checks are what for, but doesn't always have to, especially if it's to keep you in the dark and not know what's cause it if you failed.
The player can definitly do this. But the Dm doesn't have to tell him anything if he has reasons to.
I normally tell my players what a check is for unless i want to keet it secret. It's even more stressing and bound to intrigue when you ask for a roll and do not reveal much more....
IMO the caster should know if their spell even did anything.....
If they all made their save and they are concentrating on a spell for no reason thats being an extremely poor sport as a DM.
Sanvael made good points when a "you don't need to know" situation may occur, but those situations shouldn't happen so much.
Passive scores exist for a reason. It keeps the player from having to roll so much or constantly state that the character is making checks and also keeps behind-the-scenes things behind-the-scenes that reduces metagaming.
Making someone roll for something the player shouldn't know makes the player perceptive to something happening which requires more effort on the player to avoid metagaming.
Passive scores don't cover all situations, though. So, there is merit to a player rolling a d20 without knowledge of why, but for everyone's sake, that should be a rare situation, and that is on the DM to manage.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I feel like people aren't even reading your responses, they're just elaborating on their philosophies for pure sport. I think it's reasonable to assume that you understand the basic social contract of D&D, that the DM has authority over the rules etc etc, considering you've been playing since 1995.
Yes that is what I am saying....if you make a caster sit there and do nothing for a full fight because they have no idea if ANY of the creatures were affected thats just being an ******* IMO....especially for something like Bane where you have no idea if they are being affected.
Something like Slow or Hypnotic Pattern sure you could do this because its obvious they are being affected.
But something like Bane? Why?
Like if some are and some aren't its fair to say at least ONE is affected and let them guess. I wouldn't do this but its at least "fair" IMO.
My DM in one game does this now and then, when they want to have us roll something without us knowing what it is. Though it's rare. I think it's valid, if there's a reason for for it. Maybe someone is scrying on you for example and they want you to make a wisdom save, but they don't want to tip off what it is, so they have you do the roll and then add the modifiers behind the scenes.
Having someone roll and not telling them why should be used sparingly I think. But now and then I think it's fine to use when you still want the player to do the roll themselves, but their character wouldn't know what they're rolling for.
We also play digitially and would generally have it roll twice and the DM would determine behind the scenes if advantage or disadvantage apply to it as well.
Rolls for stuff like scrying on the players makes sense. Using it in combat makes no sense IMO....
Like Mind Sliver....do you just not tell the players if the creature took damage?
Its rare enough that it would not produce a visible effect (Bane being the one I am thinking of) but otherwise its not going to come up much but there is 0 reason to make a player sit there for a full combat with no idea that Bane didn't effect any of the creatures. Its just a dick move.
I agree when it comes to your spells like that, in the bane case above for example I would let them know who was affected. Especially with concentration spells where the spellcaster is conciously holding onto the spell mentally. I also tend to rule that if something dirupts a concentrated spell then you know. For example if you're concentrating on invisibility on the rogue while he scouts ahead, and the rogue attacks something and breaks the spell, the caster would know in my game that their spell just ended.
The mystery roll is something I only endorse when you want the player to be able to roll to determine what happens with their character but don't want them to know what it is yet, I wouldn't apply it to someone's own spells.
You would know for sure based on the damage you get so its not really a similar situation. Hex you would know as the
spell describes you as physically marked, you take extra necrotic damage, and you would have DIS on certain ability checks so there are several ways that the warlock themselves would know that you are hexed....beyond the fact hex doesn't require a save and just happens. I am not sure what you even mean with your example?There is no way for that caster to even ensure their bane hit or not....what do you want them to do to identify if it worked?
They can't even perform an action to know if it hit so they just have no idea as the rolls are all in the DMs hands. They would have to target that save on several creatures just to test the theory of it and yes that is stupid.
Yeah I agree with your take completely and is IMO the best way to handle secret rolls.
The concentration mechanic comes into play with something like Bane. You are actively extending the effects of the spell. This heavily implies that you are aware of the effects you are extending. If everyone saves, you are not concentrating.
You cannot say definitively what a 1d4 penalty on saves and attacks looks like, but it's entirely reasonable to say that it has a noticeable effect, especially to the person who is casting and maintaining the spell. Personally, I like to leave these kinds of things up to the player. If it were me, I might describe Bane as a distracting light in their eyes (Light Domain) or ghostly spirits swirling around them (Grave Domain) or spectral vines hampering them (Nature Domain).
So if it could be either interpretation but one of the interpretations entirely screws over the caster and relies on extremely arbitrary judgements based on what spell effects are noticeable or not, I know which interpretation I'm going to go with.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Exactly....if no spell effects are present why would you have them believe that they have to hold concentration on something that is not even effecting anything? Its silly.
I also want to point out that some abilities and skills make no sense as blind rolls, and strength and deception both fall into that category. Deception is an active thing you try to do. So is acrobatics or persuasion or animal handling or performance, etc. It makes sense for several of the mental abilities of the character to have a form of passive or unconscious action, but trying to do it with everything doesn't make sense to me.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
That was a whole wall of text rendering a sculpture of your gaming ideals ... and isn't actually in dialogue to facts the poster is presenting. I'm going to bold the specifics, not to be hostile but to show the simple circumstances the poster is presenting that you're manifesto is just missing. Tell me when in the heck does it make sense for a secret or blind roll (roll d20, no I'm not telling you, just roll) when its a STR or Deception check for the character? When would a character be unaware they weren't using their STR capacity or being deceptive. I mean you're right, but you're so disengaged from what the player is presenting to protect your ideals of the game (which in no way are being threatened here, and never is) that you're response almost belongs under its own topic.
This. I just highlighted what I feel is the most over the top example.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Have you read the OP? He doesn’t mention anything about playing since 1995. To be honest, I think someone playing for 25 years would not be asking “Is the dm allowed to ask us to roll a d20 without telling us why?” I have been playing since the 1980’s and that is just basic knowledge for anyone with more than a few sessions under their belt.
”Tell me when in the heck does it make sense for a secret or blind roll (roll d20, no I'm not telling you, just roll) when its a STR or Deception check for the character? When would a character be unaware they weren't using their STR capacity or being deceptive.“
There are many occasions where a blind roll as you call it would be inappropriate, but I fail to understand why you focus on these two. The OP, and by extension us, has absolutely no clue what the role was for. It could just as easily been an insight check, a survival check to understand the relevance of something dangerous in the environment. It could have been literally anything. Focussing on 2 uses where everyone already agrees it would not make sense to use a blind roll is the very definition of an utterly pointless and puerile argument.
Seems you don't really understand anything that I wrote. I'm replying to the OP's post directly.
I wouldn't ask someone to roll Deception or Strength checks without them knowing it. However, the OP opened with:
So in the first place, he doesn't know what the roll is for at all, and the post is about social interaction. In the next post:
So this contradicts what the player has complained about in the first post: not knowing what the check is. It doesn't matter if they know if it's a Strength check, or a Dexterity check if they find out before the roll, or after - the player still knows what they rolled, and what their score is. I find it very weird for a DM to ask for checks in this way, but ultimately the outcome is the same. The only difference is the timing of whether they know about it before, or after the die is rolled. This is not what is described in the original post. The only relevant point in the post is when this is being made for social interaction checks or perception type checks, further enhanced when the OP goes on to say:
This is what the player is really asking about. They are not really asking about Dexterity and Strength checks. The posters fixating on that are fundamentally ignoring the issue that the OP has in order to talk about ability checks for things that are pretty clearly not what the OP is interested in.
Next up:
If you're posing on a forum asking whether the DM can make rolls in secret, then it doesn't matter how much experience you have. You're asking for help on a forum. Ask, and ye shall receive.
It's sometimes best to try to read all the nuance and intent behind posts so you can be helpful. You've targeted the least important part of anything the OP said.
I'll forgive your adherence to quoting conventions on this forum because you're evidently agitated at being lumped with the bloviators.
Read the OP, everything they wrote as their concerns became more coherent and get back to me.
They cited deception and STR, I admit that the writer is a little unfocused, but as the OP provided more clarity, the manifesto brigade completely ignored it in their defense of their presumption of the DMs play style. I don't think it's puerile to actually take up the OP's actual position. Rather, like ChoironFire, I think it is a special sophomorically adult form of childishness to write a few thousand words standing on principle and not acknowledge the exception that's apparently actually being discussed by the OP, as I and others did, by not reading the few words of the poster sympathetically. Taking up what was actually written isn't puerile; but launching a manifesto of disproportionate length without addressing what was actually written is high infantilism. That is, in fact, utterly pointless.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I know you think you're being empathetic, but you're not. You're cherry picking nuance and insight to adhere to your disproportionate manifesto in a not at all holistic or empathetic manner. You think you're helping, but that's your conceit.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The thing is, yes, sometimes blind rolling is integral to suspense or what have you, but more often than not letting a player know why they're rolling actually increases player engagement. I mean I know of DMs who actually just make around 100 d20 rolls in advance, and similar dice pools records of every other polyhedral in the game and just draws them off a list as the die are needed and no one rolls in a session. Arguably the game goes by more swiftly, but something seems off which I think opens some vulnerability to the weird known unknowns being defended here. Moreover, this puts all the calculative labor (simple arithmetic yes, but still labor) on the DM. I think the labor of the game actually needs to be shared, and more openly, for a good table to thrive, otherwise players are going to feel like they're along for the ride.
In the end, the DMs prerogative to show their cards or explain the mechanical need for a particular dice roll is an "absolute" per manuals. But as is the case with many absolutes, that prerogative can be abused to the detriment of the game being played. It is not clear at all based on the OPs account whether the DM in question is actually playing well or not. There is in fact a way to address nuance and lack of clarity, the majority of the responses in this thread aren't doing that, embarrassingly so. I know most posters are fairly shameless, but I'm actually embarrassed to be part of the DDB community when I see someone with a inarticulate but valid concern woodchippered to the word count levels we're seeing here.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.