An Alternate Method for Secret Skill Rolls - GM Toolbox

[@NightWatchersPet]

I have a little treasure chest box I painted to look like a mimic, my players drop their dice in and shake it, hand it to me, I look then shake it before handing it back to them

[@SSkorkowsky]

Holy crap! I love that.

[@Dorian_sapiens]

I love it, too. Very cool idea!

[@NightWatchersPet]

Seth Skorkowsky & Dorian Sapiens thanks, I can't take a lot of credit for the idea though - DM Scotty suggested it in one of his videos, I just turned it into a mimic box instead of the pretty treasure chest he made :)

[@darrenp9454]

I absolutely love this idea!

[@plink4861]

I dont quite get what you just said

[@--enyo--]

As a compromise when I ran Blackwater Creek I just asked players to roll D100 whenever they needed to save against the Mother’s Gift. I had tossed up just secretly rolling so they wouldn’t be alerted to it, but didn’t want to take too much agency from them. This worked well. I wouldn’t tell them if they passed or failed, just the effects as necessary.

[@legionhut2443]

For Stealth, only call for the roll at the moment they risk discovery (and thus consequences). This prevents a bad Stealth roll from causing the player to back out prematurely. This also applies to Disguise, searching for Traps, etc. If players want to be extra paranoid, declaring that their characters are perpetually searching for traps or what have you, consider giving them a bonus to their rolls for that specific thing, but give them penalties for something else (while crawling on their hands and knees, checking every stone for a spike trap, they miss the monster on the ceiling and get caught flat-footed, or don't notice the bag of gemstones in the desk, etc).

[@doctorlolchicken7478]

I point out to my players that if they search continuously they take it for granted and actually get worse at it. For stealth, where most systems have an opposed roll, I find it ok to let players roll. People who are hiding or sneaking generally know how well they are doing, so it is fair if someone gets a bad roll and wants to back off. What they don’t know is whether the opponent can detect them.

[@Unahim]

Same goes for perception. A failed perception roll should lead immediately into something whenever you can manage it.

[@thomasbecker9676]

When I DM'd, I occasionally had my players make random checks that had no impact on the game, so they stopped overreacting to every single request. I'd also randomly do bluff rolls behind the screen and write something down, and never mention it.

[@alunardragon6270]

My group actually had a discussion about secret rolls for stealth in 5e, and something we came up with was that if a character has proficiency (or some manner of training if you're using a system), then it follows that the character is trained enough to not only be good at the skill, but also able to recognize whether or not they did a good job when using it. So, any players that had proficiency were allowed to know the results of their check.

[@vidard9863]

alunardragon I have worked with many skilled professionals. No, even being one of the best in the country, having performed a task hundreds or thousands of times you don't always know when you fail. At least not immediately. It is an interesting idea though. Perhaps the GM could flip a coin for proficient characters and so half the time you would know when you fail.

[@fhuber7507]

@@vidard9863 Let them know if they failed... AFTER they have ried the action they wanted the skill check for. We have players state action for charisma and persuasion, THEN roll the check to see if it worked. The action happened THEN the check is rolled. For most other skill checks they roll then explain what they are trying AFTER they know they failed? Obviously they are not going to do something as potentially dangerous if they already know they failed. Make them explain their epic attempt... THEN roll to see if it worked. I want t hide in shadows Where are you going and what are you doing? I rush over to the BENBG and ry to sneak attack and assassinate him. Roll 4 BENBG is looking at you and says: "You know, walking on potato chips isn't very quiet." as he swings his vorpal blade at your neck.

[@vidard9863]

@@fhuber7507 the issue with your story is that the character would know they stepped in potato chips as soon as it happened, say ten or twenty feet away, not be surprised within sword range. Unless the chips where right behind the guy, in which case it is still a bit of suprise to the bad guy. On the other hand, if he saw the player and the player doesn't realize.... Different story there...

[@GlassTopRX7]

I think they could have a chance of knowing if they were successful or not but shouldn't just be a combo result IMO. I mean you can never be 100% sure you weren't noticed, and I think the element of some chance is a good thing.

[@--enyo--]

That makes sense.

[@craigdesilva]

I don’t see myself using this, but I’m glad I watched the video because it made me think of I do but also think about why I do it. For me, I think I would ask for the spot hidden/perception roll purely because, in my games, rolls are called for for small things as well as big things. I don’t see my players expecting something as big as snipers just by walking outside. It’s more likely they would assume missing someone walking by, or not recognise a car parked somewhere or not seeing a gang tattoo on someone’s neck as they enter the building as you’re leaving. All calling for the roll indicates, is that something was missed. Not that an attack or something big is imminent. Maybe it’s because my games aren’t all action based and would be different with a different group or game. But the ‘light and shade’ (unsure if that metaphor works here but hey) inherent in my games is that players won’t assume missing something means missing something big and therefore would change their action or be waiting for something to happen. Sometimes they will make that assumption, but is that a bad thing, assumptions add suspense which is a good thing. Thanks for the video Seth!

[@MortemusII]

Oof, always awake for these videos, haha After watching your Call of Cthulhu introduction series I went out and purchased the hardback slipcase edition rules from Chaosium and have played a few successful games with my mates. I think we're going to be playing it as our main game from now on. I've thought of playing for a while but your videos peaked my interest and made me go and purchase the rules, haha. Thanks a bunch, Seth :)

[@SSkorkowsky]

Glad to hear you're enjoying it.

[@John-xe3rc]

I like this a lot, it's like passive perception but more living and real. I think I will give this a try.

[@RejectedSonnet]

This is a great alternative to the classic conundrum. It's always bothered me when I don't know whether to let players know their own skill roll results or not. This is a great middle ground.

[@theDMLair]

That's a cool approach I've never heard before. Thanks for sharing! 👊

[@sapientmuffin]

Seth, great video. Something I thought of to mitigate requiring a different set of rolls for each type of skill is to have a chart that has the modifiers for each secretive skill and all stat for each player. That way you can just have them roll a set of numbers, then modify them yourself based on whatever check is being made. Ofcourse, there's the homework of making a good, practical chart for all players and updating it when they raise stats or learn new skills. But that should be a lot easier and less tedious than say 5 different sets of rolls for secret skill checks. Just an idea. Love your vids man, keep it up!

[@ultimatecorgi3392]

Here's an idea for when to use the chart and when not: use the chart when the players walk into a room with a ghost in the corner, but let the players roll if they're searching every room in the mansion for the ghost. It appears to me that this method is a wonderful idea to prevent "I failed a spot check, therefore bad guys behind me" syndrome.

[@NotOnHereMuch]

I really do like this channel and you have given me some great ideas for future sessions. A similar tool I use is to make a table with player names down the side and then key stats across the top. These include A/C, any stealth or perception skills, hit points as well as and other saves (such as fortitude, will etc). I then get the players to fill out each line at the start of the session and keep the sheet behind my GM screen. When I need the group to do a skill check I just ask them to roll a dice and then I add on their bonus myself using the appropriate skill. As the players have no idea what they are rolling for they do not know what they have passed or failed so it makes it hard for them to meta game and can add to the tension of a situation. As an example (using D&D 3.5), three players are trying to be stealthy as they make their way down a darkened alley to a warehouse. The GM says "roll a d20". The players do not know what the roll was for. Did one of them make a noise alerting a guard or did they spot a shadow in the dark? The GM can then narrate how they see fit. This really comes into it's own when the party is split as players can suddenly feel very alone without their comrades to back them up. They can be rolling poorly but not know why and all their character knows is that "they have a bad feeling about this". I hope I explained that okay.

[@ultimatecorgi3392]

One technique I use for avoiding spoilers in hidden and knowledge checks is to provide semi-useful clues on a failure, and more useful ones on a success. For example, say the players are on security detail for a parade, and they need to catch a sniper who's currently running across the roof. If the players succeed on their spot check, they're able to spot the sniper climbing the fire escape of a specific building. If they fail their spot check, then perhaps they see the glint of the sniper's scope as they're preparing to fire. In the failure case, the player's failed to spot the sniper until much later in his act. Alternatively, on failure the players could notice that a fire escape's ladder is down, but they didn't see which direction the sniper went. In any case, this method requires improvisation and being willing to give the players nudges. All too often, failing a hidden or knowledge skill check leaves the players walking away emptyhanded and unsatisfied. Giving them useful crumbs can keep the game rolling, and ensure the players don't feel frustrated that they missed X, Y, or Z all because a piece of plastic fell a certain way.

[@ddesouz6]

I’m new to this channel. The information here is golden. Great work Seth! I’m a new fan

[@mikerice1000]

I've been using this for perception checks I (the GM) would ask for and my players love it. It's great for maintaining immersion.

[@jackietomblin1700]

Hey Seth. Found your amazing videos! Better late then never. I credit you for my interest in Traveller. I’m currently running 3 players in Pirates of Drinax and your videos have been invaluable.

[@AlfonsoVallarta]

Two words: passive skills. Base 8 so that actively using them makes it (on average) better, but never ask for a roll unless the PCs actually state they want to spend time doing something specific (and it actually requires a roll).

[@metallkopf988]

Exactly. That's what passive perception and such are for.

[@cidlunius1076]

That's giving Perception, Insight and Investigation a bit too much power. Letting them know something might be a foot is fine because they are passively observant, but there needs to be a distinction between you hearing something and being able to hear it clearly.

[@AlfonsoVallarta]

@@cidlunius1076 if you find it so, raise your DC. Even RAW has passive skill into it for a reason, let alone comfort.

[@cidlunius1076]

@@AlfonsoVallarta I don't think it's something you can balance out with numbers though, just encourage your players to do. To be courageous, but prepared or the opposite, be cautious, without taking root in too many comforts.

[@inomad1313]

I always enjoy your videos. Thanks for everything your do. There are a number of different options that I have used or seen used that allow the player to roll but not know the result or the reason. Have the player roll the die and as the DM you have all of the characters relevant bonuses listed in front of you. This works well for perception or stealth. The player knows they rolled for something but don’t know for what or wether they are successful. Have the player roll in a cup and turn the cup upside down on the table. Yahtzee cups work well for this. This works for rolls the player requested, but no one knows the result until the DM has it revealed. This works well for opposed rolls that the player may not know are happening until the effects take place...or don’t. Have the player rolls behind the DMs screen. The DM can see it but the players cannot. I once had a small box that was open on the top and partiality open on one side that faced me, the DM. The player would roll in the box and only the DM could see the result. Anyhoo. This hope these help. Side note. If the players are getting distracted, bogged down or way from the game, a call for a roll can easily get them back on track and moving again. How many times I’ve heard “wait. What? What are we rolling for?” My reply, “Just roll”.

[@ivanhagstrom5601]

For me the best way to do it, atleast for things like stealth, is to roll it when the outcome matters, not when the character chooses to do it. For example, when a player says they wanna stealth you just say "go ahead" no roll required. Then, when they try to sneak past a sleeping guard, that's when you make the roll! This way the sneaking player can't base their decision to walk in front of the guard on how good they rolled, because they haven't rolled yet.

[@Brian_Cameron]

I have found a way to have players roll their own stealth or perception rolls that works really well for our group. I have a dice tower set up behind my DM screen and whenever a player wants to make a roll where they would not reasonably know the outcome until later I have them roll in the "DM tower" and have them tell me their modifiers. This helps keep that sense of tension in the game and has been a lot of fun since I started doing it. This video made me think it could be fun to roll certain checks in front of the players. For example the scenario in the video where you have to hide from someone walking into the room, I would roll the NPC's perception in front of the players. I think this would also help build tension because if your hiding you would be able to see if that NPC spotted you or not.

[@capriciousnature8921]

This is GENIUS! Thank you Seth! Never understood that CP2020 table, but your explanation makes this like... Universally applicable

[@dallasgrasby5952]

Seth - great content on your channel - thanks! I think secret rolls are important but the table-based approaches are unwieldy - in my games I've come up with what I think is a simple perfect solution: The Keeper picks a number, any number, and adds this to the player roll to shift the random distribution of the player's own rolls. Example, Keeper secretly decides to use '20' as the modifier for part of a session. Now a player with a Spot hidden of 35 needs to make a skill check. If the player rolls 71 they don't know if they've succeeded or failed because they don't know the Keeper's modifier. If the modifier is 20 their roll becomes 91 (71 + 20) which is a fail. But if they'd rolled a 92, the Keeper would add 20, get 112 which 'clocks over' to just being 12 - a hard success. It's still random and its still the players own dice roll. At some point the Keeper can switch the modifier to another number say '50'. now if that previous skill check was repeated and the player rolled 71 this would become 21 (71 + 50 = 121 ie 21) which would now be a regular success. It doesn't matter what number the Keeper chooses as the chance of success is unchanged, you've just hidden the significance of a given dice roll number from the player. As for metagaming issues, I just accept that some rolls need to be made by the Keeper without the player being aware that a skill check is required. But there are so many situations where the modifier trick helps. Example, the player wants to intimidate a cultist to take them to his lair. With an Intimidate score of 40 a player rolls 04 and the cultist seems to cave in and tells the player to follow him and the player may relax their guard. If the Keeper's modifier is '10' then the roll was treated as 14, a hard success. But if the Keeper's modifier is '60' then the player's roll is treated as 64, a fail, and the cultist can let the player *think* they've succeeded, and amused by a pathetic attempt to intimidate, is leading the clueless player into an alley ambush. It even has uses in combat. A target that drops down behind their cover after a known critical hit is probably dead and you can concentrate on another target - but if you don't know it was critical (or you don't know if a shot through cardboard boxes got lucky) then they need to play on assuming they might still be a threat.

[@OR2891]

Wow this is a really genius idea. I've been thinking about how to handle secret rolls in my game. Definitely using this next session. Thanks, Seth!

[@TheodoreMinick]

If there are a lot of skills you want to use this for, have the players do the rolls, but record only the raw numbers, not the totals. Make another note with the players' bonuses for each of the skills you want to use, and when the time comes, just add the appropriate bonus. Also, just in case your players are all crazy good at remembering sequences of numbers, might want to jot the numbers down in random order, lest they puzzle out where you are in the list. SUPER edge-case, but when it comes to metagaming, I never underestimate the craftiness of my players. Love the channel, BTW. Keep up the good work. 👍

[@thekidsdontrespectme6338]

i have to say love the channel and the content keep it up seth

[@tomfernandez3564]

Great video, I really like it. The only adjustment that I would make would be to get just d20 rolls and have the group’s modifiers for the skills I would need for secret rolls. So it creates a bit more versatile set of data where it still maintains this aspect of the PCs rolling their fate but limiting their outside knowledge of these situations- I’ll definitely give it a try. Thanks a bunch!!

[@IanBoyte]

Off and on for a while now, I've had a small dice tower behind my DM screen for players to drop their dice into for secret rolls.

[@Kevlar-78]

Ian Boyte Yep. Works well.

[@hotdogthebarbarian]

Genius.

[@Vote4Drizzt]

While that definitely helps, the problem Seth is trying to handle is partially rooted in the fact that he had to ask for a dice roll in the first place. Once players have to make a roll they can't predict, it has a way of changing their behavior no matter whether they know the outcome or not.

[@hotdogthebarbarian]

Sure. I'm good with moderate amounts of metagaming because it is a another way to reveal the drama. Metagaming gets a bad rap, but metagaming is part of the game; it's the part of the game where the players themselves connect to the game. When a player says, "My character is tense." Big deal. When a player says, "This is tense!" that's when the game is actually working.

[@Vote4Drizzt]

I don't disagree actually, it's perfectly valid to allow or even directly interact with metagaming, if that suits you. In one of the examples in the video where there's a sniper afoot(I think) it's perfectly possible to let them roll, ratchet up the tension and do something with it. The point I was making is that a dice tower does not fully solve the problem addressed by Seth's solution, because it still grants the player knowledge that something is afoot. You can't actually call for that roll without tipping people off, and if your intent was for this to be a skill challenge that led to two branching outcomes(seeing a sniper vs getting sniped at by surprise) it's not going to work to let the players know a roll needs to be made. I don't think the dice tower idea is bad, it's just not a complete replacement for DM-rolls or the pre-roll sheet Seth discussed, because it still tips off the players. Any DM can do whatever they want, but since I don't think the two choices are entirely equivalent, I think it's important to recognize the difference and use that which is appropriate.

[@BigCowProductions]

I love this idea, thank you!!!! I use OneNote for my GM screen, and have an "at a glance" page with all their stats on it anyway. So I can run this without needing to assign skills like you had mentioned. I note what profs they have, and can find it easily in the moment. I'll just add a table with the 10 rolls, use the numbers, and consult the chart as needed. This is epic! Thanks!

[@dwarfbeardthedungeonmaster6067]

Interesting trick. Don't know how often I'd personally use it but it's definitely worth keeping in the ol' tool box just in case!

[@thomaskrogh85]

so its active and passive skills rolls. active is player rolls and passive is when gm rolls also have a successes and failure spectrum for example ( the sniper is a high in the success in the spectrum but the sense is a market so the middle is the baker just put out a fresh thing of bread, and theirs are a group of valley girls in the food court area, you see A Hawker/ pitchman notice your presences, A drug dealer in a back alley and finely your right shoe laces is untied. so the gm rolls a passive skill rolll A d6 and tell the player what the roll let them notice.

[@WayneBraack]

Old school trick. Constantly roll dice. Troll the players by rolling dice dice every opportunity and in between. Roll them for fun. It helps the DM feel like they're actually playing along for one, and keeps tension up for players fun as they never know if the dice are being played with or if the hammer of doom is about to smack them in the face. Roll skill checks with the players and they won't know if it's an open roll, ie: their dice are in control, or a secret roll you the DM need to make in the situation. Then let them play it out according to their roll or perception of the situation. Again this keeps a TON of mystery and suspense in the game and keeps the DM playing along as funny or dangerous things can happen when you suddenly say .. "actually according to my roll blah blah blah ... " Players: why ate you rolling now? Ate there wandering monsters here? Did we spring a trap? Ate we being spied on? What's he up to now? ... Ha ha ha haaa haaa haaa laughs the DM .. rolls more dice snickering ..

[@JonHook]

This is a great suggestion. A game master could also work with the players to prepare a chart of pre-rolled results for specific encounters in the adventure. And when the players are, (unknowingly), in that encounter then use the secret pre-rolled results chart. Otherwise, the players may be able to use their own live rolling during the game.

[@craftsmenMC]

This....... is pure genius

[@R1cardoSal3s]

Another thing you could use is permutation lists. You do a table of dice permutations (dice straight results on top, and permutations listed below). You can even show them to player, don't let them have for far too many times though so they don't memorize it. Every time they roll you ask them to give the result in "[dice roll] + [total modifiers]" instead of sum of both. Now you just go to the permutation you're using and use the equivalent number to his die roll as the actual result of the die roll. I suggest you have 4 or 6 permutation tables so you can announce a secret roll and roll the d4 or d6 in front of them so they know they're certain you're not choosing the worst permutation for them. (more than that can start to become confusing) Another good thing is having only permutations with different highest roll. So you can name each permutation after their equivalent of the highest roll. Since they're random permutations it doesn't inform players how to decipher the roll, but this is a good way for them to have the "Natural 20" feel. Every time you call a secret roll you announce the permutation by name (we're using permutation 13) and when they roll the permutation name number they know it's their "Natural 20". I think their excitement is worth the information, plus in roleplay rolling the "natural 20" might represent this great success so great it's evident. I encourage you to change your permutation tables periodically. It can be really easy once you already have a table (see example below for a d4 permutation table) 1 2 3 4 (d4 results) 2 1 4 3 4 3 2 1 2 3 1 4 1 4 3 2 (pick the first 3 columns and shift right (I'll shift 1 right, the rightmost result will "overflow" back into the left)) 1 2 3 4 (this is a reference, not a permutation this is not used for this process) 4 2 1 3 2 4 3 1 1 2 3 4 (this can happen, if your final table has some of it just shift the line once more) 3 1 4 2 (now shift the same columns down (don't move the last column, the nat 20 column, as it names the permutation)) 1 2 3 4 (again, this is just a header) 3 1 4 3 (the downmost line ends here, as it "overflows the table", imagine it as if the table was circular) 4 2 1 1 2 4 3 4 1 2 3 2 (now the lines have 1 repeated value (the natural20, always), but your shift says how many lines above the natural20 matchs the missing value to replace the duplicate for the current line natural20) 1 2 3 4 (remember, header) 2 1 4 3 (remember the list folds in a circle, so the bottom of it connects above the top) 4 2 3 1 2 1 3 4 1 4 3 2 There, you made a new permutation table out of your permutation table. Everytime you do it you can use the same shift, or random shift you roll. So long as the shift is not a multiple from the number of lines or columns you have to shift.

[@dieallgemeinheit2247]

We had a thing called a hidden roll - basically the player would put his dice in a small box, roll it and keep the box shut in front of him. It would only be opened when the situation resolved. Used to be pretty handy for stealth and hiding. For preception thingies we had our GM roll if we see or notice something. Even so, some evenings he rolled more dice for us than we did ourselves. Kinda stressful for the poor GM.

[@stephenmanak6024]

Coming at this from D&D, just take the straight rolls. Thinking about the checks that I would want "hidden" (which I've never done) I would write down those stats modifiers: deception, insight, perception and stealth(but not all). Love this idea and I might run it past my parties.

[@Wanderinpaladin]

I always tell my players "it's perfectly safe", unless they make the roll and there is something there. like "it's trapped" or my favorite (which I've used), "The mimic says 'I'm perfectly safe' roll for initiative"

[@10cody7]

this will totally help for anyone who has a list of things they wanna do when they enter a room or dungeon

[@TwiddleFingersDB]

Great ideas! I really hate having to say "but your CHARACTER doesn't know that..."

[@jonpatkin]

An alternate method would be to randomize the numbers 1 through 20 on a paper behind the DM screen with 1 corresponding to the first number, 2 corresponding to the second number, and so on. The player would then roll a d20 to determine the secret result.

[@orjanb4011]

This seems like something that could be pretty cool to try out! Maybe in Call of Cthulhu, or as an alternative to passive perception and investigation skills in D&D 5E. Though one thing I came to think of, when you talked about those paranoid players who fail a check to hide themselves or fail a check to spot something. They did the roll, they know there might be something there now, and so they want to try and get another shot at the roll. Personally I got really fond of the roll-pushing from Call of Cthulhu (and various others, I know superhero RPGs really love those systems), to the point where it really became my go-to way to approach for those moments. The player fails the roll, they want to try again, but because of that I raise the stakes up higher. If the original check was for the thugs waiting in ambush, it's now for the thugs actively moving in to get the drop on the players. If they were rolling to try and hurriedly bar the door shut, it's now to bar the door shut before the zombies slam it down - because now the zombies heard all the commotion. Just letting that short-term "oh crap, let's fix that" cause a long-term snowball that hits home even harder.

[@cidlunius1076]

I actually love this idea, I might start implementing it for Stealth and Perception checks.

[@Taronas]

I once had a game where I would write down "normal" or "Inverse" on a index card at the beginning of the session and leave it face down and all stealth, persuasion, bluff, and perception checks would randomly have their dice number inverted. They would get to look at the index card after game if they chose. It required each player to give me their rolled number rather than total but it worked decently.

[@colsen1991]

A twist on this with a little less overhead is using a hidden modifier; roll a d4 and d20 before the session starts. For the d4 1-2 means the modifier is negative (-), and 3-4 means the modifier is positive (+). The d20 equals the hidden modifier. Then you add that modifier to any hidden natural rolls the player makes. So say d4=2 and d20=9 you'll add -9 to the natural roll the player makes, then add the character skill modifier. If the natural roll with the hidden modifier added goes below 1 or above 20, you just start from the other end. So say the player rolls a 7 in the given example, the number you'll add the characters skill modifier to would be 18. Haven't tried this myself, just a thought I had after watching... >_> Calls for a bith more mental arithmetics during the session for the GM, but I think it'll be less time consuming than rolling X rolls for each player and writing it down in a table(?).

[@ReflectedPing]

I had a group that used a virtual tabletop and had for noncombat roll you would use the sercet roll command that just sends the results to the GM, but the players couldn't see it. There were some funny moments where one person thought they where sneaky but everyone saw him

[@Elven63]

Once again a fantastic video. I think I will give this method a try for my next session. Thanks for sharing, happy gaming, and keep up the outstanding work.

[@AuntieHauntieGames]

I've done something similar for initiative in combat, and I always do this for all NPCs in any combats I have planned. Works very well.

[@Wolfsspinne]

Nice idea, thanks for sharing it. If my players agree I'm gonna use this in tomorrow's session.

[@Wolfsspinne]

This worked incredibly well! I think I'm going to use this method in all my games from now on.

[@benjaminfrost2780]

This is a wonderful system. Thank you for putting this out there Seth. Very helpful.

[@PossumMedic]

For things that players wouldn't notice if they don't roll high enough I don't think it is unfair for the GM to make those rolls because it's not something they are actively doing but something they have the chance of noticing. I really like how in Call of Cthulhu if a roll will give something away I can substitute a Luck roll and still leave some to mystery! Thanks for the tip! I'll have to give this a try! :)

[@AndrewDayMortgage]

I do something like this before every session of DND 3.5. I have each player make a single perception roll, Wisdom savings throw, and insight roll. I then apply those rolls during the session, with some important notes. Firstly, if the players notice something important, I'm careful to tell the player that did the noticing: "Hey, Dan, you just noticed XYZ because of that amazing perception roll." Then I mark it off my list. Likewise, I also inform a player post-facto if he failed a roll. "The reason you fell for the illusion, Rodger, is because of that lousy wisdom savings throw." Seems to work pretty good.

[@kurtoogle4576]

I use this! Keeps the momentum and tension up. Players are fine with it - as long as they get to roll. I have them roll dice into a dice tower, but they can't see the results.

[@MaxWriter]

I like this. Elegant and simple. I have to figure out if I want to implement it in my Call of Cthulhu game. For Spot Hidden, I could see it being very effective.

[@saintsinna]

I typically choose whether to GM roll or player roll skill checks depending on whether it is a reactive or active check. For instance if a player is specifically looking or listening for hidden enemies, I let them roll, but if they are relatively unaware and I am rolling to see if they notice an ambush thats set up, I'll do a GM roll. Also when I GM roll I take the better of either my GM roll or the players bonus +10. To balance it out I buff the DCs of most of these checks by 2 or sometimes 4.

[@olavc.oevele1902]

Thanxalot for sharing this good idea. I've already used it and altered it a little bit to connect it with the role playing in this way that they had to roll the perception call hours of in game time ahead the event because one's perception is determined by the fitness, the mental and physical state at this day which is determined at some early point at this day. In this way it didn't feel like GM-metagaming and more "role play organic". Thanxagain.

[@0Ninja0Dude0]

I like this. I was considering just setting up a blind roll tower because I keep a copy of everyone else's sheets. I also have a rule that if someone makes a check that skill is now barred for that check for the entire table it's kinda situational like b if the whole parry was sneaking they all get one stealth. another example would be if someone tries to open a lock and fails they will need to find a new way to open it

[@kevinsullivan3448]

I've been using a system that has worked for the last 30+ years. As play progresses I will ask a player to "Roll" or "roll yDx". Roll means roll the dice for a normal task resolution, be it d20, 3d6, d%, etc. roll yDx is a specific number of a specific die type. If a character needs to make a skill roll that they do not know they are making I have another player roll. When they stumble across a camp of bad guys the player rolls the 'awareness' of the bad guys. Sometimes the roll has no meaning at all, it just builds tension. If I call for awareness or spot, or notice or some other skill then the players all roll their own. The same is true for any action they state they are doing.

[@fakjbf3129]

Idea, have a chart that assigns each number on a die to a different number, and when you have a player roll a check you go to that number in the list for the actual value. So for example on a D6 you might have 4,1,5,3,6,2 and the player rolls a 3, which would correspond to a 5. You then ask for their modifiers and go from there. This means that you just need to roll up a sheet for each type of die at the start of each game (or just use the same sheet each time, depends on how paranoid you are about players figuring it out).The other thing to do is that if they fail the check, give them a red herring. This doesn't work when they have a good idea of if they passed or not, but here they would have no idea if your description is actually useful or not. Their options then become to further investigate and risk wasting time, or ignore it and risk missing something important. They have to make a genuine decision based on their subjective interpretation of what is going on, and what could be more immersive than that?

[@DeGreyChristensen]

I’ve made a party sheet that has the skills and ability scores of all members of the party and for each player there is a place for secret rolls. This way, I can just get the secret rolls and add the modifiers as I need them, instead of having to make a few charts for each skill. The party sheet also tracks xp as we go (I award xp at long rests) and has the basic attack for each player just in case they have to leave early or step out for whatever reason (it’s happened too much in the past with us not knowing their stats) and passive perception. I really love the idea of pre-rolls

[@Myrth1]

One thing worth mentioning as a problem with this style of secret rolls is that it is overly complicated and might be even useless for dice pool systems. For that is the mentioned in the comments "box to put dice into" solution, meaning players know they did a perception roll or a sneak roll, but they don't know the outcome, and that can put them on the edge

[@jerrypocalypse1180]

Our GM will occasionally call for things like perception checks when there isn't a true need for one, just to keep us paranoid in games that benefit from it, like Shadowrun. Works pretty well. Obviously the players don't know in the moment, but it really helps curb some of the metagaming from low rolls since we're doing them more often.

[@SierraKomodo]

The method I've used in recent games is a form of 'Passive Perception' or similar for other relevant skills. Whenever we start a session, or the players are entering an area, everyone makes a perception roll that will always be applied 'behind the scenes' for various hidden things that the players/characters aren't actively looking for (They're not used in cases where a player says they want to check something and I have them make a perception roll). In places where the characters might not be as observant because it's safe, they're tired, etc, it's just the single d20. In cases where characters might be trying to be observant, it's a d20 or take-10 - Whichever is the higher result.

[@LifeLikeSage]

This guy always has the coolest shirts in every video.

[@giladpellaeon1691]

It's an option I had not heard or thought of before and I think I'll try it for the next time I'm running. Might also be useful for saves in d20 systems especially for charm/illusion stuff.

[@PolymathiCat]

This is a brilliant find to share. I'll be bringing it to my table.

[@sectionMarco]

Would it work to have both the player and the GM roll, but the GM roll acts as a base? If the GM rolls a 5, then that becomes the base for the player roll. For example: The GM rolls a 5, the player a 15, making the result a 10, which is hidden to the player. or The GM rolls a 19, the player rolls a 20, making it effectively a 1. or The GM rolls a 3, the player rolls a 2, effectively a 19. etc. The advantage is you can roll as often as needed when it is needed, it works for any die roll, percentile, D20, D10 etc. The player is completely unawair of the result of the roll. (and this also allows the GM to do some hocus pocus if the story really demands it ;-) ) Loving your content!

[@SpasticEliteStudios]

I am totally using this for the next campaign I run because it is a great idea.

[@iGompers]

I like the idea of this, it's a fluctuating passive perception or a tool to create any passive skill

[@Z7Games]

I actually got a homebrew system in most of my games that allows for players to directly throw yet still have no clue of the result most of the time, it involves a bit of math so I don't recommend it for games with big die (d100). Here I go. >Let the player throw a roll, let's say a 1d10, result 7. >Throw a secret roll behind the GM screen, can be any dice, even a coin. >If the result is an even number, use the result of the player. >If the result is an odd number, invert the number (3 in this case) Inverting the number should be an easy subtraction. (MaxDiceValue-DiceResult) Example: 1d20 rolls 6 Inversion 20-6 Inverted roll = 14 If you don't want to make the math on the spot, because you feel it will drag the pacing of the game, it should be as easy as making a reference table for it and looking it up in a second. This way you can actually let players throw every single time and most of the time they will have absolutely no clue if they are actually successful.

[@DungeonMagister]

I forgot all about that!. I played Cyberpunk 2020 all the time with my uncle when I was 15

[@Scott_Burton]

This is something I use, in a d20 system. I ask for each player to make 5 d20 rolls at the start of a session, after ANYONE passes their 3rd roll, I scrap the whole chart (after the situation has passed) and ask everyone to make 5 more rolls. It takes about 2-3 minutes at the start of a session, and maybe once in a session, 2-3 minutes more. No player knows who reached #3, or of during that incident anyone reached #5. But if you use any such system, you can NEVER as the GM, "fudge the roll"

[@5oundOfVictory]

Secret skill rolls for things like stealth are something I'm probably gonna end up implementing tbh, they sound more fun. However, with perception checks, I always use passive perception (this is in DND, I don't have experience with many other systems), unless the party is actively searching for stuff. This goes for insight as well. If they fail the role, I don't say "you think they're telling the truth" or something like that, I say "they're difficult to read" and "the room doesn't appear to be trapped" because in those cases, the character is skeptical of being lied to or the room being trapped. If they don't find anything or can't read the target, they're still allowed to be skeptical and untrusting and careful, because maybe they missed something and are being careful just in case they missed a stray pressure plate, or this one NPC is a super huge liar. The player just doesn't know, and is gonna constantly second-guess themselves, because I've trained my players in the idea that sometimes the person is telling the truth, and sometimes they're not, and they just don't know for sure unless those rolls are good.

[@abortedlord]

I like to do this: have a list of their skills, or a chart of their stats and proficiences for 5E, and ask them simply to roll a D20 without having them total it up. All they know is that they rolled a D20. Yes they can still KINDOF metagame, but they don't know what they are looking for necessarily. I like this result because it kinda conveys the sense of a character having a "feeling" that something is wrong without necessarily knowing what or why. And I think we've all had that feeling before.

[@SilverSeraph100]

This is what I was thinking as well. Players just roll the dice without knowing what skill is being checked.

[@TTIOttio]

Or combine the two. Prerolled checks + knowing their stats and proficiencies means that you only have one row of prerolled dice but you can apply it to whatever skills you want.

[@lazerbeams2536]

I've actually been considering using this for initiative in my 5e game. Instead of having players roll initiative at the start of combat, they roll at the start of the session and I just organize them when we get into combat

[@Lapoleon1821]

Another option which keeps the result unclear but doesn't hide the roll itself is to randomly reverse die rolls sometimes. So your roll won't be 1d100, but 101-1d100. This means that a player doesn't know whether he has to roll high or low.

[@HWFchamp]

Usually do 3 of each "passive" checks before the game and use them as needed. If I need to refill the checks I just ask for the rolls randomly - usually during combat. "17 hits, you do 5 damage and the orc drops. Roll me a spot check." "Wait, what? Why?" "Roll it." " 13?" "k." "Did I see something?" "Dunno." Man that really screws with them.

[@LordMidichlorian]

I did a little DMing in a NWN PW some years ago and there was no hiding rolls. To avoid players metagaming knowing a failure double checking for no reason, my method which I applied to every roll, is that no roll gives nothing. It's not "you see someone hiding or you see nobody". In the example, if the player didn't roll high enough spot to see the sniper rifle, then he'd see something irrelevant, like the window frames are made of very cheap material. The issue I ran is players got stuck in that meaningless bit instead and insisted on going with it. There was this quest that started with the group coming across two bodies in the woods, not far from the road. I wanted a search check for them to spot a clue that could help them a shortcut in the way to solving the crime (or get the first phase going, it was the first crime related to some biggish gang thing). The player who was checking the area where the clue was rolled rather poorly, I think it should've been obvious he failed, so I just fed him that there was a buzzard making noise and being annoying. Cue in like an hour of time wasted in the player, who happened to be a druid, casting all kinds of speak with animals and what not trying to communicate with the bee and then trying to find its nest like the bee was a valuable witness, while other clues gathered by other players, less clear than the one missed, were being ignored in lieu of the bee being the last "finding". Goddammit.

[@AlluMan96]

If you want to give players the chance to spot something before it becomes prevalent, yet don't want to clue them in with a check- demand, the best way to do it is use passive skills. Whatever equation you decide that with (Be it 10+the skill or 10+half the skill or whatever and whatever other factors you use to increase or subtract that score), always keep a chart of everyone's commonly used passive skills and meld that into the game's pacing. Check for everyone's passive perception and give appropriate information about the area entered based on the highest passive perception to that player. Instead of having players constantly roll stealth when they move around an enemy's stronghold, make sure the player's passive stealth is high enough, that they can move around without making too much noise. If the players are attempting to move something heavy quickly, make sure people have a good passive athletics before you ask the roll. Only ask for checks when the players don't have passive stats good enough to pass whatever you had in mind. This gives the game flow and can be a good, passive way of rewarding players for dedicating stats to builds by giving them the occasional leg up.

[@robertnett9793]

I've heard this tip with pre-made rolls in another context: Initiative. Alas I don't remember the exact video - but the gist is about: Roll X Initiative-Checks in Advance, so battle begins immediatly without needing to roll initiative right before the combat and thus taking out the speed. Edit: For CoC If you note down the actual numbers instead of the success-level, then you might use the numbers for all 'classic' secret checks, as in spot / stay hidden and psychology. It is not as convinient as noting the success-levels - but you just have to note down this three skill levels of your investigators and then compare it to the noted numbers... Not sure if it is as fast as the other variant, but I think I'll give it a try tonight. I'll let you know, how well it works.

[@CottonPanzer]

I tend to make the player make smaller decoration rolls. That is; say you're running across an open field. You fail an agility roll, fall over and take one point of damage. Nothing more. You feel something is following you. You roll perception. A cat is indeed following you. It makes the players less prone to go full paranoia crazy over skill rolls now and then, as they're used to some of them being negligible. It also creates smaller engagements for players to emphasize their character. An evil dude can earn some free Evil God favor by sacrificing the cat. Good caretaker of nature can earn some favor with nature for feeding it. It doesn't remove the tension of horror rolls or surprising encounters. Players still feel every roll tensely (don't overdo it either). But it majes them far less prone to metagame, because I as the GM has posed the possibility that there may be nothing of danger or importance.

[@Redmage24]

that's a pretty neat method, Seth. I might have to give that a try.

[@TalonSky]

Alternatively, just know the players' passive skill scores for rolls they don't expressly ask to make. If it's a d20 system, it's 10 + their bonus. This is so much faster than any other method I've found. Something sneaking up on a PC who isn't paying attention? NPC's stealth vs. PC's passive perception. PC comes across a hidden bit of knowledge but doesn't think to roll the appropriate knowledge? Conpare it to their passive knowledge and see what pops into their character's head.

[@TheSpartanOne]

In general, I ask my players to roll whatever perception check there should be as they enter an area... preferably not every room, it's more of a zone-wide thing. However, when they roll, I ask them to roll several times, each one is subskill or specific sensory that their character has... However, they don't know which subskill they're rolling for as the order in which I apply them is randomized each time. I jot those rolls down under their list of senses, then when they move through the area or region/zone, I simply describe pre-written descriptions based on levels of that sensory detail when they encounter something relevant to that sensory indicator. It quicker, makes the game flow smoother, and makes the players feel that their rolls had agency in their demis... I mean game session, yes...

[@kgauck]

I like passive checks for sneaking when you don't know if you're being observed, or perception if you don't know you should be seeing something. I assume you rolled a 10 on a d20, and I roll for the opposition or use a set DC like 15. The only prep is knowing the players stealth and perception rolls. I also assume this takes no time. If players call for checks, it takes a round or a minute, or whatever to look around, but the players roll for that.

[@jameseast9229]

I wonder if you could use something like this for either/both hit chance or/and damage to simulate old Chambra Film duels, where both combatants simultaneously hit each other in like, a duel to first blood or something.

[@Caitlin_TheGreat]

Alternatively, you could just have the players roll the raw dice, then during play you add one of those raw rolls to a skill/stat modifier for that character (likely from a copy of the character sheet). Secret rolls should be used sparingly, though. I think stealth is often a good choice to keep secret, unless you have players who are good at roleplaying consistently despite dice outcomes.

[@kevind.k7512]

One can also make a one off list of dice rolls for the most used dice for a check, say in cyberpunk/dnd its system is skill +attribute + d10/d20 respectively. So have them make at start of campaign each make a numbered (or alphabetized) list of say 26-50 or so rolls of the d10/d20. post it up onto an easily accessed list in the play area and roll once randomly at start of each session which nr, or letter is the series of rolls which you will pick the specific players roll out of as the first for whatever player is doing the secret rolling if any. Then if you need another secret roll you look up the next Letter or number of roll. If you want you can refresh it even every IRL 2d month of play or so. With this the GM only needs a glance at the chart, which should not be secret info and written in big letters so the GM doesnt need to peer at it for long to get a roll. Also the players have no idea a roll has been made unless the GM wants to make it possible to suspect it.

[@oahc1052]

Off the top of my head I see one potential problem with this; The players know that the DM knows the results of the skill checks (both with and without advantage) prior to setting the DC. This can potentially open a can of worms with scenarios where the players suspect the DM of adjusting the DC to get the outcome that they wanted (i.e. railroading), or to favour or punish certain players. And we both know that the players suspecting the DM of doing this is just as bad regardless whether it's true or not. And yes, I know that such trust issues are a sign of a much bigger problem in which this is merely a symptom, but I still think this could aggravate those issues.

[@zeromancer-x]

For a passive ability/skill check, I just tell the players to make a die roll, but not what it's for ahead of time. In situations where the player initiates the check, I still roll the die.

[@caos1925]

Just getting into role playing and DMing for real, and a solution I've thought of, is : as the DM ask them to make skill roles occasionally so they get the feel for it, to start doing it themselves. Also at times when I ask them to role, there really will be nothing there at all, so if they role low or even medium, they may still be suspicious and search for something that doesn't exist. That way when they do role for something that really is there and they get a low, they may still think nothing is there, and not, oh the dm had us role so there must still be something around.

[@rangehot]

I have players make their own rolls during the game. Some are arbitrary and some are for real. I believe rolling the dice in the heat of the moment adds fun to the game but the PCs are never sure if the roll is important or not and that keeps the metagaming down and adds some tension to the game.

[@Rokkiteer]

I tried this method as a player. I didn't like it. We were exploring this haunted house and we would ask the dm that we wanted to look around for traps/books/other stuff and he would tell us that we already did. It left me confused, as I never knew when I was actively looking, if I had already checked a room out or if I needed to declare that I wanted to look around. I think passive perception is key here. If the players don't say it, then assume the pp is their level of attentiveness. As a dm, I'm currently trying a different method of stealth, where the player doesn't roll when they start sneaking, but when there's a risk of being discovered. We haven't played too long with this method though, so can't tell you how it works at the table

[@TheAnonyomusGuy]

What about a vs method? The player rolls for their perception or stealth or whatever and the enemy rolls to try and beat it or vice versa

[@brgessner]

A little bit of meta gaming doesnt really bother me. Though this might be because, I have relatively new players. Also I like to have them roll dice as much as possible so they feel in control of their character. However I do get that having them roll perception immediately alerts them to the presence of something bad. So you could have the sniper roll stealth vs their passive perception instead. And the first time they notice the sniper is when the vase next to their head explodes.

[@bluelionsage99]

For me I only GM roll for finding traps and secret doors. So that a low roll won't give away that they failed weather there was something to find or not. I tend to shade what I say based on the roll. Like if there is no trap and the roll was 15+ I tend to give it away a bit saying "you're pretty sure it's clear" or "you feel good its clear". A low roll like a 5 or less is often "Well, you think its ok". As we play via Fantasy Grounds a player can roll any number of d20s for me in one toss which saves time for making a chart - but then I need to write them all down.

[@kkplx]

This is where online platforms are convenient, allowing truly hidden rolls, even directly referring the stats of characters when doing so

[@jasonscarborough94]

I rarely have to prompt my players to make Perception checks, they frequently just roll checks as soon as they enter a room, don't know if its just because their paranoid or if I did something to spook them

[@ragnarrok257]

I like the passive skill system in 5E for this. You never need to roll for checks in those situations.

[@SSkorkowsky]

I liked Passive Perceptions when I read them, but once used them I didn't care for them as much. They remove the random variables. Some characters will just always succeed, while others wont. I prefer the idea that the "always alert" PC might have been looking at his shoelaces at the time, while the normally oblivious character spots the clue.

[@hanej5718]

I generally write a number, 1, 2, or 3, and then have the player roll three times, so they're not sure which roll was used.