Recently I joined a D&D campaign on VTT Foundry in which the Dungeon Master has some interesting table rolls. I played three games with them so far and was alerted to this particular roll, which originally had intrigued me, and I wanted to see how it worked. Well, if you've read the title, y'know what it is. This DM hides all player rolls, literally everything. The players don't even see their dice.
I joined this campaign as an Eldritch Knight and as mentioned played three games. First two games I played with them were fine, as they were all purely RP and no combat. Skill checks, including saves, were hidden from us but overall didn't seem too bad. Not knowing if you succeeded chugging some alcohol and such does build some great suspense. That is, however, I experienced combat for the first time.
You see, I don't like to think myself a power gamer, but I at least like to build characters that can at least hold up their own, while backing it up with good RP. The problem is, playing a fighter as well as an EK requires the player to know certain rolls to play their class effectively. Such as target AC as well as attack rolls that hit them so that we can cast shield to help avoid damage.
Of course, I'm not leaning over and peering at the DMs sheet to see stat blocks or searching up said monsters. Being a DM myself I know that's shitty. Instead, I would gauge the monster/humanoid based on how they look or their armor and my attack misses\hits to determine AC. I would do this because I'm a great weapons fighter and I always take great weapon mastery which does a -5 to my rolls but on hit does a flat +10 damage. It's great for when I'm flanking or if the creature has a low AC. Instead, the DM doesn't tell us anything and all our attack rolls are hidden from us, and we just cross our fingers and pray he's honest to us.
Same goes for when he targets us in combat. He doesn't tell us what that baddie rolled, instead we just take damage. As an EK with shield, or any caster really, I've had this happen 2 times now that I cast shield in hopes of not taking damage but nope, once was a Nat 20 and the other was just an absurdly high roll. Thus, making me waste two out of my measly 3 spell slots. It really undermines the fun as playing an EK or a caster who when the DM goes. "Alright he rolled a 17 to hit you and your AC is 16 if I recall right so that hits?"
Player, pushes up glasses: "I cast shield, making my AC 21."
DM: "**** you but that's fair."
What's really odd about this DM is that he tells us he does this because of metagaming. Yet, funny enough in Foundry all of us players can see each other's health bars. Even the monsters when you hover over them you can get an idea of what their HP is like because he has a neat mod that tells you how injured they are. Whereas the literal players I can see this JRPG health meter, and even then, he has a mod that adds these RPG style damage numbers that appear above our heads or the enemies, same goes for healing.
So he's okay showing each other our exact health as well as the damage done, but God forbid we know how much we rolled? Like even the paladin doesn't get to roll his healing or I get to roll my HP from a healing potion.
What also makes it even more bizarre is that the DM gave the Paladin this magic item called the Needle of Luck (He found it in a haystack), in which once a day you can use this item to add a flat +3 to your roll after rolling a check.
We don't even get to see what we rolled?! And you can choose to add a +3, which could either be a total waste because of overkill, or you just shot too low.
In the End the DM has been open to my criticism about this, but I just wanted to share this out in the world to see if anyone has ever experienced bizarre house rules like this.
Some of the things you describe, I do hide. I don't let my players see my rolls, for example. This reserves the choice to me to alter them if the battle isn't working, say. It can also add suspense - I did a contested roll for whether a giant, who the party couldn't hope to win against, would notice them. The tension was palpable since they didn't known whether he'd seen them or not. The relief when he passed without pausing was almost tangible. That wouldn't have happened if I rolled openly. Now, some rolls I will show if there is reason to suspect I might have fudged the results. Once, a monster had disadvantage and rolled two Nat20s (and he had to do so to get a crucial hit in) so I showed them the results so there wouldn't be any feelings that I might have been fudging things to screw them over.
I have considered hiding some player roles, but only when the character would have no idea how well they did something. For example, if they do a stealth check, go stop metagaming (I rolled a 5? Better head back and find another plan). However, I've never implemented it as of yet. Most things should be seen by the players, though. It adds to the excitement. Further, your charscter will know if their sword swing was a good one, so why shouldn't you see your roll?
Seems a little odd. Some parts I agree with...other parts I really don't. Player rolls should generally be open to the table. It's part of the magic of D&D, anticipating those rolls.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The problem with trying too hard to stop metagaming is that you start taking away information that the players would absolutely have. An Eldritch Knight has an understanding of magic and combat that we could never match. While it doesn't know its AC is 16 and the attack is a 17, it does know what a glancing blow looks like compared to a critical hit, and it knows if it could get shield up in the right spot at the right time. These numbers are not completely divorced from the reality in the game, they are just easy-to-reference representations of what the characters are experiencing.
Even the above mentioned stealth roll. How many scenes have there been across all media where the sneaking person snaps a twig under their foot? That's what a bad stealth roll is like. The characters know it. How could they not? They're heroes, not bumbling, oblivious idiots.
I am in a game where the DM does some things like this, and sometimes its just silly. I'm not allowed to explain how the sorcerer's spell works in combat, as if the sorcerer itself wouldn't know that. I too have to just blindly cast shield and hope it works. Every combat starts out deadly dangerous, but somehow our fortune always turns and we eke out a win. It's not unplayable, but it certainly feels like it doesn't matter what I do in combat because the narrative was fixed before I made any choices.
In his earnest effort to stop all metagaming, OP's DM has decided to basically metagame everything. He's more concerned about controlling the players than providing an accurate world that provides feedback to those interacting with it. And he's absolutely fudging rolls whenever convenient to ensure that the story goes exactly as planned, regardless of what choices the players make. That's not D&D, it's just storytime with extra steps.
I think in moments of high tension from a DM perspective, it's ok for the DM to roll for a player. Creating those moments is much easier when the players don't know how the dice rolled.
At the same time, the way 5th is balanced is knowing what the outcome of your rolls are. D&D is a cooperative game and it really just sounds like the DM in this case has a story to tell and is using you guys to facilitate that story.
Metagaming is going to exist at tables but it's always the intent that matters. Characters are going to know armored monsters are harder to hit than unarmored ones in a good deal of circumstances. Magic casters typically handle saving throws against spells better than non magic casters. A character isn't going to know what the exact intelligence of a beholder is. If the table goes into it with that mindset, it'll work out.
To answer your final question? I think most people have. I played a game once where my party was being chased by this group to the point of in game exhaustion mechanics. Then when we finally fought, they had poisons thrown at them that caused them to go to sleep. This group of people was also chugging potions of vitality so they could push through their own exhaustion. We're talking a band of like 15 enemies against our party of 5. We were running for 2 days straight at level 3. A group of bandits chasing level 3 adventurers chugged 60 potions of vitality, a very rare consumable magic item and then had sleep powders thrown at them. Even with sane magic prices, a potion of vitality is 960 gold, so around 58k gold in potions not to mention sleep powders.
His reason for doing this? Well bandits can just steal things and so they had unlimited access to those things via theft.
While this isn't a house rule per instance? I'm using this because it does seem the intent between the DM in that instance and yours are trying to do things from a narrative standpoint. Sometimes we forget that it's the entire tables experience that matters.
DM hiding rolls is totally fine, as a DM myself I hide rolls all the time. Though if a monster hits a player, especially those players who have shield and or other abilities that can save them. It's best for them to know so that they can use said spells. Having a player waste a spell in hopes of it being successfully, while yes it raises tension, can also make them feel cheated.
DM hiding rolls is totally fine, as a DM myself I hide rolls all the time. Though if a monster hits a player, especially those players who have shield and or other abilities that can save them. It's best for them to know so that they can use said spells. Having a player waste a spell in hopes of it being successfully, while yes it raises tension, can also make them feel cheated.
I don't think there is a person here who would actively disagree, but for the sake of the thread and in the spirit of finding solutions to your problems?
If the DM is dead set on hiding rolls and you still agree to play, I would ask them to alter how they speak to hits and misses.
Hits by 5+: You make solid contact with your enemy, easily bypassing their armor and inflicting pain. Roll your damage
Hits by 1-2: You find a weak point in their armor, any less skill and you might have missed. Roll damage
Misses by 1-2: You fire your bow and it just glances off their armored shoulder.
Misses by 5+: You swing your sword and it goes wide.
When it's them hitting you:
Hits by 5+: The goblin drives it knife squarely in your thigh, clearly making an attempt to avoid all of your armor.
Hits by 1-2: You see the kobold swinging his sword, and it will surely make contact unless something is done quickly.
Misses by 1-2: The thief swings its maul, you narrowly avoid it but feel the force of the thud in the ground.
Misses by 5+: You have no idea what the caster was shooting at with it's fire bolt, but it surely couldn't have been you.
It still fufills their narrative wants and needs but at the same times gives an audible queue to the player that they can use their abilities within reason. It's also not really metagaming either, a character is going to know the difference between a hit that barely got them vs something that was going to hit them no matter what.
I disagree with DMs rolling for players. In my games I never roll for them unless the player is AFK or gives me permission. It takes away from their agency, that is what passive skills are for. If a player's passive is high enough for them to spot something then it is okay for the DM to give them the info they should know, if there is something they could potentially see or hear that is coming cause said creature might not be super quiet, then the DM can ask the players to roll, or said players can ask to roll. Though taking their sheet away so you can roll for them is not right as that can go against Player x DM trust.
I disagree with DMs rolling for players. In my games I never roll for them unless the player is AFK or gives me permission. It takes away from their agency, that is what passive skills are for. If a player's passive is high enough for them to spot something then it is okay for the DM to give them the info they should know, if there is something they could potentially see or hear that is coming cause said creature might not be super quiet, then the DM can ask the players to roll, or said players can ask to roll. Though taking their sheet away so you can roll for them is not right as that can go against Player x DM trust.
Right, but this is your thread.
If you believe the things you said, then you don't trust your DM. If you can't trust them, you shouldn't play with them. Since D&D is by nature a collobrative game, my advice was in that nature. That wasn't the intent of this thread for you?
If you were just looking for terrible homebrew rules, you could have just made a thread asking for those. Is that all you're looking for on this thread, other homebrew rules? Do you not want us to discuss the dice rolling stuff?
Yes, I have seen many terrible house rule such as that one.
Last time I played in a campaign was 2020, but one of the reasons I chose to keep to DMing is the amount of DMs produced by 5e that want to do things like this. Not being anti-5e, it's my favorite system, I just think it has produced a lot of "creative" rulers out there, that are not much to my taste. (Mind you, I am a DM that allow a free feat at lv1, roll everything in the open and am very generous with magic items - which can give you a clue of my style of play);
There is nothing wrong with it, there is never nothing wrong with any house rules if you think about it, it's just not my style.
The worst I had, so far, was a DM that made us roll on the madness table when we hit 0 HP. I remember that was our first Curse of Strahd session with this DM, a fresh new group. We had a great time RPing our characters for 2,5 hours before entering Barovia, all are super invested so far. We enter Strahd's realm and trigger a random encounter, 6 wolves. Fight ensues, characters start going down, but when we heal them back up they roll on the table of short-term madness (Which has effects like becoming incapacitated or stunned for 1D10 minutes), needless to say that it was a TPK. Shortest living campaign I've been.
But there are a lot of things that I had experienced out there that bother me as much as this, like:
Critical fumbles - You hit yourself or allies with a nat 1 (Or even roll in a table);
Exhaustion levels when you go 0 - Adding a 5th lv spell resource condition to a game designed to have ineffective combat healing;
DMs fumbling dice against players - e.g: An important bad guy never fails key saving throws;
Going roguelike - Character death means the PC comes back at lv1;
DM PCs - Why? Just, why?;
DMs plotting with a single player to "surprise" the party - While doing a bunch of inside jokes the whole campaign as the other 4 players watch with blank expressions;
Dex save to climb a ladder - Or any save/ability check to do mundane things and punish the players "in a funny way" if they fail - I had one DM ask for a player to roll a dex save to shave, and I quote: "To see how badly you cut yourself"
In the end, some people might like these stuff, it's not for MY taste.
Also, OP, people don't read. They will try and come up with solutions instead of sharing their own stories.
I'm guessing you are new to D&D, only played online and never in person with a DM that uses a DM screen so you never see their rolls? There is nothing wrong with a DM not showing rolls at all. In fact it is often done at tables where players abuse the fact that they know what was rolled. I hate it when players in games I run see that someone searched a room for treasure or clues or secret doors and say things like "oh he only rolled a 3 so I am going to check as well". That is why some rolls should be hidden, and some rolls are made by the DM on your behalf. If the DM says roll perception when you are walking down a corridor, even if you fail the chck you know that something is up. It breaks the surprise. The use of many abilities such as Shield are ment to be declared after the roll but before you know if the attack has landed or skill check has succeeded. That's fairly standard. There is no reason for you to know what the DM rolled because if you do then you can work out what their attack bonuses etc are. I never tell my players what an enemy ac is, just describe what they are wearing if anything and let the players figure it out for themselves. Your comment about 'hovering over' someone's icon on the screen to see their health is an entirely new thing brought about by online gaming post covid. Prior to that you wouldn't have had a clue what hitpoints somebody had. Even asking "how many hitpoints do you have" is meta gamng pure and simple.
You are welcome of course to dislike it, you are welcome to do things dfferently in the games you run. You also have the right to leave a game that you don't enjoy and find a new one.
I'm guessing you are new to D&D, only played online and never in person with a DM that uses a DM screen so you never see their rolls? There is nothing wrong with a DM not showing rolls at all. In fact it is often done at tables where players abuse the fact that they know what was rolled. I hate it when players in games I run see that someone searched a room for treasure or clues or secret doors and say things like "oh he only rolled a 3 so I am going to check as well". That is why some rolls should be hidden, and some rolls are made by the DM on your behalf. If the DM says roll perception when you are walking down a corridor, even if you fail the chck you know that something is up. It breaks the surprise. The use of many abilities such as Shield are ment to be declared after the roll but before you know if the attack has landed or skill check has succeeded. That's fairly standard. There is no reason for you to know what the DM rolled because if you do then you can work out what their attack bonuses etc are. I never tell my players what an enemy ac is, just describe what they are wearing if anything and let the players figure it out for themselves. Your comment about 'hovering over' someone's icon on the screen to see their health is an entirely new thing brought about by online gaming post covid. Prior to that you wouldn't have had a clue what hitpoints somebody had. Even asking "how many hitpoints do you have" is meta gamng pure and simple.
You are welcome of course to dislike it, you are welcome to do things dfferently in the games you run. You also have the right to leave a game that you don't enjoy and find a new one.
I think you haven't understood the OP's post. The DM hide the players rolls - they cannot know their own rolls. The OP went on another post on this very thread saying he is fine with DMs hiding rolls, as well.
Even the above mentioned stealth roll. How many scenes have there been across all media where the sneaking person snaps a twig under their foot? That's what a bad stealth roll is like. The characters know it. How could they not? They're heroes, not bumbling, oblivious idiots.
And that is one way to fail a stealth check out of many. Maybe they didn't realise that there usna reflective surface behind them, or they aren't quite completely covered by their cover, maybe the snow they're hiding in hasn't quite covered their shoe or the snow was slightly different having been disturbed, or they make a slight sound that in their focus they don't pick up on. Or maybe they do realise, but they don't know if they've been detected or not - and they have to decide whether they risk it, or back off and try another method. If they know the roll and DC then none of that is possible. They know that they've passed, failed or failed miserably. For the story telling aspect that's fine, but it's a game as well.
You want the story to be that they made a twig snap? Great. Narrate it. You can even tell them that it's loud enough that they know that it's hopeless, no problem at all. But it's useful to be able to run the event where you can draw in the engagement by producing that uncertainty and suspense. That's hard to do with open rolls. Especially with experienced players who might know the stats of the monsters.
I personally still have them roll and they know what their score is, while keeping the DC a secret. It's a compromise because I don't have a way of having them roll but still keep it secret, and I want them to be rolling their own dice as much as possible.
As a player, I want as little meta knowledge as possible. Some is inevitable, some is necessary to ensure that we have a game that we can enjoy. However, it’s a lot more engaging if things are learned as the story unfolds. That's why I don't hand a copy of the adventure out - it's a lot more fun if we can immerse ourselves into the story and be as close to the character as possible.
At least for me and my players. I know there are people that like to read the last chapter of the book before starting so they know what happens, or will read the wiki article before watching a film. If they want to do that, well, I don't really understand it, but they should do what is most enjoyable for them, my understanding isn't required. However, that doesn't invalidate our way of doing things, and it's perfectly valid and correct too. Depending on your playstyle, it can be a perfectly good method to hide certain rolls. I wouldn't hide all or even most, but then that's my playstyle.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Ultimately, the game is far more immersive for the player if they NEVER make a roll. The level of unknown factors and suspense is heightened by an order of magnitude if the players don't know how and what rolls are being applied.
That's not an empirical fact, that's your experiences with the game (Which are fair and valid). But myself and some others feel it far less immersive when they don't roll, which is, also, fair and valid.
As to the level of distrust between the DM and players you are describing, every table is different. I have played with (and DM'ed) people who do outright cheat at rolls and having them at a table is a lousy experience. I can understand why a DM would want to control that kind of cheating as much as possible. (see above why it is so difficult to do so). But ultimately, the players HAVE to trust the DM. A DM is a god, and can kill off chars at a whim. The players have to trust the DM's motives, or the players choose to walk away from the DM's table. The DM, on the other hand, well, trust of the players is not a prerequisite for a good game. A good DM can run a highly disciplined game, making many of the "player rolls" themselves, and the players will never know if it because of a lack of trust of the players or because the DM is trying to provide a more immersive experience.
No, players don't HAVE to trust the DM. Trust is necessary to play the game on both ends, without it, it's better if both parties don't play together. A DM who views himself as a god and don't work to foster trust on the table will probably have lousy experiences.
And, in all honesty, highly disciplined game is probably the least attractive description anyone in existence could put on a game.
If the players can never know if the DM doesn't trust them or is trying to provide an immersive game, what a heck kind of experience is that?
I'm guessing you are new to D&D, only played online and never in person with a DM that uses a DM screen so you never see their rolls? There is nothing wrong with a DM not showing rolls at all. In fact it is often done at tables where players abuse the fact that they know what was rolled. I hate it when players in games I run see that someone searched a room for treasure or clues or secret doors and say things like "oh he only rolled a 3 so I am going to check as well". That is why some rolls should be hidden, and some rolls are made by the DM on your behalf. If the DM says roll perception when you are walking down a corridor, even if you fail the chck you know that something is up. It breaks the surprise. The use of many abilities such as Shield are ment to be declared after the roll but before you know if the attack has landed or skill check has succeeded. That's fairly standard. There is no reason for you to know what the DM rolled because if you do then you can work out what their attack bonuses etc are. I never tell my players what an enemy ac is, just describe what they are wearing if anything and let the players figure it out for themselves. Your comment about 'hovering over' someone's icon on the screen to see their health is an entirely new thing brought about by online gaming post covid. Prior to that you wouldn't have had a clue what hitpoints somebody had. Even asking "how many hitpoints do you have" is meta gamng pure and simple.
You are welcome of course to dislike it, you are welcome to do things dfferently in the games you run. You also have the right to leave a game that you don't enjoy and find a new one.
I think you haven't understood the OP's post. The DM hide the players rolls - they cannot know their own rolls. The OP went on another post on this very thread saying he is fine with DMs hiding rolls, as well.
No I fully understood the OP. What I said was completely relevent. I would suggest that you failed to understand my reply.
Man there is a lot to unpack here because there are several things happening at once.
The first thing that jumped out at me is that the logic of the DM is really flawed and is driven by a misunderstanding about the relationships players have with the game, with the DM and the narrative.
D&D is a game, people play D&D because that game is played with dice, there are stats, properties like skills and features of classes (powers, abilities, spells etc..) these are mechanical components that are part of the driving force behind why people play this game. By hiding all rolls, you are removing the execution of these mechanics from the players pervue, which effectively removes part of the tangible element of the game. It would be like playing RISK, but never rolling any dice and simply getting a "result" of any battle. The absence of this tangible element removes a part of the game that kills suspense not creates it. There is usually nothing suspenseful or interesting about getting the results of a soccer game, it's the play-by-play that makes the sport interesting.
There are exceptions here. When a DM wants the narrative outcome to be affected by the absence of dice results, this is when you roll behind the screen. Rolling to see if you find traps is a good example. Not knowing if you succeeded or failed on a roll like that when a DM tells you "you don't see any traps", creates tension because you don't know if the reason you didn't find traps was that you succeeded and there simply are none, or if you failed and there is one but you just don't see it. This means that players are still in a tense moment, they must decide what to do with that limited information which is not based on having any meta-information about the dice result. Because if you roll it in the open and you roll a 1 and the DM says "you don't see any traps", now you know you failed the check, which means you know that there very well may be a trap. The narrative is likely to play out differently as a result.
This exception however must be used sparingly and with intent, generally, players should be rolling their own dice for most things because this is a part of the game. Strictly speaking, I support all DM styles, but this is less a style and more a misunderstanding of the core principles of the game. Gygax would disagree with me of course, but Gygaxian D&D is out of context in light of 5e, in order to run Gygax's vision of D&D you really need to use the entirety of the philosophy which is not possible under 5e rules. It would be like applying soccer rules to Polo, individually each sport works and is exciting but the two different rules of the sports are not reconcilable. I won't go into why and how that works, but suffices to say it simply does not work.
The second issue here is one of trust, namely the GM trusting the players with meta information. It's my humble opinion that not only is meta-game information an important part of the game, but I don't think the game can be fun or good if the players have no meta-information at all.
What I mean is that whether you are talking about statistics of the game or the narrative of the game, players knowing things their characters don't know, helps to build a bridge of understanding of what is really going on. Players in a RPG should not feel "uninformed" or "confused". Something being a narrative mystery is one thing, but not understanding why or how an outcome of a game mechanic or narrative happened is not mysterious or exciting, it's confusing and uninteresting. Sure the characters might not know that Dar'Tan the Shadow Lord always knows everything because he has powerful scrying spells, but if the players don't know what a scying spell is or how it works, Dar'Tan always being a step ahead of them is going to feel like the DM is cheating to make sure his villains always one up them. If the players understand "ok he is using a scrying spell, that is why he always knows what we are doing", that understanding builds the bridge of acceptance. It doesn't mean the players should now act on it, everyone should understand that this is "meta" information and that their characters don't know that, but having that information doesn't hurt the game. Players need to believe that there is logic to the world, that there are reasons behind how everything works. If they don't understand any of it, its not tension or a mystery, its confusing and feels cheap.
One thing I often do between sessions is write articles about events that transpire in the game that the characters don't know about but that explains the outcome of a session's story (fill in the gaps of the story the players didn't catch on to). This gives the game a sense of completion and players are in the loop on the "real" story of the game. Their characters don't know these things (its meta-information), but it's fun for the players to know, it gives the world a sense of realism and believable outcomes rather than leaving them confused about it.
The point here is that meta-information is not bad. This is a game, and it's a narrative. Why would you make any of that a secret from the players. Short of hiding narrative components as a mystery for the players to work out or tension-building mechanical outcomes (aka not jus their characters, but the actual players), the more they know about what is going on in the game mechanically and narratively the better.
I have seen and played under this DM style before and I can assure you that for the overwhelming majority of groups and players, it does not work. I don't want to call it bad DMing because I'm really wary of making judgments like that, but lets just say that it's not based on experience, it's based on a misunderstanding of what the RPG experience is about for the vast majority of players.
You keep espousing the old ways, and how the game used to be played, but you seem to have forgotten that in some of the earlier editions the players didn't even make their own rolls let alone know what they rolled. The DM rolled them all behind the screen.
I'm okay with some dice being hidden, but as few as possible.
Seeing the die rolls gives us an understanding of the situation, and can enhance the narrative in tremendous ways. For instance, the room search referenced earlier. I watch Sally search the room (she rolls a 3). I see that she did a poor, cursory check, and barely tried. This frustrates me, as she is normally such a fastidious searcher. She must still be tired from that last fight, so I can either upbraid her to try harder, or I can lend a hand and make a more thorough search of the room. If the die roll is hidden, we get, "Nothing to see her, move on."
Combat rolls have been detailed thoroughly, and I am highly on the side of seeing the dice. This, again, enhances the narrative of the fight, and we can "see" how it's going with our rolls. Are we stumbling around barely effecting the enemy, or are we tearing through them like we know we can?
As is the case for every table, play how you like to play with group consent. But, for me, that's a weird table that I don't think would be very fun.
If you believe the things you said, then you don't trust your DM. If you can't trust them, you shouldn't play with them. Since D&D is by nature a collobrative game, my advice was in that nature. That wasn't the intent of this thread for you?
If you were just looking for terrible homebrew rules, you could have just made a thread asking for those. Is that all you're looking for on this thread, other homebrew rules? Do you not want us to discuss the dice rolling stuff?
You can talk about whatever you want I can't control the flow here. All I was doing was replying to your post with my own criticism. I'm not trying to shut you down just debating is all.
I'm guessing you are new to D&D, only played online and never in person with a DM that uses a DM screen so you never see their rolls? There is nothing wrong with a DM not showing rolls at all.
No I fully understood the OP. What I said was completely relevent. I would suggest that you failed to understand my reply.
Oh, I see. You got me on your first sentence, what I was assuming was just an irrelevant cringe worthy rhetorical gate keeping question for those who only played online, is actually you saying that someone that has never experience a DM rolling for players behind a screen, probably never played in person.
Since I've been playing for 18 years (both in person and online) and never had a DM nor DMed myself rolling for my players, it was hard to figure that out. But, I stand corrected. ^^
I'm guessing you are new to D&D, only played online and never in person with a DM that uses a DM screen so you never see their rolls? There is nothing wrong with a DM not showing rolls at all. In fact it is often done at tables where players abuse the fact that they know what was rolled. I hate it when players in games I run see that someone searched a room for treasure or clues or secret doors and say things like "oh he only rolled a 3 so I am going to check as well". That is why some rolls should be hidden, and some rolls are made by the DM on your behalf. If the DM says roll perception when you are walking down a corridor, even if you fail the chck you know that something is up. It breaks the surprise. The use of many abilities such as Shield are ment to be declared after the roll but before you know if the attack has landed or skill check has succeeded. That's fairly standard. There is no reason for you to know what the DM rolled because if you do then you can work out what their attack bonuses etc are. I never tell my players what an enemy ac is, just describe what they are wearing if anything and let the players figure it out for themselves. Your comment about 'hovering over' someone's icon on the screen to see their health is an entirely new thing brought about by online gaming post covid. Prior to that you wouldn't have had a clue what hitpoints somebody had. Even asking "how many hitpoints do you have" is meta gamng pure and simple.
You are welcome of course to dislike it, you are welcome to do things dfferently in the games you run. You also have the right to leave a game that you don't enjoy and find a new one.
I've been playing D&D for 3 years and have been to 3 in person games.
The DM hides "our" rolls, the players. If I roll perception, I don't know what I rolled. Think of it as getting up from your chair, walking over to the DM's screen, and dropping the dice behind his screen and then he/she is telling you what you rolled.
For every check, including saves, attacks, etc.
I don't know what games you're playing where that's common. The DM hiding their rolls is fine, but the player rolls? That's a step too foar.
Recently I joined a D&D campaign on VTT Foundry in which the Dungeon Master has some interesting table rolls. I played three games with them so far and was alerted to this particular roll, which originally had intrigued me, and I wanted to see how it worked. Well, if you've read the title, y'know what it is. This DM hides all player rolls, literally everything. The players don't even see their dice.
I joined this campaign as an Eldritch Knight and as mentioned played three games. First two games I played with them were fine, as they were all purely RP and no combat. Skill checks, including saves, were hidden from us but overall didn't seem too bad. Not knowing if you succeeded chugging some alcohol and such does build some great suspense. That is, however, I experienced combat for the first time.
You see, I don't like to think myself a power gamer, but I at least like to build characters that can at least hold up their own, while backing it up with good RP. The problem is, playing a fighter as well as an EK requires the player to know certain rolls to play their class effectively. Such as target AC as well as attack rolls that hit them so that we can cast shield to help avoid damage.
Of course, I'm not leaning over and peering at the DMs sheet to see stat blocks or searching up said monsters. Being a DM myself I know that's shitty. Instead, I would gauge the monster/humanoid based on how they look or their armor and my attack misses\hits to determine AC. I would do this because I'm a great weapons fighter and I always take great weapon mastery which does a -5 to my rolls but on hit does a flat +10 damage. It's great for when I'm flanking or if the creature has a low AC. Instead, the DM doesn't tell us anything and all our attack rolls are hidden from us, and we just cross our fingers and pray he's honest to us.
Same goes for when he targets us in combat. He doesn't tell us what that baddie rolled, instead we just take damage. As an EK with shield, or any caster really, I've had this happen 2 times now that I cast shield in hopes of not taking damage but nope, once was a Nat 20 and the other was just an absurdly high roll. Thus, making me waste two out of my measly 3 spell slots. It really undermines the fun as playing an EK or a caster who when the DM goes. "Alright he rolled a 17 to hit you and your AC is 16 if I recall right so that hits?"
Player, pushes up glasses: "I cast shield, making my AC 21."
DM: "**** you but that's fair."
What's really odd about this DM is that he tells us he does this because of metagaming. Yet, funny enough in Foundry all of us players can see each other's health bars. Even the monsters when you hover over them you can get an idea of what their HP is like because he has a neat mod that tells you how injured they are. Whereas the literal players I can see this JRPG health meter, and even then, he has a mod that adds these RPG style damage numbers that appear above our heads or the enemies, same goes for healing.
So he's okay showing each other our exact health as well as the damage done, but God forbid we know how much we rolled? Like even the paladin doesn't get to roll his healing or I get to roll my HP from a healing potion.
What also makes it even more bizarre is that the DM gave the Paladin this magic item called the Needle of Luck (He found it in a haystack), in which once a day you can use this item to add a flat +3 to your roll after rolling a check.
We don't even get to see what we rolled?! And you can choose to add a +3, which could either be a total waste because of overkill, or you just shot too low.
In the End the DM has been open to my criticism about this, but I just wanted to share this out in the world to see if anyone has ever experienced bizarre house rules like this.
Hmm...
Some of the things you describe, I do hide. I don't let my players see my rolls, for example. This reserves the choice to me to alter them if the battle isn't working, say. It can also add suspense - I did a contested roll for whether a giant, who the party couldn't hope to win against, would notice them. The tension was palpable since they didn't known whether he'd seen them or not. The relief when he passed without pausing was almost tangible. That wouldn't have happened if I rolled openly. Now, some rolls I will show if there is reason to suspect I might have fudged the results. Once, a monster had disadvantage and rolled two Nat20s (and he had to do so to get a crucial hit in) so I showed them the results so there wouldn't be any feelings that I might have been fudging things to screw them over.
I have considered hiding some player roles, but only when the character would have no idea how well they did something. For example, if they do a stealth check, go stop metagaming (I rolled a 5? Better head back and find another plan). However, I've never implemented it as of yet. Most things should be seen by the players, though. It adds to the excitement. Further, your charscter will know if their sword swing was a good one, so why shouldn't you see your roll?
Seems a little odd. Some parts I agree with...other parts I really don't. Player rolls should generally be open to the table. It's part of the magic of D&D, anticipating those rolls.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The problem with trying too hard to stop metagaming is that you start taking away information that the players would absolutely have. An Eldritch Knight has an understanding of magic and combat that we could never match. While it doesn't know its AC is 16 and the attack is a 17, it does know what a glancing blow looks like compared to a critical hit, and it knows if it could get shield up in the right spot at the right time. These numbers are not completely divorced from the reality in the game, they are just easy-to-reference representations of what the characters are experiencing.
Even the above mentioned stealth roll. How many scenes have there been across all media where the sneaking person snaps a twig under their foot? That's what a bad stealth roll is like. The characters know it. How could they not? They're heroes, not bumbling, oblivious idiots.
I am in a game where the DM does some things like this, and sometimes its just silly. I'm not allowed to explain how the sorcerer's spell works in combat, as if the sorcerer itself wouldn't know that. I too have to just blindly cast shield and hope it works. Every combat starts out deadly dangerous, but somehow our fortune always turns and we eke out a win. It's not unplayable, but it certainly feels like it doesn't matter what I do in combat because the narrative was fixed before I made any choices.
In his earnest effort to stop all metagaming, OP's DM has decided to basically metagame everything. He's more concerned about controlling the players than providing an accurate world that provides feedback to those interacting with it. And he's absolutely fudging rolls whenever convenient to ensure that the story goes exactly as planned, regardless of what choices the players make. That's not D&D, it's just storytime with extra steps.
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
I think in moments of high tension from a DM perspective, it's ok for the DM to roll for a player. Creating those moments is much easier when the players don't know how the dice rolled.
At the same time, the way 5th is balanced is knowing what the outcome of your rolls are. D&D is a cooperative game and it really just sounds like the DM in this case has a story to tell and is using you guys to facilitate that story.
Metagaming is going to exist at tables but it's always the intent that matters. Characters are going to know armored monsters are harder to hit than unarmored ones in a good deal of circumstances. Magic casters typically handle saving throws against spells better than non magic casters. A character isn't going to know what the exact intelligence of a beholder is. If the table goes into it with that mindset, it'll work out.
To answer your final question? I think most people have. I played a game once where my party was being chased by this group to the point of in game exhaustion mechanics. Then when we finally fought, they had poisons thrown at them that caused them to go to sleep. This group of people was also chugging potions of vitality so they could push through their own exhaustion. We're talking a band of like 15 enemies against our party of 5. We were running for 2 days straight at level 3. A group of bandits chasing level 3 adventurers chugged 60 potions of vitality, a very rare consumable magic item and then had sleep powders thrown at them. Even with sane magic prices, a potion of vitality is 960 gold, so around 58k gold in potions not to mention sleep powders.
His reason for doing this? Well bandits can just steal things and so they had unlimited access to those things via theft.
While this isn't a house rule per instance? I'm using this because it does seem the intent between the DM in that instance and yours are trying to do things from a narrative standpoint. Sometimes we forget that it's the entire tables experience that matters.
DM hiding rolls is totally fine, as a DM myself I hide rolls all the time. Though if a monster hits a player, especially those players who have shield and or other abilities that can save them. It's best for them to know so that they can use said spells. Having a player waste a spell in hopes of it being successfully, while yes it raises tension, can also make them feel cheated.
I don't think there is a person here who would actively disagree, but for the sake of the thread and in the spirit of finding solutions to your problems?
If the DM is dead set on hiding rolls and you still agree to play, I would ask them to alter how they speak to hits and misses.
Hits by 5+: You make solid contact with your enemy, easily bypassing their armor and inflicting pain. Roll your damage
Hits by 1-2: You find a weak point in their armor, any less skill and you might have missed. Roll damage
Misses by 1-2: You fire your bow and it just glances off their armored shoulder.
Misses by 5+: You swing your sword and it goes wide.
When it's them hitting you:
Hits by 5+: The goblin drives it knife squarely in your thigh, clearly making an attempt to avoid all of your armor.
Hits by 1-2: You see the kobold swinging his sword, and it will surely make contact unless something is done quickly.
Misses by 1-2: The thief swings its maul, you narrowly avoid it but feel the force of the thud in the ground.
Misses by 5+: You have no idea what the caster was shooting at with it's fire bolt, but it surely couldn't have been you.
It still fufills their narrative wants and needs but at the same times gives an audible queue to the player that they can use their abilities within reason. It's also not really metagaming either, a character is going to know the difference between a hit that barely got them vs something that was going to hit them no matter what.
I disagree with DMs rolling for players. In my games I never roll for them unless the player is AFK or gives me permission. It takes away from their agency, that is what passive skills are for. If a player's passive is high enough for them to spot something then it is okay for the DM to give them the info they should know, if there is something they could potentially see or hear that is coming cause said creature might not be super quiet, then the DM can ask the players to roll, or said players can ask to roll. Though taking their sheet away so you can roll for them is not right as that can go against Player x DM trust.
Right, but this is your thread.
If you believe the things you said, then you don't trust your DM. If you can't trust them, you shouldn't play with them. Since D&D is by nature a collobrative game, my advice was in that nature. That wasn't the intent of this thread for you?
If you were just looking for terrible homebrew rules, you could have just made a thread asking for those. Is that all you're looking for on this thread, other homebrew rules? Do you not want us to discuss the dice rolling stuff?
Yes, I have seen many terrible house rule such as that one.
Last time I played in a campaign was 2020, but one of the reasons I chose to keep to DMing is the amount of DMs produced by 5e that want to do things like this. Not being anti-5e, it's my favorite system, I just think it has produced a lot of "creative" rulers out there, that are not much to my taste. (Mind you, I am a DM that allow a free feat at lv1, roll everything in the open and am very generous with magic items - which can give you a clue of my style of play);
There is nothing wrong with it, there is never nothing wrong with any house rules if you think about it, it's just not my style.
The worst I had, so far, was a DM that made us roll on the madness table when we hit 0 HP. I remember that was our first Curse of Strahd session with this DM, a fresh new group. We had a great time RPing our characters for 2,5 hours before entering Barovia, all are super invested so far. We enter Strahd's realm and trigger a random encounter, 6 wolves. Fight ensues, characters start going down, but when we heal them back up they roll on the table of short-term madness (Which has effects like becoming incapacitated or stunned for 1D10 minutes), needless to say that it was a TPK. Shortest living campaign I've been.
But there are a lot of things that I had experienced out there that bother me as much as this, like:
In the end, some people might like these stuff, it's not for MY taste.
Also, OP, people don't read. They will try and come up with solutions instead of sharing their own stories.
I'm guessing you are new to D&D, only played online and never in person with a DM that uses a DM screen so you never see their rolls? There is nothing wrong with a DM not showing rolls at all. In fact it is often done at tables where players abuse the fact that they know what was rolled. I hate it when players in games I run see that someone searched a room for treasure or clues or secret doors and say things like "oh he only rolled a 3 so I am going to check as well". That is why some rolls should be hidden, and some rolls are made by the DM on your behalf. If the DM says roll perception when you are walking down a corridor, even if you fail the chck you know that something is up. It breaks the surprise. The use of many abilities such as Shield are ment to be declared after the roll but before you know if the attack has landed or skill check has succeeded. That's fairly standard. There is no reason for you to know what the DM rolled because if you do then you can work out what their attack bonuses etc are. I never tell my players what an enemy ac is, just describe what they are wearing if anything and let the players figure it out for themselves. Your comment about 'hovering over' someone's icon on the screen to see their health is an entirely new thing brought about by online gaming post covid. Prior to that you wouldn't have had a clue what hitpoints somebody had. Even asking "how many hitpoints do you have" is meta gamng pure and simple.
You are welcome of course to dislike it, you are welcome to do things dfferently in the games you run. You also have the right to leave a game that you don't enjoy and find a new one.
I think you haven't understood the OP's post. The DM hide the players rolls - they cannot know their own rolls. The OP went on another post on this very thread saying he is fine with DMs hiding rolls, as well.
And that is one way to fail a stealth check out of many. Maybe they didn't realise that there usna reflective surface behind them, or they aren't quite completely covered by their cover, maybe the snow they're hiding in hasn't quite covered their shoe or the snow was slightly different having been disturbed, or they make a slight sound that in their focus they don't pick up on. Or maybe they do realise, but they don't know if they've been detected or not - and they have to decide whether they risk it, or back off and try another method. If they know the roll and DC then none of that is possible. They know that they've passed, failed or failed miserably. For the story telling aspect that's fine, but it's a game as well.
You want the story to be that they made a twig snap? Great. Narrate it. You can even tell them that it's loud enough that they know that it's hopeless, no problem at all. But it's useful to be able to run the event where you can draw in the engagement by producing that uncertainty and suspense. That's hard to do with open rolls. Especially with experienced players who might know the stats of the monsters.
I personally still have them roll and they know what their score is, while keeping the DC a secret. It's a compromise because I don't have a way of having them roll but still keep it secret, and I want them to be rolling their own dice as much as possible.
As a player, I want as little meta knowledge as possible. Some is inevitable, some is necessary to ensure that we have a game that we can enjoy. However, it’s a lot more engaging if things are learned as the story unfolds. That's why I don't hand a copy of the adventure out - it's a lot more fun if we can immerse ourselves into the story and be as close to the character as possible.
At least for me and my players. I know there are people that like to read the last chapter of the book before starting so they know what happens, or will read the wiki article before watching a film. If they want to do that, well, I don't really understand it, but they should do what is most enjoyable for them, my understanding isn't required. However, that doesn't invalidate our way of doing things, and it's perfectly valid and correct too. Depending on your playstyle, it can be a perfectly good method to hide certain rolls. I wouldn't hide all or even most, but then that's my playstyle.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That's not an empirical fact, that's your experiences with the game (Which are fair and valid). But myself and some others feel it far less immersive when they don't roll, which is, also, fair and valid.
No, players don't HAVE to trust the DM. Trust is necessary to play the game on both ends, without it, it's better if both parties don't play together. A DM who views himself as a god and don't work to foster trust on the table will probably have lousy experiences.
And, in all honesty, highly disciplined game is probably the least attractive description anyone in existence could put on a game.
If the players can never know if the DM doesn't trust them or is trying to provide an immersive game, what a heck kind of experience is that?
No I fully understood the OP. What I said was completely relevent. I would suggest that you failed to understand my reply.
You keep espousing the old ways, and how the game used to be played, but you seem to have forgotten that in some of the earlier editions the players didn't even make their own rolls let alone know what they rolled. The DM rolled them all behind the screen.
Weird rule to have, to me rolling dice is part of the fun of playing D&D. Seems like there is trust issues.
I'm okay with some dice being hidden, but as few as possible.
Seeing the die rolls gives us an understanding of the situation, and can enhance the narrative in tremendous ways. For instance, the room search referenced earlier. I watch Sally search the room (she rolls a 3). I see that she did a poor, cursory check, and barely tried. This frustrates me, as she is normally such a fastidious searcher. She must still be tired from that last fight, so I can either upbraid her to try harder, or I can lend a hand and make a more thorough search of the room. If the die roll is hidden, we get, "Nothing to see her, move on."
Combat rolls have been detailed thoroughly, and I am highly on the side of seeing the dice. This, again, enhances the narrative of the fight, and we can "see" how it's going with our rolls. Are we stumbling around barely effecting the enemy, or are we tearing through them like we know we can?
As is the case for every table, play how you like to play with group consent. But, for me, that's a weird table that I don't think would be very fun.
You can talk about whatever you want I can't control the flow here. All I was doing was replying to your post with my own criticism. I'm not trying to shut you down just debating is all.
Oh, I see. You got me on your first sentence, what I was assuming was just an irrelevant cringe worthy rhetorical gate keeping question for those who only played online, is actually you saying that someone that has never experience a DM rolling for players behind a screen, probably never played in person.
Since I've been playing for 18 years (both in person and online) and never had a DM nor DMed myself rolling for my players, it was hard to figure that out. But, I stand corrected. ^^
I've been playing D&D for 3 years and have been to 3 in person games.
The DM hides "our" rolls, the players. If I roll perception, I don't know what I rolled. Think of it as getting up from your chair, walking over to the DM's screen, and dropping the dice behind his screen and then he/she is telling you what you rolled.
For every check, including saves, attacks, etc.
I don't know what games you're playing where that's common. The DM hiding their rolls is fine, but the player rolls? That's a step too foar.