The main problem is when players are metagaming based on the result of their check, which prompt further actions. How many times do we often see party keep looking because a player rolled low on Perception or Investigation check. Proof is that when it's a high roll and they find nothing, nobody press further. That is the result of metagaming right there.
Where if DM handles knowledge roll internally, whenever he says you see nothing, it cut down metagaming
This is poor game play on the players’ part. In our group, if we fail a roll for a skill check, we proceed the same as we would have had we passed the roll because the characters don’t know the difference. If we fail a perception check, we move on as if there was nothing to find, if we fail a stealth check, we keep skulking about as if we are ninjas even though we’re going to be detected and so on. As a player you go “ah crap, I rolled a 2 to find the trap” and then have your character set off the trap. Anything else is tantamount to cheating and should not be allowed by the DM.
The mechanic of failing forward can be used on any die roll. We use it at my table frequently. Especially when the Barbarian fails an Athletics check and falls off the boat.
The continued advertisement of a Nat anything on a skill check or save being automatic success/fail is A) Not RAW, which would mean that it in itself is homebrew, and B) unrealistic to the point of breaking the suspension of disbelief. I don't fix house rules with more house rules, I stop using the bunk rule. (see: Rolling a 1 or 20)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
This actually came up with the group I'm running last night, or rather we set a table rule for it. Basically henceforth I run passive or make roles on spot checks for them and then blend their successes or failures into my narration of the environment ("You see... [insert general description everyone can see] Character X you also note [historical or arcana context that they may note, if there was a success]). I had a conversation with some of the more experienced players who all attested that in the "rolling a 2" scenario they all would role play the ignorance and find out what the fail earned them or the party. From experience I have trust in those particular players that they would in fact do that (over the summer the whole table wailed "WHY?!?" when a player's character did something incredibly risky and the player responded "character doesn't know I rolled a 4, this is what they'd do not knowing what you folks are unable to warn me about."). However, we also have some very inexperienced and/or just a lot younger players in the group who have trouble with meta/dramatic irony (lessons are a work in progress) so, maybe it's a bit paternalistic (and in one case it literally is); but when I announced the table rule, none of the players protested and frankly I thought it was probably one of our smoothest sessions. I got a big d20 behind the screen and I think my players think I got a rolling fixation, maybe I do, anyway sometimes its rolling for nothing, sometimes it's rolling because there's stuff they may or may not detect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
But now the player knows he/she rolled badly, and still does not trust it. More realistic is an observant and perceptive person who knows they're doing will gain some degree of confidence after checking it. Had they rolled a Nat 20 they would know it is not trapped. Maybe the DM rolls behind the screen and adds the appropriate bonus? The idea has merit, but such a thing is taboo. Here's another one.
A moderately heavy object is in the way, let's say DC level 10 to lift it. The barbarian rolls a 1 and fails, then the wizard rolls a 20 and says, "Ha! Weakling." A comparable thing happening in real life is unrealistic.
What are some game mechanics with skill checks you think are lacking realism, and how do you fix it with house rules?
Your players should roleplay this, let me give you an example from a game I ran
Players see a green gem it is cradled in the hand of a statue. Player checks for traps rolls an 18 and identifies that there is a cantilever system so if the gem is removed something will happen the characters decide to Temple of Doom the thing.
Perception check to gauge the size and weight of the gem - Player rolls a 2 Check to search the cave for a stone that matches the gem based on this, player rolled an 18 So players know there is a trap, they know they have found a stone that matches pretty closely to the perceived size and shape of the gem, but they also know that this is wrong. Second player asks if he can then compare the rock found against the gem, he explains this would make sense because he will be the one actually making the switch, in my head the poor earlier rolls make this a higher DC. I accepted that and let him make a second perception check - rolled a nat 1.
So as far as the characters are concerned if you painted this rock green it would match the gem exactly the players know that the gem is going to trigger whatever the trap is, they are laughing so hard around the table, but also roleplaying it through, so the characters gather around the statue, except for the cleric, which matches how they have been positioning themselves throughout the area they are exploring, cleric player actually checks in with me that this is ok and I agree that he tends to hang back in all situations.
so 6 characters gathered around this statue, rogue makes the dex roll to make the swap
nat 20
I describe how as the Rogue lifts the gem, in that split second she realises that the gem and rock weigh very differently, she doesn't bother putting the rock in place and instead rolls back and away from the statue, which explodes putting 5 of the 6 characters gathered around it unconscious (silly high damage rolls). The rogue avoids the worst of the blast, the cleric at the doorway then starts healing up the part, rogue feeds them healing potions and the party get back up.
The players loved it, that whole segment took longer than it should because of the table banter about the series of dice rolls.
Letting players see and then roleplay poor dice rolls is part of the game, if you do it all in secret it becomes more of a DM vs situation.
This actually came up with the group I'm running last night, or rather we set a table rule for it. Basically henceforth I run passive or make roles on spot checks for them and then blend their successes or failures into my narration of the environment ("You see... [insert general description everyone can see] Character X you also note [historical or arcana context that they may note, if there was a success]). I had a conversation with some of the more experienced players who all attested that in the "rolling a 2" scenario they all would role play the ignorance and find out what the fail earned them or the party. From experience I have trust in those particular players that they would in fact do that (over the summer the whole table wailed "WHY?!?" when a player's character did something incredibly risky and the player responded "character doesn't know I rolled a 4, this is what they'd do not knowing what you folks are unable to warn me about."). However, we also have some very inexperienced and/or just a lot younger players in the group who have trouble with meta/dramatic irony (lessons are a work in progress) so, maybe it's a bit paternalistic (and in one case it literally is); but when I announced the table rule, none of the players protested and frankly I thought it was probably one of our smoothest sessions. I got a big d20 behind the screen and I think my players think I got a rolling fixation, maybe I do, anyway sometimes its rolling for nothing, sometimes it's rolling because there's stuff they may or may not detect.
I will say in doing this you are not helping your younger players. Eventually they will find themselves at a table where the DM does not do this and then find themselves having to re learn a key part of the game, namely that you roleplay to what is described by the DM based on the dice roll, not the dice roll itself.
The main problem is when players are metagaming based on the result of their check, which prompt further actions. How many times do we often see party keep looking because a player rolled low on Perception or Investigation check. Proof is that when it's a high roll and they find nothing, nobody press further. That is the result of metagaming right there.
Where if DM handles knowledge roll internally, whenever he says you see nothing, it cut down metagaming
It depends on the situation but also a low roll does not always mean they don't find a thing, maybe it means it takes them much longer to find that thing.
I will also sometimes allow a second investigation check, so if a player rolls low and has not been assisted then I will let a second player roll as well. The way I RP this is that the second character sees the first is doing a half assed job of looking around the room, maybe they got obsessed with something maybe they are struggling with a part of floor that looks off but they can't work out how or why. The second player rolls and then that may improve things.
But sometimes there are things in a room that I want the party finding regardless, in this case the roll determines only how fast it takes to find, not if they find it or not.
End of the day the roll determines someones ability in that moment at doing a thing, and sometimes it will be obvious to the rest of the party that someone is having an off day and needs a hand at a task.
Searching for traps however, that I will never let a player make a follow up check for, they just take the word of the character that there are no traps to be found, and sometimes there are not.
When you say you ask stealth checks only when there's a chance of detection, you didn't meant you ban it from other situations right? I mean, I never ask that check when I know as DM that it isn't needed. But depending on the narrative, sometimes my playes ask for it. In those cases I make them roll even if there's no detection possible, so they can't know that is safe there and the metagaming don't become a problem.
No i don't ban it what i mean is you generally make a Stealth check when you take the Hide action, where i only require it when it's necessary instead.
I encourage too. I since then also changed how i handle Stealth checks, i now only have the player make a Stealth check when a possibility of detection occur. It avoid unecessary rolls in the event that no one comes across the hidden PC, and it avoid any possible metagaming based on the Stealth check beforehand.
It only prevents metagaming if the result is only valid for that one group of enemies. And if that's the case, rolling every time they come across an enemy makes it increasingly likely they'll fail. Also, if the observer is hidden, asking for the Stealth roll tips the players off, which also results in metagaming.
The result of a Stealth check is valid for as long as they remain hidden. Encountering an hidden observer while also hiding is very rare and may very well tip him off but at some point metagaming is inevitable when you ask player to make checks without apparent reasons but what can he do, at that point, usually a encounters breaks out.
This is poor game play on the players’ part. In our group, if we fail a roll for a skill check, we proceed the same as we would have had we passed the roll because the characters don’t know the difference.
No, it's poor gameplay on the DM's part. If the group values immersion, the easiest and most genuine way to achieve that is to not put players in a position where they have to pretend they don't know something. Even if the players are completely cooperative and want to act in good faith, their behavior has been irrevocably altered. It can even cause them to overcorrect, committing hard to a bad course of action purely to avoid the appearance of metagaming in a situation where they'd be more hesitant if they truly didn't know.
This is such an important concept that the highest standard of evidence in science are experiments where even the investigators are unaware of whether they're administering the placebo or the intervention, because knowing can affect the way you interact with the test subjects in subtle and unconscious ways that biases the test results.
The result of a Stealth check is valid for as long as they remain hidden. Encountering an hidden observer while also hiding is very rare and may very well tip him off but at some point metagaming is inevitable when you ask player to make checks without apparent reasons but what can he do, at that point, usually a encounters breaks out.
Right, which is why I advocate for simply rolling in secret as soon as the group declares stealth. You're not saving time by delaying the roll, and they're going to have even more meta knowledge than if they'd rolled openly up front because they know with 100% certainty the coast was clear up to the point you asked them to roll.
If you roll privately up front they have absolutely 0 meta knowledge until they're discovered or stop being sneaky. They never find out how well they rolled until that info can't affect their outcome, and they don't know when they're overlooking creatures because you're comparing their rolls against passive Perception privately.
The main pushback I get from that approach is that players like knowing how well they did, but that's also easy to solve: just reveal the rolls afterwards.
If out of character knowledge is a problem for you as a DM then try a "Schrodinger's chest" approach. This takes a leaf out of a lot of indie or narrativist games. An ability check becomes a branch in the narrative and the dice roll checks selects which fork of the branch the player goes down.
So before a player rolls for their character to detect traps ask them they do if they: (a) find a trap and (b) don't find a trap. It can be something like "If I find a trap I'll try and disarm it, if I don't find anything then I'll open the chest." Then they roll the dice and see what which branch the story goes down.
The big problem with this is that many players aren't used to this style of play and will whinge like buggery when they roll a 2 on their investigation check and see their character walk into a trap. When they get used to it it can work really well and encourages the players to be a bit more creative than just "I roll for traps" every couple of minutes.
If out of character knowledge is a problem for you as a DM then try a "Schrodinger's chest" approach. This takes a leaf out of a lot of indie or narrativist games. An ability check becomes a branch in the narrative and the dice roll checks selects which fork of the branch the player goes down.
So before a player rolls for their character to detect traps ask them they do if they: (a) find a trap and (b) don't find a trap. It can be something like "If I find a trap I'll try and disarm it, if I don't find anything then I'll open the chest." Then they roll the dice and see what which branch the story goes down.
The big problem with this is that many players aren't used to this style of play and will whinge like buggery when they roll a 2 on their investigation check and see their character walk into a trap. When they get used to it it can work really well and encourages the players to be a bit more creative than just "I roll for traps" every couple of minutes.
I quite like this. Probably not totally applicable in all situations -- fairly often, the nature of the thing you're trying to discover is going to change your response -- but nice for the situations where it does work.
This actually came up with the group I'm running last night, or rather we set a table rule for it. Basically henceforth I run passive or make roles on spot checks for them and then blend their successes or failures into my narration of the environment ("You see... [insert general description everyone can see] Character X you also note [historical or arcana context that they may note, if there was a success]). I had a conversation with some of the more experienced players who all attested that in the "rolling a 2" scenario they all would role play the ignorance and find out what the fail earned them or the party. From experience I have trust in those particular players that they would in fact do that (over the summer the whole table wailed "WHY?!?" when a player's character did something incredibly risky and the player responded "character doesn't know I rolled a 4, this is what they'd do not knowing what you folks are unable to warn me about."). However, we also have some very inexperienced and/or just a lot younger players in the group who have trouble with meta/dramatic irony (lessons are a work in progress) so, maybe it's a bit paternalistic (and in one case it literally is); but when I announced the table rule, none of the players protested and frankly I thought it was probably one of our smoothest sessions. I got a big d20 behind the screen and I think my players think I got a rolling fixation, maybe I do, anyway sometimes its rolling for nothing, sometimes it's rolling because there's stuff they may or may not detect.
I will say in doing this you are not helping your younger players. Eventually they will find themselves at a table where the DM does not do this and then find themselves having to re learn a key part of the game, namely that you roleplay to what is described by the DM based on the dice roll, not the dice roll itself.
You're not wrong; but one step at a time, Scarloc, one step at a time. Most middle schoolers can't define dramatic irony, it's why it actually stresses them to a degree adults don't experience in mature narratives (adults have an appreciation for that narrative sophistication). Hell, from experience, actually it's probably one of the most difficult narrative concept to get into the INT skillsets of college kids, though many are a good ways into developing an appreciative and performance capacity for it in their WIS and CHR brain spaces. If you're saying when you were 12 you "rolled with it" when you rolled a 4, I'm not ceding to your TTRPG black belt but calling bulshido. Starting players are just getting comfortable with the concept of characters getting wounded or dying, and consequent risk aversion. Truly RPing failures and flaws is next level stuff. But my table aren't TTRPG prodigies, they're just having fun, so your experience may differ ;).
On a broader note, it's actually curious that while yes "owning failure" is discussed in more explicitly dramatic/performantive oriented games (a recent Delta Green adventure that's trying to introduce surrealistic play to the game has a great DM PC1 PC2 script where a bad roll is made, but in DG failure is sort of the point) you don't see that in the most elementary or gateway gaming rule set. I can't think of anywhere in a WotC publication where the player is instructed to perform with the level of sophistication you seem to believe is essential to play. And looks like there's a good mix of respondents that definitely place this aspect of the game is the fuzzy space.
This is poor game play on the players’ part. In our group, if we fail a roll for a skill check, we proceed the same as we would have had we passed the roll because the characters don’t know the difference.
No, it's poor gameplay on the DM's part. If the group values immersion, the easiest and most genuine way to achieve that is to not put players in a position where they have to pretend they don't know something.
The only way to make this happen is if the DM rolls all the dice. Or I suppose the DM could have the players throw their dice behind the screen so they do not see the result themselves. If that works for you then kudos but, in my experience, rolling dice, participating in the determination of and acting out the consequences of the result is a thing most players really enjoy. It's a massive part of what gives players a sense of agency and self-determination, and it's a massive part of what makes us feel like we're playing a game with the DM rather than listening to the DM tell us a story.
I personally don't have any interest in the DM rolling the dice for me or hiding the results of dice I have thrown. As well, most DM's have a ton on the go relative to the players without adding the rolling of all the dice to their plate. I suspect these reasons are why, in decades of gaming, I have never seen dice rolling handled in either of these fashions.
This is poor game play on the players’ part. In our group, if we fail a roll for a skill check, we proceed the same as we would have had we passed the roll because the characters don’t know the difference.
No, it's poor gameplay on the DM's part. If the group values immersion, the easiest and most genuine way to achieve that is to not put players in a position where they have to pretend they don't know something.
The only way to make this happen is if the DM rolls all the dice. Or I suppose the DM could have the players throw their dice behind the screen so they do not see the result themselves. If that works for you then kudos but, in my experience, rolling dice, participating in the determination of and acting out the consequences of the result is a thing most players really enjoy. It's a massive part of what gives players a sense of agency and self-determination, and it's a massive part of what makes us feel like we're playing a game with the DM rather than listening to the DM tell us a story.
I personally don't have any interest in the DM rolling the dice for me or hiding the results of dice I have thrown. As well, most DM's have a ton on the go relative to the players without adding the rolling of all the dice to their plate. I suspect these reasons are why, in decades of gaming, I have never seen dice rolling handled in either of these fashions.
Agree here, you are suggesting that the DM do most of the heavy lifting here and slow the game down massively, rolling dice does not stop immersion. Following the rules of a game does not stop immersion, as someone who has LARPD various systems, some of which require you to roll dice to resolve things, that does not stop immersion, 2 players rolling a dice while acting out in real life things they are doing, or playing rock paper scissors, or multiple other methods for determining how you complete combat.
In 25 years of roleplaying dice rolling and roleplaying the ignoring of results does not break immersion and is something that players actively love and enjoy.
Yes, roll behind the screen if it matters for some checks like Insight, Perception, Investigation, Deception, Stealth, Con saves, where the PC might not know if they succeeded or failed. Other checks like Athletics, Dex saves, Persuasion, you're most likely to know immediately if you succeed.
For more consistent results without wild swings of ability, roll 2d10 instead of 1d20. Average is the same, but the odds of rolling 20 on 2d10 is 1/100 vs. 1/20 on 1d20, and the odds of rolling 2 on 2d10 is also 1/100 vs. 1/20. Values near the mean are more common, up to 1/10 to roll 11.
Now that I've given my tips for how to do what you want: here's why you maybe shouldn't. Your ideas might make the game more realistic, but less exciting.
Players like to roll dice. If you roll for them behind the screen, you're taking that away from them. Is it worth it, for the rare occasion when they might meta-game cautiousness after a low Perception check?
Wild swings of fate make the narrative more dynamic. Unpredictable dice keep the DM on their toes. They have to improvise outcomes of unpredictable events instead of lay down a railroad track of scripted plots.
Then again, if your style of play is more pre-scripted (which is a valid style of play), then using 2d10 can be better suited. You can always still make it unpredictable by making the DC close to 10 + players' modifiers. Then it will still be a 50/50 shot. But in other cases you can make the roll pretty predictable by making the DC a few points higher or lower than 10 + modifier.
Lots of great ideas here, guys! I personally like the suggestion of letting them roll, but just at session 0 formulate an agreement about metagaming. That may even increase the fun and the tension.
Player "I check the chest for traps"
Rolls a 1
"Oh, crap. Finding no traps my character attempts to open the chest. Yikes!"
This actually came up with the group I'm running last night, or rather we set a table rule for it. Basically henceforth I run passive or make roles on spot checks for them and then blend their successes or failures into my narration of the environment ("You see... [insert general description everyone can see] Character X you also note [historical or arcana context that they may note, if there was a success]). I had a conversation with some of the more experienced players who all attested that in the "rolling a 2" scenario they all would role play the ignorance and find out what the fail earned them or the party. From experience I have trust in those particular players that they would in fact do that (over the summer the whole table wailed "WHY?!?" when a player's character did something incredibly risky and the player responded "character doesn't know I rolled a 4, this is what they'd do not knowing what you folks are unable to warn me about."). However, we also have some very inexperienced and/or just a lot younger players in the group who have trouble with meta/dramatic irony (lessons are a work in progress) so, maybe it's a bit paternalistic (and in one case it literally is); but when I announced the table rule, none of the players protested and frankly I thought it was probably one of our smoothest sessions. I got a big d20 behind the screen and I think my players think I got a rolling fixation, maybe I do, anyway sometimes its rolling for nothing, sometimes it's rolling because there's stuff they may or may not detect.
I will say in doing this you are not helping your younger players. Eventually they will find themselves at a table where the DM does not do this and then find themselves having to re learn a key part of the game, namely that you roleplay to what is described by the DM based on the dice roll, not the dice roll itself.
You're not wrong; but one step at a time, Scarloc, one step at a time. Most middle schoolers can't define dramatic irony, it's why it actually stresses them to a degree adults don't experience in mature narratives (adults have an appreciation for that narrative sophistication). Hell, from experience, actually it's probably one of the most difficult narrative concept to get into the INT skillsets of college kids, though many are a good ways into developing an appreciative and performance capacity for it in their WIS and CHR brain spaces. If you're saying when you were 12 you "rolled with it" when you rolled a 4, I'm not ceding to your TTRPG black belt but calling bulshido. Starting players are just getting comfortable with the concept of characters getting wounded or dying, and consequent risk aversion. Truly RPing failures and flaws is next level stuff. But my table aren't TTRPG prodigies, they're just having fun, so your experience may differ ;).
On a broader note, it's actually curious that while yes "owning failure" is discussed in more explicitly dramatic/performantive oriented games (a recent Delta Green adventure that's trying to introduce surrealistic play to the game has a great DM PC1 PC2 script where a bad roll is made, but in DG failure is sort of the point) you don't see that in the most elementary or gateway gaming rule set. I can't think of anywhere in a WotC publication where the player is instructed to perform with the level of sophistication you seem to believe is essential to play. And looks like there's a good mix of respondents that definitely place this aspect of the game is the fuzzy space.
I’m not saying your approach is wrong, as a way to get them into the game it is a valid approach for young players, was just pointing out that at some point your aim should be to coach them to role play the narriative not the dice roll.
Trying to think back when I started playing we where all the same age, 13, and we started with legend of the 5 rings and then moved to cyberpunk and warhammer fantasy role play. From memory we didn’t really roleplay, just hit stuff and searched for stuff but I think we where ok at not acting on the dice rolls. Although with those systems we where more fixated on just not dying, all 3 systems can be very very brutal especially L5R which we tried to roleplay accurately and generally found one of us committing seppuku every month or so of game time, when you are having to kill your own character off through ritual suicide as a key mechanic of the system you tend to get good at what little roleplay you do being in a way that doesn’t cause offense to the NPCs around you.
There are tips for this in the DMG in the Chapter 8, heading "Multiple Ability Checks". In the text below I present my own recommendations based on the recommendations in the DMG and XGtE
Case 1: The check is repeatable and there are no time constraints
You don't need to ask for a roll. Just let them succeed automatically. If your player says "I check the chest for traps" you can just say "You took your time and searched every inch of the chest, and you didn't find any traps". Now the player knows that either there is no trap, or it's so well hidden that it's impossible for them to find (using conventional methods).
Case 2: The check is not repeatable
Checking for traps and missing it could lead to triggering a trap. If your player checks a room for trip-wires... and misses one... guess what happens? They trip over the trip-wire they missed, and trigger the trap. If they try to lift a boulder and fail the roll, maybe they lift it of the ground a bit, drop it, and it collapses the ground beneath it, revealing a tunnel. Or it rolls off uncontrollably and damages something they didn't mean to damage. If they check a chest for traps, you might ask them "How do you do that?". If they pick it up and turn it around, and they fail the roll, maybe they trigger a trap that is triggered by touch. In any of these cases, the player can't try to roll a second time. The first failure already had consequences.
Or it could even be that the failed check still leads to success. That can lead to some funny moments. Recently, my players were visiting a camp where the people were really friendly. My up-to-no-good players, however, snuck out of their tents at night and tried to stealth through the camp to spy on someone. I made them to a single stealth check to see if they could sneak past the other tents and they failed. They already expected a commotion, but all that happened was that someone looked out of their tent and told them not to make such a racket. They had a good laugh as they realized there was no need to sneak... since the people in the camp didn't find them suspicious in the first place.
Case 3: The check is repeatable, but there are time constraints
Each attempt will take a certain amount of time. You can even ask them how they want to attempt it. Looking for something specific (e.g. tripwires across the hallway) it won't take too much time. If they look for something generic (e.g. "I look for traps") it might take a long time. If your players say "I check the chest for traps" you might say "It will take 5 minutes to do a quick check for all kinds of traps". The player rolls a 2. They didn't find a trap but they are also not confident with the result. You offer. "You can spend another 5 minutes to keep looking". The player needs to weigh risk and reward. Or you can say "You can take 50 minutes to check the chest thoroughly" and if they choose to do so, you also don't need to ask for a roll. It will play as if they rolled a 20.
In dungeons you often have "wandering monsters", and with every hour your players spend in the dungeon there is a 1/6 chance a wandering monster will bump into them and a fight starts. So if my players check every little thing and every room for traps, and choose to repeat those checks whenever possible, that time adds up and will inevitably lead to random encounters with wandering monsters. If they are in a city and try to loot someone's stash, taking 50min to check a chest for traps could also lead to someone walking in on them, which could lead to an awkward situation.
This is poor game play on the players’ part. In our group, if we fail a roll for a skill check, we proceed the same as we would have had we passed the roll because the characters don’t know the difference. If we fail a perception check, we move on as if there was nothing to find, if we fail a stealth check, we keep skulking about as if we are ninjas even though we’re going to be detected and so on. As a player you go “ah crap, I rolled a 2 to find the trap” and then have your character set off the trap. Anything else is tantamount to cheating and should not be allowed by the DM.
The mechanic of failing forward can be used on any die roll. We use it at my table frequently. Especially when the Barbarian fails an Athletics check and falls off the boat.
The continued advertisement of a Nat anything on a skill check or save being automatic success/fail is A) Not RAW, which would mean that it in itself is homebrew, and B) unrealistic to the point of breaking the suspension of disbelief. I don't fix house rules with more house rules, I stop using the bunk rule. (see: Rolling a 1 or 20)
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
This actually came up with the group I'm running last night, or rather we set a table rule for it. Basically henceforth I run passive or make roles on spot checks for them and then blend their successes or failures into my narration of the environment ("You see... [insert general description everyone can see] Character X you also note [historical or arcana context that they may note, if there was a success]). I had a conversation with some of the more experienced players who all attested that in the "rolling a 2" scenario they all would role play the ignorance and find out what the fail earned them or the party. From experience I have trust in those particular players that they would in fact do that (over the summer the whole table wailed "WHY?!?" when a player's character did something incredibly risky and the player responded "character doesn't know I rolled a 4, this is what they'd do not knowing what you folks are unable to warn me about."). However, we also have some very inexperienced and/or just a lot younger players in the group who have trouble with meta/dramatic irony (lessons are a work in progress) so, maybe it's a bit paternalistic (and in one case it literally is); but when I announced the table rule, none of the players protested and frankly I thought it was probably one of our smoothest sessions. I got a big d20 behind the screen and I think my players think I got a rolling fixation, maybe I do, anyway sometimes its rolling for nothing, sometimes it's rolling because there's stuff they may or may not detect.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Your players should roleplay this, let me give you an example from a game I ran
Players see a green gem it is cradled in the hand of a statue. Player checks for traps rolls an 18 and identifies that there is a cantilever system so if the gem is removed something will happen the characters decide to Temple of Doom the thing.
Perception check to gauge the size and weight of the gem - Player rolls a 2
Check to search the cave for a stone that matches the gem based on this, player rolled an 18
So players know there is a trap, they know they have found a stone that matches pretty closely to the perceived size and shape of the gem, but they also know that this is wrong.
Second player asks if he can then compare the rock found against the gem, he explains this would make sense because he will be the one actually making the switch, in my head the poor earlier rolls make this a higher DC. I accepted that and let him make a second perception check - rolled a nat 1.
So as far as the characters are concerned if you painted this rock green it would match the gem exactly the players know that the gem is going to trigger whatever the trap is, they are laughing so hard around the table, but also roleplaying it through, so the characters gather around the statue, except for the cleric, which matches how they have been positioning themselves throughout the area they are exploring, cleric player actually checks in with me that this is ok and I agree that he tends to hang back in all situations.
so 6 characters gathered around this statue, rogue makes the dex roll to make the swap
nat 20
I describe how as the Rogue lifts the gem, in that split second she realises that the gem and rock weigh very differently, she doesn't bother putting the rock in place and instead rolls back and away from the statue, which explodes putting 5 of the 6 characters gathered around it unconscious (silly high damage rolls). The rogue avoids the worst of the blast, the cleric at the doorway then starts healing up the part, rogue feeds them healing potions and the party get back up.
The players loved it, that whole segment took longer than it should because of the table banter about the series of dice rolls.
Letting players see and then roleplay poor dice rolls is part of the game, if you do it all in secret it becomes more of a DM vs situation.
I will say in doing this you are not helping your younger players. Eventually they will find themselves at a table where the DM does not do this and then find themselves having to re learn a key part of the game, namely that you roleplay to what is described by the DM based on the dice roll, not the dice roll itself.
It depends on the situation but also a low roll does not always mean they don't find a thing, maybe it means it takes them much longer to find that thing.
I will also sometimes allow a second investigation check, so if a player rolls low and has not been assisted then I will let a second player roll as well. The way I RP this is that the second character sees the first is doing a half assed job of looking around the room, maybe they got obsessed with something maybe they are struggling with a part of floor that looks off but they can't work out how or why. The second player rolls and then that may improve things.
But sometimes there are things in a room that I want the party finding regardless, in this case the roll determines only how fast it takes to find, not if they find it or not.
End of the day the roll determines someones ability in that moment at doing a thing, and sometimes it will be obvious to the rest of the party that someone is having an off day and needs a hand at a task.
Searching for traps however, that I will never let a player make a follow up check for, they just take the word of the character that there are no traps to be found, and sometimes there are not.
No i don't ban it what i mean is you generally make a Stealth check when you take the Hide action, where i only require it when it's necessary instead.
The result of a Stealth check is valid for as long as they remain hidden. Encountering an hidden observer while also hiding is very rare and may very well tip him off but at some point metagaming is inevitable when you ask player to make checks without apparent reasons but what can he do, at that point, usually a encounters breaks out.
No, it's poor gameplay on the DM's part. If the group values immersion, the easiest and most genuine way to achieve that is to not put players in a position where they have to pretend they don't know something. Even if the players are completely cooperative and want to act in good faith, their behavior has been irrevocably altered. It can even cause them to overcorrect, committing hard to a bad course of action purely to avoid the appearance of metagaming in a situation where they'd be more hesitant if they truly didn't know.
This is such an important concept that the highest standard of evidence in science are experiments where even the investigators are unaware of whether they're administering the placebo or the intervention, because knowing can affect the way you interact with the test subjects in subtle and unconscious ways that biases the test results.
Right, which is why I advocate for simply rolling in secret as soon as the group declares stealth. You're not saving time by delaying the roll, and they're going to have even more meta knowledge than if they'd rolled openly up front because they know with 100% certainty the coast was clear up to the point you asked them to roll.
If you roll privately up front they have absolutely 0 meta knowledge until they're discovered or stop being sneaky. They never find out how well they rolled until that info can't affect their outcome, and they don't know when they're overlooking creatures because you're comparing their rolls against passive Perception privately.
The main pushback I get from that approach is that players like knowing how well they did, but that's also easy to solve: just reveal the rolls afterwards.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
If out of character knowledge is a problem for you as a DM then try a "Schrodinger's chest" approach. This takes a leaf out of a lot of indie or narrativist games. An ability check becomes a branch in the narrative and the dice roll checks selects which fork of the branch the player goes down.
So before a player rolls for their character to detect traps ask them they do if they: (a) find a trap and (b) don't find a trap. It can be something like "If I find a trap I'll try and disarm it, if I don't find anything then I'll open the chest." Then they roll the dice and see what which branch the story goes down.
The big problem with this is that many players aren't used to this style of play and will whinge like buggery when they roll a 2 on their investigation check and see their character walk into a trap. When they get used to it it can work really well and encourages the players to be a bit more creative than just "I roll for traps" every couple of minutes.
I quite like this. Probably not totally applicable in all situations -- fairly often, the nature of the thing you're trying to discover is going to change your response -- but nice for the situations where it does work.
You're not wrong; but one step at a time, Scarloc, one step at a time. Most middle schoolers can't define dramatic irony, it's why it actually stresses them to a degree adults don't experience in mature narratives (adults have an appreciation for that narrative sophistication). Hell, from experience, actually it's probably one of the most difficult narrative concept to get into the INT skillsets of college kids, though many are a good ways into developing an appreciative and performance capacity for it in their WIS and CHR brain spaces. If you're saying when you were 12 you "rolled with it" when you rolled a 4, I'm not ceding to your TTRPG black belt but calling bulshido. Starting players are just getting comfortable with the concept of characters getting wounded or dying, and consequent risk aversion. Truly RPing failures and flaws is next level stuff. But my table aren't TTRPG prodigies, they're just having fun, so your experience may differ ;).
On a broader note, it's actually curious that while yes "owning failure" is discussed in more explicitly dramatic/performantive oriented games (a recent Delta Green adventure that's trying to introduce surrealistic play to the game has a great DM PC1 PC2 script where a bad roll is made, but in DG failure is sort of the point) you don't see that in the most elementary or gateway gaming rule set. I can't think of anywhere in a WotC publication where the player is instructed to perform with the level of sophistication you seem to believe is essential to play. And looks like there's a good mix of respondents that definitely place this aspect of the game is the fuzzy space.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The only way to make this happen is if the DM rolls all the dice. Or I suppose the DM could have the players throw their dice behind the screen so they do not see the result themselves. If that works for you then kudos but, in my experience, rolling dice, participating in the determination of and acting out the consequences of the result is a thing most players really enjoy. It's a massive part of what gives players a sense of agency and self-determination, and it's a massive part of what makes us feel like we're playing a game with the DM rather than listening to the DM tell us a story.
I personally don't have any interest in the DM rolling the dice for me or hiding the results of dice I have thrown. As well, most DM's have a ton on the go relative to the players without adding the rolling of all the dice to their plate. I suspect these reasons are why, in decades of gaming, I have never seen dice rolling handled in either of these fashions.
Agree here, you are suggesting that the DM do most of the heavy lifting here and slow the game down massively, rolling dice does not stop immersion. Following the rules of a game does not stop immersion, as someone who has LARPD various systems, some of which require you to roll dice to resolve things, that does not stop immersion, 2 players rolling a dice while acting out in real life things they are doing, or playing rock paper scissors, or multiple other methods for determining how you complete combat.
In 25 years of roleplaying dice rolling and roleplaying the ignoring of results does not break immersion and is something that players actively love and enjoy.
Yes, roll behind the screen if it matters for some checks like Insight, Perception, Investigation, Deception, Stealth, Con saves, where the PC might not know if they succeeded or failed. Other checks like Athletics, Dex saves, Persuasion, you're most likely to know immediately if you succeed.
For more consistent results without wild swings of ability, roll 2d10 instead of 1d20. Average is the same, but the odds of rolling 20 on 2d10 is 1/100 vs. 1/20 on 1d20, and the odds of rolling 2 on 2d10 is also 1/100 vs. 1/20. Values near the mean are more common, up to 1/10 to roll 11.
Now that I've given my tips for how to do what you want: here's why you maybe shouldn't. Your ideas might make the game more realistic, but less exciting.
Players like to roll dice. If you roll for them behind the screen, you're taking that away from them. Is it worth it, for the rare occasion when they might meta-game cautiousness after a low Perception check?
Wild swings of fate make the narrative more dynamic. Unpredictable dice keep the DM on their toes. They have to improvise outcomes of unpredictable events instead of lay down a railroad track of scripted plots.
Then again, if your style of play is more pre-scripted (which is a valid style of play), then using 2d10 can be better suited. You can always still make it unpredictable by making the DC close to 10 + players' modifiers. Then it will still be a 50/50 shot. But in other cases you can make the roll pretty predictable by making the DC a few points higher or lower than 10 + modifier.
Lots of great ideas here, guys! I personally like the suggestion of letting them roll, but just at session 0 formulate an agreement about metagaming. That may even increase the fun and the tension.
Player "I check the chest for traps"
Rolls a 1
"Oh, crap. Finding no traps my character attempts to open the chest. Yikes!"
I’m not saying your approach is wrong, as a way to get them into the game it is a valid approach for young players, was just pointing out that at some point your aim should be to coach them to role play the narriative not the dice roll.
Trying to think back when I started playing we where all the same age, 13, and we started with legend of the 5 rings and then moved to cyberpunk and warhammer fantasy role play. From memory we didn’t really roleplay, just hit stuff and searched for stuff but I think we where ok at not acting on the dice rolls. Although with those systems we where more fixated on just not dying, all 3 systems can be very very brutal especially L5R which we tried to roleplay accurately and generally found one of us committing seppuku every month or so of game time, when you are having to kill your own character off through ritual suicide as a key mechanic of the system you tend to get good at what little roleplay you do being in a way that doesn’t cause offense to the NPCs around you.
There are tips for this in the DMG in the Chapter 8, heading "Multiple Ability Checks". In the text below I present my own recommendations based on the recommendations in the DMG and XGtE
Case 1: The check is repeatable and there are no time constraints
You don't need to ask for a roll. Just let them succeed automatically. If your player says "I check the chest for traps" you can just say "You took your time and searched every inch of the chest, and you didn't find any traps". Now the player knows that either there is no trap, or it's so well hidden that it's impossible for them to find (using conventional methods).
Case 2: The check is not repeatable
Checking for traps and missing it could lead to triggering a trap. If your player checks a room for trip-wires... and misses one... guess what happens? They trip over the trip-wire they missed, and trigger the trap. If they try to lift a boulder and fail the roll, maybe they lift it of the ground a bit, drop it, and it collapses the ground beneath it, revealing a tunnel. Or it rolls off uncontrollably and damages something they didn't mean to damage. If they check a chest for traps, you might ask them "How do you do that?". If they pick it up and turn it around, and they fail the roll, maybe they trigger a trap that is triggered by touch. In any of these cases, the player can't try to roll a second time. The first failure already had consequences.
Or it could even be that the failed check still leads to success. That can lead to some funny moments. Recently, my players were visiting a camp where the people were really friendly. My up-to-no-good players, however, snuck out of their tents at night and tried to stealth through the camp to spy on someone. I made them to a single stealth check to see if they could sneak past the other tents and they failed. They already expected a commotion, but all that happened was that someone looked out of their tent and told them not to make such a racket. They had a good laugh as they realized there was no need to sneak... since the people in the camp didn't find them suspicious in the first place.
Case 3: The check is repeatable, but there are time constraints
Each attempt will take a certain amount of time. You can even ask them how they want to attempt it. Looking for something specific (e.g. tripwires across the hallway) it won't take too much time. If they look for something generic (e.g. "I look for traps") it might take a long time. If your players say "I check the chest for traps" you might say "It will take 5 minutes to do a quick check for all kinds of traps". The player rolls a 2. They didn't find a trap but they are also not confident with the result. You offer. "You can spend another 5 minutes to keep looking". The player needs to weigh risk and reward. Or you can say "You can take 50 minutes to check the chest thoroughly" and if they choose to do so, you also don't need to ask for a roll. It will play as if they rolled a 20.
In dungeons you often have "wandering monsters", and with every hour your players spend in the dungeon there is a 1/6 chance a wandering monster will bump into them and a fight starts. So if my players check every little thing and every room for traps, and choose to repeat those checks whenever possible, that time adds up and will inevitably lead to random encounters with wandering monsters. If they are in a city and try to loot someone's stash, taking 50min to check a chest for traps could also lead to someone walking in on them, which could lead to an awkward situation.