Greetings.

Since this is my first thread here, I'd like to give some information about myself and my previous experience with roleplaying: My clear name is "Nico", and I'm from Austria (so sorry if my english is not perfect, my native language is german). I've been roleplaying for about six years now, with some different systems. Here is a list of the systems I have experience with, edition numbes are in parantheses if I know them:

-> Das schwarze Auge (1, 3, 4). I think this is called "The dark eye" in english.
-> D&D (1, 3.5, 4)
-> GURPS (4)
-> The Riddle of Steel
-> Streetfighter
-> oWoD, nearly all gamelines there are.
-> nWoD, mage.
-> Legend of the five rings (2, 3)
-> Star Wars D6 (2)
-> Star Wars Saga
-> Shadowrun (3, 4)
-> Ratten!. I don't know of an english version of this.
-> Rolemaster
-> Pendragon
-> Dresden Files

Over time, I have been playing in different groups with different styles of play. Right now, I am playing a GURPS-campaign where the characters are "normal humans" from earth and visit various other worlds through portals. A little bit like Stargate.

---

So, now about my actual question:

If I am the GM, I like to do all my rolls out in the open, so the players can see the results too. This helps me to convice them that I am in fact not "cheating" them by ignoring the results of the dice whenever I want (as some GMs I've played with did). However, the GURPS-rules explicitly state that the GM should hide his information rolls from the player (and our current GM does). The reason for this is that an open roll on perception, research, investigation or whatever would just kill the feeling of doubt and uncertainty these rolls are trying to evoke. I generally agree with that. It is kind of boring when you always know your character is right. Despite of that, I always get this uncomfortable feeling when the GM rolls the dice secretly.

A similar situation exists with hidden player decisions. We enjoy it when our characters are sometimes scheming against each other secretly. Of course, this requires that the players announce their actions to the GM without the other players knowing. This can also generate this great feeling of uncertainty, when you simply don't know who you can trust. Every character is pursuing another agenda, and some of these agendas may conflict with each other. However, this can create a very similar problem to the hidden dice: How do you know that the GM stays fair and neutral (that is, doesn't arbitrarily favor one character over another), if you can't be there to check for yourself?

So the real question is this: How do you balance the need for fairness with the need for a feeling of uncertainty? Have any of you been in similar situations in the past? Are there any known, smart ways to approaching this problem? Or do I just have to choose one and forget about the other?

Hi,

I've been GM'ing some AD&D recently and I've felt similarly about the rogues sneaking and trap finding rolls. Also it bugs me that the player merely barks 'I sneak, I check for traps' and I have to jump and start rolling at their command - I'd prefer they have to do a task rather than just command. Yet if they roll, they know if they failed to find a trap. A recent idea (I haven't tested) is that the player rolls, but the GM has a secret D10 he rolls every so often. If it's a 1, then skill is -20%. If it's a 10, the skill is +20%. Granted within a range the player still knows if they failed or passed. But within +/-20% of their skill, they will not know, because the modifier could change the result.

More focused on your situation, you could have a box where as GM you secretly roll the dice into the box, close the lid, then sit it on the table. Latter the players can actually open the box and see the result. This probably lends itself to using D6's (with a lid that presses down on one side), as a D20 might roll around and show a different number once opened (creating a creepy Shrodinger effect). But if the die can be stabilised, it could work for any die.

Hmmm, I guess a GM could still roll and switch the result - perhaps the box is tall (with a wide, stable base) and as GM you have the box outside the GM screen and drop them down, see the result, then close the lid. That way you know the result, it can't have been tampered with, and it can be seen latter. Probably really can only be done with D6's, though.

However, this can create a very similar problem to the hidden dice: How do you know that the GM stays fair and neutral (that is, doesn't arbitrarily favor one character over another), if you can't be there to check for yourself?

Callan wrote:
More focused on your situation, you could have a box where as GM you secretly roll the dice into the box, close the lid, then sit it on the table. Latter the players can actually open the box and see the result.

Callan wrote: Well, I'd say this is what dice and rules are for. Everyone has biases. If you have it that play can drift away from rules and 100% into the GM's decision and whatever biases he has, you better see that as a feature, because if you see it as a bug, you aught not be doing it. If you keep with rolling, the GM could record rolls and show them to the other player (they'd have to collude to cheat then - I'm assuming the problem is not cheating, but people who GM and like to indulge their own whims (which is basically everyone!))

fodazd wrote: How do you balance the need for fairness with the need for a feeling of uncertainty?

Why don't you just roll when the information is needed? Like, don't roll for a find traps or stealth when the rouge enters the dungeon. Roll it when the trap is about be activated or the rouge is about to be spotted! It's an instant action generator instead of a boring set-up roll.

If it's investigation or research you have to be a bit more creative. But then again, what's the point in a research roll that either lets the story to continue or blocks that path entirely? You can try to set the situation up so that the roll is needed later, in a heated situation. Or: make those rolls in the open, give them false information and be explicit that it is false information. But give them XP if they choose to pursue that path anyway. Tempt them!

Regards, way

David wrote:
The key is the GM communicating that there is in fact a fictional reason for the surprising roll outcome.  If the GM gets in the habit of always doing this, then fears of cheating the rules tend to fade, in my experience.  (Cheating the spirit of play by randomly reinforcing all your wooden doors with adamantite is another issue.)

way wrote:
If it's investigation or research you have to be a bit more creative. But then again, what's the point in a research roll that either lets the story to continue or blocks that path entirely? You can try to set the situation up so that the roll is needed later, in a heated situation. Or: make those rolls in the open, give them false information and be explicit that it is false information. But give them XP if they choose to pursue that path anyway. Tempt them!

Yeah, rolling for things where you have no idea how well you did is awkward.  Hiding it certainly sounds better than what you described.  Better still might be to scrap Research rolls entirely.  It sounds like you are getting exactly zero bang for your buck on those.  If it must be determined whether or not the characters turn up correct info, you could instead:

a) Just let the GM decide.  It ain't cheating if you agree to it.  Agree on some constraints for what's fun, to help guide the GM's decisions.  If the GM is stumped, they can secretly flip a coin.

b) Roleplay it out.  Show us what you're doing to find the info, step by step.  The GM will respond step by step.  At the end, you'll have some info, and a very good idea of why it might or might not be correct.

These approaches lose the difficulty-modeling simulation of "how likely is this character to be able to research this topic?"  Is that okay?  Even if it's not perfect, is it worth it, considering the current costs of the simulation?

David wrote:
Better still might be to scrap Research rolls entirely.  It sounds like you are getting exactly zero bang for your buck on those.

David wrote: These approaches lose the difficulty-modeling simulation of "how likely is this character to be able to research this topic?"  Is that okay?  Even if it's not perfect, is it worth it, considering the current costs of the simulation?

There is a method that is used in D&D 4E to speed up things: prerolling results. This might be used here as well: preroll a bunch of numbers with the usual dice setups (with 4E for example, only d20s). The GM writes down the results, but keeps the list away from the players. Any time a hidden roll is necessary, the GM just takes the next one in the list. He might also write the task next to the number, so everyone can see that after play. It's not perfect but very fast and does not disrupt play.

way wrote:
There is a method that is used in D&D 4E to speed up things: prerolling results. This might be used here as well: preroll a bunch of numbers with the usual dice setups (with 4E for example, only d20s). The GM writes down the results, but keeps the list away from the players. Any time a hidden roll is necessary, the GM just takes the next one in the list. He might also write the task next to the number, so everyone can see that after play. It's not perfect but very fast and does not disrupt play.

Nico, here's an idea that is a modification of Callan's suggestion; I'll give it in D&D 3.5/4 terms because I'm most familiar with those systems.

Each skill is rolled against a target DC. Generally, the players can discover the approximate range of the DC by asking questions. "How hard is it to break down the door?" is a pretty obvious question and the GM can almost spell out the DC by describing the door material, whether is it reinforced with metal, etc.

The penalty for failure comes well after the roll, and the GM doesn't want to tell the players the result. When sneaking past the sleeping dragon, were the PCs successful or is the dragon just really good at pretending to be asleep?

Here, the GM can again give a description of the DC, but secretly bump the DC with another die-roll. In this example, the DC for sneaking past the dragon may be DC 40. With bumping, the new DC is 36 + d8.

Of course, the DC and the die-size are still up to the whims of the GM, so bias may sneak in here, but the number showing on the die-roll may provide the GM with more force. "What?! You rolled an 8?? No wonder we failed."

Dan

So you're right: The problem here is not really "cheating" but GMs indulging on their own whims.

Hmm... You still can't verify that the GM didn't manipulate anything with this method. If the GM knows when a particular secret roll will be made (which is usually the case), then the outcome could be statically determined without anyone noticing. Not really much better than just the basic method of hiding the rolls without the players being able to check.

I have seen hidden die rolls used to great effect in The Mountain Witch.

Duels are resolved with such rolls.
The duelists roll a die and hide it.
If either wants to press the attack the two results are exposed and compared, high wins.
If both parties hold their action, they get to roll another die, and again choose to press the attack or hold again.
A third round of rolling is possible.

The tense expectation of when the blows will start to fall exists in the fiction.  It also exists in the resolution procedure that the players are engaging.

That parallel between fictional situation and player behaviour is rarely accomplished in RPGs.  I love it when it does happen.

Daniel wrote:
Here, the GM can again give a description of the DC, but secretly bump the DC with another die-roll. In this example, the DC for sneaking past the dragon may be DC 40. With bumping, the new DC is 36 + d8.

Callan wrote:
Just on this, I said nothing along those lines. A GM following their whims is all you ever have - the vaunted 'neutral GM' is a myth. If you want neutral, use a machine, not a human. Only use a human if you enjoy using something/someone that will indulge whims rather than be a machine. That's what I'm saying - if PC's are plotting against each other, it needs to be in regards to points or something that rules can and do deal with, or else if it's something only a GM can judge, then the players themselves have made it about something that will involve a GM indulging his whims.

Callan wrote: Have the random dice rolls numbered. The players call out numbers at random. This determines what roll is used (GM can even note next to the number what it was used for in play)

Erik wrote:
The tense expectation of when the blows will start to fall exists in the fiction.  It also exists in the resolution procedure that the players are engaging.

That parallel between fictional situation and player behaviour is rarely accomplished in RPGs.  I love it when it does happen.