So the DM asks me to roll a d20. I as the player then ask, What is the roll for? On page 174 of the phb it talks about ability checks. 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. 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?
Is the player allowed to ask the Dm what the roll is for, before rolling the d20?
Are there any pages in any books that better explain when a player is allowed to ask," Why am I rolling this dice?"  and a proper response from the DM to better explain to the player other than, "Because I said so"

So, did the session just end at that point or something? Or did you make the roll and there was no outcome? And was there nothing leading up to this instruction to roll a d20? Your character didn't do anything that could have warranted a roll? I'm a little confused by this apparent lack of context that could give us/you a clue about the reason behind it.

Okay Pangurjan thanks for the questions.  This question has come up a lot during the campaign by the DM I am playing with.  During the gaming session our DM will ask certain players to give him a flat d20 roll.  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.  That's when I ask the DM is this dice roll for an Ability check or a Skill check.  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. Thats when I say as a player that we need to know this information so that we can add our own numbers from our character sheet into the dice roll.

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.  

In my games I always have access to my players sheets for these exact reasons.  If I have rogues sneaking up on my players I have them roll a d20 so I cna figure their perception check without saying roll a perception check.  Cause if I do this they may be on more alert.  SOmetimes I just have them roll to make them THINK something may be happen when it is a bluff roll (no purpose).  Or sometimes that d20 is a % roll to determine random encounters or event triggers.

So many reasons I use d20 rolls for in my campaigns.  My players have grown to expect them and just roll with them.

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.

There are a lot of reasons why DMs may need player's to roll but keep it secret why. For example, perhaps they want you to roll Insight, without telling you. Perhaps Perception. Maybe an evil mage is Scrying on you and rather than make you roll actual wisdom saves and keying you in - he might want to keep it secret so have you roll the d20, but uses your stats to add the bonus to get the result.

This is preferable to fully secret rolls because if sometimes if a DM just says "you failed to notice the assassin, you have been stabbed for critical sneak attack" just outta nowhere - because if they say "hey I should have rolled" -- well, in this case the DM can now say "you did, you rolled (you roll) which with your perception wasn't enough". 

It reduces the metagame for a more immersive world. So, sometimes, yes, rolls like these do happen, often for the better. It's very common.

It does happen a lot, and it can be fun as a way to stop meta-gaming, or guidance-spamming clerics. I’d be willing to bet that sometimes, the rolls are even just a bluff to keep you on your toes. 
The one issue I’d consider bringing up is there are many powers in the game that allow for rerolls or otherwise muck around with the die mechanics. Portent, lucky feat, flash of genius, I’m sure there’s more. You might want to clarify with the DM how those powers would interact with the mystery rolls before it happens in game, so people don’t feel robbed of their abilities. 

Not only doesn't the DM have to tell you why you're rolling, but technically the DM doesn't even have to call for a roll. Although I do not do this, the rules and RPG tradition have always allowed for the DM to make a secret roll on the player's behalf. If a DM has a good reason, say, avoiding spoilers for you or the rest of the table, not to let you know your character is "making a roll," the DM is well within his or her rights to roll behind the screen, not even tell you what they are doing, and add up your bonuses on their own, and decide the result.

In fact, there is a whole form of playing D&D, which my friends and I used to call the "Limited Information Campaign," in which the players never roll anything. The DM does all rolls, and simply describes the result. Not everyone likes this, but it is a very immersive way to do roleplaying.

So, the DM is 100% within their rights to do this. 

The dice are a tool

A d20 roll, adding Perception, is a tool used to determine if someone or something noticed something else.

A d20 roll, adding proficiency bonus and str/dex, is a tool to determine if someone or something hit something else.

A d4 roll, for whatever reason the DM decides (and does or doesn't share) is a tool to determine something that you may not know about. The reason and outcome never needs to be discussed or shared by the DM. That's why they're the DM.

Normally yes, the DM would tell you what the roll is for, but this situation to me seems like either your DM is power tripping (not likely lol) or just is something your character probably doesn't know about, like either for a passive skill check or for something that may happen to you in the future. For example, my DM made me roll randomly, and it turned out he was seeing of my Warlock patron would guide me since my party was helplessly lost in trying to find an item. Dungeon Masters are strange sometimes, I wouldn't worry too much. (On the note of there being a rule against secret rolls, the DM can literally do whatever they want. They are a god at their table.)

From your description, it sounds like your DM is not bothering to consider what types of ability checks are or aren't appropriate to the situation -- he's just thinking, "high roll = yes, low roll = no." The most basic distillation of the game, haha. I have done this before, I'm sure we all have, but I think it's a bad habit. (Does the store have any magic weapons? Roll a d20, let's see if it's a high roll. Can you get that cat to come down from the tree? Roll a d20, let's see if it's a high roll.) The reason it's bad to do this is basically that it ignores all modifiers and bonuses. (I have a +10 to Animal Handling, I should succeed on a roll of around 5!) Plus there are some things that don't really need to be left to chance. (This is a travel goods store, they don't have any magic weapons.) As you've noted.

So you're correct to be irritated, but I guess he's within his rights to do it, because the DM can basically do anything and not be breaking the rules... *If* everyone's having fun. It's one of those situations where you gotta try and discuss it outside of the game. So good luck.

A DM can ask for a "blind roll" for a number of reasons.  The DM may want to "surprise" the players with the fall out of a random moment after the dice have resolved everything, so they just collectively takes the groups d20s, does their math and then narrates the outcome.  Some players find this intolerable, some don't.  I feel it's valid if used sparingly.  Other times, the DM will actually have the rolls made for random effects and the DM likes the idea of the player doing the rolls.  That's fair too.

Saying roll d20, and then after the fact find out it was a STR or a deception check sounds, and I don't use this term lightly or often, plain bad DMing.  Deception is an act a character is well aware they're doing.  I can't think of STR check that would be required where the player wouldn't know the context.  I've seen kids, like only kids, sort of play this way and it's more a poor understanding of the rules.  

So what you use as an example, this sounds like bad gaming.  That said, rolls where you're not aware of what you're rolling for are thing that can happen in a game, but it's best to use them sparingly in pretty much all situations except when a DM is intentionally trying to create a paranoid environment (sometimes that's a cool thing to do, often its the DM being a bully).  

From your depiction, it seems like your DM isn't trying to think about what kinds of capacity checks are or alternately aren't suitable to the circumstance - he's simply thinking, "high roll = indeed, low roll = no." The most essential refining of the game, haha. I have done this previously, I'm certain we as a whole have, however I believe it's a negative propensity. (Does the store have any wizardry weapons? Roll a d20, how about we check whether it's a high roll. Would you be able to get that feline to descended from the tree? Roll a d20, how about we check whether it's a high roll.) The explanation it's terrible to do this is fundamentally that it overlooks all modifiers and rewards. (I have a +10 to Animal Handling, I ought to prevail on a roll of around 5!) Plus there are a few things that don't actually should be passed on to risk. (This is a movement products store, they don't have any wizardry weapons.) As you've noted.

So you're right to be aggravated, however I suppose he's inside his privileges to do it, on the grounds that the DM can essentially do anything and not be disrupting the guidelines... *If* everybody's having a great time. It's one of those circumstances where you gotta attempt to talk about it outside of the game. So amazing good fortune.

Quote from pemad79153 >>

From your depiction, it seems like your DM isn't trying to think about what kinds of capacity checks are or alternately aren't suitable to the circumstance - he's simply thinking, "high roll = indeed, low roll = no." The most essential refining of the game, haha. I have done this previously, I'm certain we as a whole have, however I believe it's a negative propensity. (Does the store have any wizardry weapons? Roll a d20, how about we check whether it's a high roll. Would you be able to get that feline to descended from the tree? Roll a d20, how about we check whether it's a high roll.) The explanation it's terrible to do this is fundamentally that it overlooks all modifiers and rewards. (I have a +10 to Animal Handling, I ought to prevail on a roll of around 5!) Plus there are a few things that don't actually should be passed on to risk. (This is a movement products store, they don't have any wizardry weapons.) As you've noted.

So you're right to be aggravated, however I suppose he's inside his privileges to do it, on the grounds that the DM can essentially do anything and not be disrupting the guidelines... *If* everybody's having a great time. It's one of those circumstances where you gotta attempt to talk about it outside of the game. So amazing good fortune.

 Excuse me?

Quote from MusicScout >>

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.

 

Interesting, does that go both ways than? you tell em to  make a con save and they roll and don't tell you the results? Your monsters / npcs wouldn't know either.

Seems only fair if your gonna put them into situations where they could be concentrating on a spell that did nothing

Quote from Winterdale81 >>

Quote from MusicScout >>

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.

 

 

Interesting, does that go both ways than? you tell em to  make a con save and they roll and don't tell you the results? Your monsters / npcs wouldn't know either.

 I know when I play, everyone's completely in the dark. I tell the DM to roll as many d20s as there are monsters affected, then I have a third party look up the monsters' stats (by hacking his computer, because he may have written custom stats), and the third party applies the modifiers themselves. They secretly record which ones failed but don't tell me. They also track every character's hit points in secret, and roll every source of damage privately. If I'm upcasting a spell for extra damage, I send the third party a text message so the DM doesn't know. But they don't usually get it because they have to keep their phone on silent, to make sure nobody notices they're getting messages.

Seriously though, I think altering your rules to prevent or counteract metagaming is representative of an entirely busted outlook. If you can't trust your players to play in good faith, no amount of house rules is going to fix that.

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.
• An NPC is casting scrying 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.

Quote from DISKO_COOKIE >>

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. 

Quote from DISKO_COOKIE >>

  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.

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'm going to respond with the premise that the DM knows what they're doing and is doing a good job. That doesn't mean that's the case, but I'll talk about that case after.

Now, I would do it somewhat differently, but I can see why he might be doing it. Let's say your party is going through a dungeon where there are a lot of different rooms and hidden traps are in some of them.

So, when a party enters a room, he needs to know if you perceive a trap. Now, he could tell you to roll a perception check, but then you know that *something* is there, and it's likely to be a danger of some stealthy kind. That's something your character (assuming you fail) would be oblivious to. Wouldn't it be tempting to arrange your party in a manner to minimise the bad effect of of surprise? Or to check the room more thoroughly? Or if they don't have to roll, to act confidently? Even if the party doesn't metagame, it will inherently affect the ambience and distract a little from immersion. It's not ideal. So he has a few options:

1. He can do it by fiat, just tell you that you notice something or not. That kind of defeats the point of using D&D framework - the idea is that you're relying on something other than "the DM wants this to happen" in order to create spontaneous events.

2. He can have you roll at every room. You'd soon learn that it means nothing and think nothing of it, but that brings the dice to the front of the mind, when ideally the dice are an aid to the storytelling. They also don't allow much for a difference between "You're entering a room" and "You're entering a room but with care and active looking".

3. He can just have a single roll for the whole dungeon. I don't like this because people's attention doesn't remain constant, it goes up and down. Also, it doesn't account for luck - that a certain harambee might just happen to be looking at the exact right spot to the right to notice a giveaway. Or everyone just happens to be looking to the left and so no one sees anything.

4. He can have you do blind rolls, like it sounds like he's doing. You don't know what you're rolling for, so the metagame is minimised.

Personally, if it's passive and the character wouldn't know if it failed, I'll just roll for them. Since they can't see what dice I'm using and may not even pick up on what I'm doing, the immersion is hopefully maintained. I could be doing a perception check, or I could be deciding the contents of the room, or doing a form of countdown, or there could be someone pursuing them or tracking them...the options are endless, so the brains realise it's pointless guessing and they get back to immersion instead. That's my theory at least.

If they mention that they are actively looking in someway (eg "I open the door and have a look around the room") or they're about to find out the result regardless (someone mentioned earlier doing a perception check for an assassin about to strike, the players are about to find out regardless so no need to stop metagaming or encourage immersion), then they roll. It also provides a difference between a person just walking through and a person consciously looking out for things - you're generally not particularly aware that you're not looking properly if you're not consciously pushing yourself to be aware.

-

Now, it's possible that he's going for 3 while letting you do your rolls. Him saying it's a strength save might be just trying to throw you off. If you were to ask me about my rolls, I'd say something along the lines of "it's to help me as DM to know how to proceed with the story, just worry about what your character would do in the situation I'm presenting you". My.advice to you is to be careful about poking the curtain - it can make the game worse for you.

---‐-----‐--------------

Alternatively, he could just be really confused. If he's genuinely doing strength checks, both the player and the character should know what it is that they are using their strength on. I can't remember the last time that I put my back into something without even noticing that it was there! Same with dexterity - you don't dodge something without realising that *something* is there. If he's genuinely doing those checks, then you should be being told *something*. He needs to realise that those kinds of checks *really should* be done by the players and included in the narrative.

--------------------

The challenge here is knowing what's really happening. Is he making mistakes as a DM that need to be corrected? Or are you one of those people who try to poke around that curtain that hides the "magician" and threatens to break the immersion? The DM would probably say the latter while you'd probably say the former. In reality, though? I can't say.

Since it seems to bug you, have a chat with him in private. Ask him about all those checks. If they really are dexterity checks or whatever, then explain that anything that would involve your agency should be done with your knowledge. Your character wouldn't dodge a trap and never realise it (short if some really odd mechanics being in play - for example, perhaps a demon that attacks you but his magic makes you forget him the instant you stop looking at him?). Normally, only passive actions should be "mysterious" and therefore done blindly.

On the other hand, if it turns out that he's doing passive perception checks or other "behind the curtain" things where he's trying to maintain immersion, then realise that he's the DM, not you, and let him get on with the game. It's entirely possible that he just doesn't have the confidence to gently remind you of your role as a player and not DM. Football isn't fun when players question every single decision that the ref makes and make a big fuss of it, nor is it fun for the DM or players when someone keeps questioning the actions of the DM rather than playing the game.

I don't know which is the case. Just be polite and helpful, rather than confrontational. Let it be a learning experience for the both of you.