Player knowledge and hidden rolls

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Brandy

The Butt-Kicker or Specialist may enjoy it if they overcome the odds and triumph anyway, but probably won't if it puts them in a position to kick much less butt or causes the character to fail to shine.

I'm not sure about that. After all, if the GM were rolling in secret, and the roll was a critical failure, you would still have failed to spot the trap or notice the hidden troll, and you would still have made some misjudgment that put you in a bad position. You just wouldn't have been aware that it was happening until you fell into the pit or the troll hit you. But does having the bad outcome be a surprise rather than something that you saw happening make it any worse?

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm not sure about that. After all, if the GM were rolling in secret, and the roll was a critical failure, you would still have failed to spot the trap or notice the hidden troll, and you would still have made some misjudgment that put you in a bad position. You just wouldn't have been aware that it was happening until you fell into the pit or the troll hit you. But does having the bad outcome be a surprise rather than something that you saw happening make it any worse?

I wasn't imagining a player analyzing it like that (hidden roll versus open roll). I was responding to the scenario (players make all rolls, player makes bad roll, player has character act without knowledge that player has).

My sense is that a butt-kicker or power gamer is going to react negatively to any scenario where they aren't kicking butt or being powerful. I am imagining the disconnect between player knowledge and character knowledge putting those players in a place where they would want to negotiate a way to mitigate the bad roll so that they can still succeed with their power fantasy.

[FeiLin]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I tend to roll when unneeded to hide when I roll when needed (usually followed by 'interesting' or 'that's too bad'), so players never know what I am up to.

Haha, yeah, I'm guilty of that! I try to give the impression of rolling "in the background", even if I'm not specifically checking for anything, not to rouse suspicion when I suddenly start rolling like crazy once they enter the Forest of Doom...

Originally Posted by kdtipa

Navigation is an interesting example. Most of the time in my campaigns navigation has never been the crucial skill that will affect how the story goes.

Navigation is perhaps not the most relevant case, since there's not much to "cheat", as opposed to a say Detect Lies. Navigation is "all rules interactions" (ie character traits vs world rules), so the worst thing you could "cheat" (consciously or not) as a player would probably be like not using FP because the character's heading the right direction which the player knows. The GM isn't going to let you get on track until you get them dice straight.

Originally Posted by Icelander

I won't even do a full calculation in my head, just decide "yeah, they're seasoned veterans led by a good officers, I'll roll against 15' and then make a decision about the quality of the campsite, defences and preparations based on margin of success.

I also some do the "reverse" of a calculation: I roll first, then estimate "ok, do the guards have a Per of 8 or higher; then I rolled enough", which are generally easy to answer. Might not work for situations when you need margins, but even some quick contests might be ok.

Originally Posted by RyanW

I usually GM with my laptop open in place of books/screen. It's trivial to have a dice program or website open and "roll dice" at a tap.

I generally do that, too, but there's something to that Childhood Magic Ritual of throwing plastic cubes on the table that's still appealing...

Originally Posted by Brandy

I also am really PC-centric and run the game in an asymmetric way. In another thread, I said that for me a roll to sneak would be a PC roll for Stealth and a roll to catch a sneaker would be a PC roll for Perception. The two scenarios don't need to be run with symmetric rules, treating the NPCs the same as PCs for me.

Yes, I see the appeal of that. I think it's Numenera that has all combat rolls become player rolled attacks or (when attacked) "defence checks", or something like that. It's... liberating as a GM, imo, to focus on the story. I don't think it's necessarily opposed to sandboxes, though.

Originally Posted by RogerBW

I believe I have said in game things like "the weather fails its Be Unpleasant roll, so it's a sunny day".

I'm definitely stealing that one!!

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

A couple of recent tests, if anyone's interested

I was JUST thinking that as I clicked the next page and immediately saw this reply!

[Boge]

I would prefer the GM to do rolls for my character that he's not ACTIVELY attempting, mainly perception rolls. When the GM says,"Make a perception roll" and you fail and he says,"You don't see anything", I become inclined to say,"I'm going to stop and look around extra hard!" I know something is there that I missed and it's going to bother me. I'd rather he rolled and then just didn't say anything. Even if there is nothing there and I say I'm going to look for such and such. He should roll for me anyway just to keep me unsure.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Boge

I would prefer the GM to do rolls for my character that he's not ACTIVELY attempting, mainly perception rolls. When the GM says,"Make a perception roll" and you fail and he says,"You don't see anything", I become inclined to say,"I'm going to stop and look around extra hard!" I know something is there that I missed and it's going to bother me.

If you did that in one of my San Diego campaigns, the other players would mock you with cries of "Metagaming! Metagaming!" You just have to learn to enjoy the suspense.

Or your GM could ask for the odd Per roll when there's nothing to spot, just to keep you on edge. . . .

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Boge

I would prefer the GM to do rolls for my character that he's not ACTIVELY attempting, mainly perception rolls. When the GM says,"Make a perception roll" and you fail and he says,"You don't see anything"...

That's just inexperienced GMing. First, a Per roll cannot fail*, there will always be things to see, even if it's just the room description.

Secondly, I ask for new Per/Observation rolls every time their surroundings change.


* My Players don't tell me Pass/Fail, but rather MoS on the +/- scale. And as they have no idea what the bonuses or penalties are, they have no idea if they passed or failed, just the margin by which they made the roll.

Though admittedly a huge negative margin is pretty indicative of failure. But it's also pretty likely that there is nothing to see (as per 'secondly' above).

And I prefer to use Douglas Cole's Rule of Passive 14 for these things anyway, unless the Character is actively on alert.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

If you did that in one of my San Diego campaigns, the other players would mock you with cries of "Metagaming! Metagaming!" You just have to learn to enjoy the suspense.

Avoiding metagaming is why hidden rolls exist: by eliminating the option, you eliminate the temptation for both conscious and unconscious metagaming (the first is fairly easy to resist, the second not so much).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Avoiding metagaming is why hidden rolls exist: by eliminating the option, you eliminate the temptation for both conscious and unconscious metagaming (the first is fairly easy to resist, the second not so much).

I'm mot inclined to worry much about unconscious metagaming. If it's subtle enough so that I don't spot it, and the other players don't protest, then it's not being a problem.

As for conscious metagaming, knowing that the other players will mock you if they catch you doing it is a pretty good way of reducing the temptation. It doesn't even impose that high an overhead, as it mostly succeeds as a deterrent and thus doesn't have to be used often.

If other GMs want to use the hidden roll strategy, that's their business; there are nine-and-sixty ways of constructing tribal lays. I've just never felt it necessary; it seems like a solution without a problem.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Avoiding metagaming is why hidden rolls exist: by eliminating the option, you eliminate the temptation for both conscious and unconscious metagaming (the first is fairly easy to resist, the second not so much).

Precisely. Suppose my party is exploring a dungeon, searching for the Magic Thingy. As we explore Room 32, the GM calls for Perception rolls, and we fail them. But we've now explored the entire dungeon and just can't find the Magic Thingy. "Hey," says one of the players, "Let's go look at Room 32 again."

Metagaming. But it's totally reasonable. Accuse the GM of creating a poor adventure, hiding the Magic Thingy too well, if you want, but the GM has also given the players the cues to know WHERE the Magic Thingy must be, even if their characters couldn't possibly know.

I've never been fond of the "I know perfectly well what's going on, but I'm going to make my character act clueless" style of gaming. Some people may like the acting involved in RPGs, but my preference is for the problem-solving. And if the players know the answer to the problem, pretending they don't is no fun.

[Boge]

Originally Posted by whswhs

If you did that in one of my San Diego campaigns, the other players would mock you with cries of "Metagaming! Metagaming!" You just have to learn to enjoy the suspense.

Or your GM could ask for the odd Per roll when there's nothing to spot, just to keep you on edge. . . .

I don't really do that. I just feel I should because it's obvious I missed something. But I role-play it and move along just as I would if nothing was there to begin with.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

That's just inexperienced GMing. First, a Per roll cannot fail*, there will always be things to see, even if it's just the room description.

I would agree, but at this point it's just habbit. He's been GMing for probably 25 years. I just don't think he, or the other players found it to be a big deal, so they just never implemented it. I've been an off and on player, so they've all created their way of playing before I became a regular member.