Mercer sometimes does a cool thing to prevent other players from retrying skill checks. When Vax tries to pick a lock or something and fails, he might say "You spend 15 minutes fiddling tirelessly with the lock to no avail." The second they hear 15 minutes, their eyes go wide and nobody wants to waste any more time. Great strategy, I think!

There is another solution to the stealth issue that keeps the players in suspense as to whether they are stealthed while still allowing the players to roll. In our group, we only roll the stealth check only once there is someone/something to detect them. The PCs can start moving in a 'stealthy' manner through the castle's corridors, that is, they want to avoid being seen and this just happens, no roll required. They can move in this manner as much as they wish. It's not until a guard enters the room and they all need to hide that the roll is made; a contested check agianst that guard's perception. It prevents the 'I rolled badly so there's no point me trying' or the 'I rolled well so let me scout ahead alone'. The players don't know how well they are doing until it matters. Feels very natural and leads to very suspenseful moments when everyone realises they need to roll and what they are rolling against. "You are all creeping along trying not to make a sound; ahead several eye-stalks start drifting around the corner as the beholder begins to enter the room! You all freeze behind the crumbling pillars and rubble and hold your breath, hoping not to be noticed. Roll your stealth checks!" Really fun moments that removes the 'metagame' of stealth checks. Our group loves it.

Sometimes it's a tactile thing - a sense of "ownership of the roll" as part of their mastery over their character's fate. In those cases a dice tower with a tray can be awesome. You have it behind your screen, and they put the die in the top - They're still the one making the roll. But they don't see the result until you're ready for them to know. You can even avoid touching the tower to prove you haven't fudged anything, if you've got strict anti-fudge people. You can turn it around after they've been spotted to show that no, they rolled badly, and it really was Their roll with Their die.

As a player, I've always liked the idea of the DM rolling for checks that I shouldn't know I failed on. So; Perception, Investigation, Insight, etc. Because that gives the DM more room to feed false information and describe the world more narratively, rather than me as a player knowing I rolled low and suspecting I missed something or that the NPC was lying. Sometimes I think I'd be happier playing on a couch and having the DM do all of the rolls. As a DM, my players all like rolling dice way too much, so I let them and still try to throw in false information and false successes on bad rolls. As Matt said, the dice roll determines the circumstance, I think a lot of players seem to think the dice result is the skill check, rather than circumstance modified by the players' skill modifier. Another thing I like to do as a DM in relation to knowledge checks, I don't have a fixed DC. I don't like that aspect of 5e and I change it, but I apply bonuses to the players from my end by changing the DC or increasing the amount of information they can get on a successful check. Someone with a Sage background and history proficiency is going to have a much lower DC on getting detailed information about some obscure knowledge, and while it's still possible for a Barbarian to know something, it's likely just going to be something he overheard in a tavern or stories his mother told him as a child, and there wouldn't be as much detail or certainty given. That's always been my solution to the "sure everyone can roll" because like I said, most of my players REALLY like rolling dice, so my solution enables them.

I remember a game where the DM rolled the stealth checks and the whole party panicked. Fearing a failed roll we all bolted from cover and got spotted like the fools we were.

Matt, thank you. I’m a fairly new DM and when I began, my DMing style was quite flawed. Even though you talk mostly 5E and I play pathfinder and starfinder, your advice is very applicable. My DMing has improved immensely since I have started watching your series. I can tell that both my friends and I have so much more fun in my campaign. I’m 14 and I can’t wait for the years of learning and fun ahead of me. Thank you 😊

I think that stealth and search dice should be rolled by the DM. But I seem to forget that sometimes when we play

I did this Saturday night before having watched this video today, and my son said, "Hey, did you watch Colville?" I rolled a 6 for the characters stealth, which was great in the sense that the character completed his turn as if he were well hidden. Obviously his action didn't turn out as well as he had hoped, which made for an exciting and unexpected outcome. One thought for future uses of this, is rolling the Stealth check under a paper cup to be revealed when relevant, because the die that I used for the characters stealth check got used again before the character realised he had failed...I had no way to show the player the roll. Although he trusted and believed me, I think it would be more fun and dramatic if there were a paper cup reveal for all to enjoy.

Classic early morning Colville upload.

That's one of the function of passive scores: when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the Characters succeed at something without rolling dice. So if you don't want to take a stealth roll from the player but still wants to avoid them to know the result, you can always reverse the method, so instead of a stealth roll opposed to passive perception, make a perception roll opposed to passive stealth.

Matt! Award your players with inspiration when they come up with a cool idea. It's an immediate reward (and one which can be used to ensure that they succeed on their check). Even if they fail the check they will still get the warm, fuzzy feeling of knowing that their efforts were noticed and awesome

I honestly love these videos. I've always heard of the fabled Dungeons and Dragons game that super nerds play in their moms basement. One day, KZfaq recommended your 4e combat in 5e video to me. I clicked on it, and fell down the wondrous rabbit hole of your channel. I'm hooked on your videos, and it changed the way I think about D&D. I can't thank you enough Matt

This sounds awesome because it makes it so that everyone doesn't cringe when people fail stealthrolls and keep going. It tends to be that when someone gets a bad roll the whole party groans or everyone says "Maybe we split the group have the wizard and cleric (who rolled poor on stealth) stay back in the event of a fight or maybe then just stay and come in as reinforcements to throw off the enemy" etc I like the idea that no one knows it just makes the game more fun I wanna see if my dm will allow this

I've been rolling stealth, knowledge, perception, etc checks for my players for years, and not only does it make the game so much more stream-lined.. it leads to some pretty funny things. XD "you hear a deep rumbling behind you.. *rolls* you're pretty sure it's the dwarf's belly"

Since you asked for comments: I disagree in this case. I think the game element that creates the uncertainty on the characters' part as to whether they can be seen is from the players not knowing the DC or the Perception check of any potential observer. They do have some competency in judging whether they feel like they are hidden or not, and while we can split hairs and say their confidence in their stealthing wouldn't necessarily line up with an objective number like a skill total, I think that's still a good enough proxy. The uncertainty comes from the observer's numbers, not the lack of knowledge of "am I even hiding?" It's just the same as traps: a wise Rogue knows that even if she rolls very well and finds nothing, that doesn't mean there are no traps, it just means she's confident she did a thorough job of looking and didn't miss anything within her skill to catch. So, just the same, someone sneaking through a place knows about how well they are doing, but doesn't know how well they *need* to be doing. I'm not sure what is added to the game by the DM rolling those checks and giving a binary answer without much context as far as the PC's experience of their own activity. Sure, the DM could say "You didn't find anything but you're confident you did a pretty good job of looking," but all that is communicated easier by just letting them roll it themselves.

I ran a very short campaign with old friends, and the "stealth" moments had a lot more tension when I made the stealth/detection roles. The players were also more strategic and thought more deeply than what I was used to, and it felt like they were nudged enough just from not knowing their stealth roles that they were strangely forced into outsmarting the adventure and me. What I was used to before was the situation you mentioned: the thief fails their stealth role and the whole party focuses on trying it themselves or making up for it in some way for the next 5-30 minutes. When the entire party (of barbarians, wizards, rogues, clerics, and a bard) tries to stealth together, I would have everyone roll their own individual checks for everyone to see. Or, I would have only the characters proficient in "stealthy stuff" roll and tell them how the whole group is doing, and have them reassess and help manage the situation (ex: the old rogue notices the dwarf's belts are too squeaky and the dim light is reflecting off of the wizard's embroidered sleeves, or that they're moving too slow as a unit). It's hard to decide when to do which, and some methods definitely take more effort from specific party members or the DM, which is good if that effort is rewarding for everyone of course.

It totally depends on the group. We run a very funny group with some casual banter, and i tried rolling it for them. It ended up with some being frustrated because they did not know WHY they failed, or by how much. It turned out it was alot more fun to let them roll, and lament/brag over their roll, and it added to the fun that everyone could look at the rogue and say "Well, it was nice knowing you, maybe you should stop stealing everything" as he tried to hide from the guards. But in a game where immersion is the main focus, i could see myself doing it, but with the consent on the players ofc. Love your vids, and looking forward to getting my book ;)

So we're going to try a new rule this session... *sips PC tears*

My last DM also used the rule: "You only get to roll if you're proficient" for most skill checks. Generally, we had a rule where if someone wanted to try something (pick a lock, decipher a cryptic letter or magic rune, calm down a rampant horse, etc.) only one other person could try after them, but we all still rolled for things that affected the whole group like perception and stealth. It cut down on a lot of wasted time and still gave us that extra chance to complete whatever we were trying to accomplish.

First-time commenter here! I love taking rolls for the players for stuff like this because it makes the narrative so much more engaging when they don't know what the outcome is. However, in general, I also like to have all the rolls out in the open in case I subconsciously become too precious of my NPC's or try and force the story in a certain direction. The solution? THE DRAMA CUP. What I will do is have the player roll and cover it with an upside-down cup, I will check the result such that nobody else can see, then describe (in a drawn-out, nail-biting fashion) what happened, whipping the cup up and revealing their roll after the description. When I remember, I normally use it for life & death situations.

I haven't tried the stealth stuff myself, but I have been in a game where the DM did just that. It was fine for me, granted I wasn't playing a stealth-focused character - but the rogue wasn't as keen on it. For one, all the players enjoyed rolling dice, and he felt it took some agency out of his hands, even though technically it didn't. The main thing, from what I could gather, is that he felt his character should be able to gauge how well he hid (IC via the reaction of the enemies right off the bat, and OOC based on what he rolled). If I were to play a rogue myself I'd be okay with either system, and I do agree that leaving it to the DM to do the check would up the suspense. As for the "I also make X check" - I don't roll with that. If I deem a character would know something, whether due to their background or a specific high stat like INT, I'll often give them free information about a specific thing. If I make 'em roll, it's usually because it's something more vague or perhaps some info that they've encountered but haven't really kept in mind - so I'll ask for a roll. Then, depending on the roll, I'll reveal the appropriate amount of information. Multiple characters can try and make the same check, but only if it makes sense and they're equipped for the job; a nobleman that's never left their manor isn't going to suddenly recall information about an extremely rare plant just because the player rolled a Nat 20, so I wont even ask for a check from them. One or two people can try for a check during a situation, but none of that let's-all-line-up-and-roll-insight business. Also, either I really need sleep, or that camera has given you a new voice.

I personally like to employ passive ability a lot. For every skill treat it like passive percep. 10+mod+prof. As most things are just passive knowledge or skill vs an active attempt to do something.

I started rolling stealth for my players awhile back after I saw that video. I really enjoy it. Some players in my group we're indifferent, but they understood my reasoning for wanting to do it. I really love that it gets rid of that "I didn't make it moment" from the players. Cause I have had some react accordingly even though their character would have no knowledge of failing.

I played a game once when the DM rolled almost everything for us except for when we were in combat. I hated it. It made me feel as though I wasn't playing a game, only watching a story. (Kind of like a telltale game haha) Seriously though, I think that the players should roll a majority of the time but I think the DM rolling for them makes more sense in some cases. Eg. stealth. Mainly because it is reasonable to expect that the player doesn't know the outcome of the roll. Anyhow, I think DMs rolling for players is acceptable in very few cases, yet when done right it can be very effective.

I haven't tried it out in my group yet but I'm thinking of doing something that tries to allow for uncertainty while still allowing the player to roll their dice ('cause rolling dice is fun!) Basically, I want them to roll 3d20s where I have picked one of them in advance to be the actual roll. The players won't know which is the real one but will get a general feel for how well they did (which I feel is fair, I may not know for certain how well I'm hiding but I do have a general idea if I am or not). So, if my player rolls all three low they have a feeling that they didn't do well, three high they feel more confident, two high and one low well.... let's hope those 2/3 odds are in their favour! I got this idea from somewhere online (can't remember where now)

I have an alternate solution, and I'm curious about your opinion. I agree with every point you make, and the DM rolling is one (viable) solution. For me, DMs rolling for players isn't ideal, but neither is 'meta-behavior'. A solution I have (untested as no stealthers in current campaign) is this: I only require the players to make their stealth rolls when they are in jeopardy of being spotted. So every stealth roll is made in the moment, not prior to the moment. As an example: If the players wanted to sneak into a castle... First, they have to go through the woods. There is nothing there to see them, so they don't have to roll stealth (but they are stealthing). I can require it, for drama, and to keep them on their toes. But with nothing there to spot them, there really isn't any jeopardy. It's when they try to cross the castle grounds, under the passive perception of the watch that I call for it. And at that point, they are hand in the cookie jar, so it's no problem to just declare, "The highest passive perception is 13, that's your stealth DC." If they fail, they can choose to throw down an inspiration to reroll, otherwise they're spotted and hijinx ensue. If they make it, they move toward their goal. But that stealth check was simply for that 'encounter'. They might need to make additional checks vs new enemies as they progress. Thoughts? As an aside, I am a huge fan of DM's rolling for detect traps/secrets.

I used this at first in my new campaign, but my players ended up stealthing a LOT in the first few sessions. So, to give me less of a headache having to ask half of the group their stealth modifier, I just let them do it. From time to time I still roll skills like stealth and perception for my players to build suspense, but as a whole I just let them roll themselves. Doing a little of both seems to make a great impact when the players ask if they can do something and I just randomly roll a die and tell them what happens. The look of existential horror on their face when I roll their check behind the screen is priceless, lol

I have been thinking about this very topic for a while now. The fun of stealth checks is lost when the players all know what the roll is. The very description you gave Matt is a perfect example of my point. Thanks for bringing up this topic. What I came up with, is to have the DM hold a covered box. Could be a dice tower where the roll area is covered. The player will roll into the box and the DM will lift the cover reviling the result. (Careful not to show anyone the result). They can do this for all the players. Thus the player did roll the dice themselves, so its there roll. The result would then be noted or written down and the DM of course would ask for the modifier from the player to get the end roll amount. This way none of the players know their roll results until the DM gives the narrative of the situation. This is what I came up with and I hope it helps someone. Cheers!

I like how you removed the video and put it back up, all stealthy-like

I would never let a player roll a stealth roll themselves. Kind of defeats the purpose. I would say there are 50% of perception checks i would roll as a DM too. But yea,... the DM making those rolls creates the intrigue and suspense! There is nothing better than taking away certainty from player decision making. DM - "You slowly tip toe down the hallway. Ahead of you is a flickering light emanating from a doorway. What do you do?" Player - " I want to try to sneak up to the doorway and peak in" DM - makes stealth roll. Player fails. DM - " Alright, so you quietly sneak down the hallway. As you come closer to the door, you can hear what sounds like someone eating. You hear what sounds like the tinks of silverware on a plate and a loud belch echoes out from the room. As you draw right up to the edge of the door you hear the sound of a chair sliding across the floor as if someone was getting up from the table. "what do you do? At this point, the player has no idea for sure what they should do. Have i been heard? are they walking this direction? Are they getting more food? As the DM, you know that yes, they heard something in the hallway and are getting up from the table to look. And now you have given your player a whole new set of issues to decide on. Do i peek in? Do i stay silent and still? Do i go back? Run away at full speed? If you have the player roll, they already know whats going on and it ruins this entire moment. Also,.. exact same situation and description, but the Player successfully makes their stealth check as rolled by the DM. As the DM, you know the orc is merely getting up from the table and going to get another piece of mutton; and if the player decides to peek around the edge of the door, they will find themselves looking in at the most opportune time while the orcs back is turned to the doorway. These are the reasons a DM should always roll stealth. IMO of course. :-)

Hey, just wanted to say I am new to the channel and have been binge watching from episode 1. Thank you for all the dedication to the community, LOVE your channel, buying your first book payday good sir.

Depending on the group, depending on the drama, I roll stealth, perception, and - more rarely - skills like insight or the knowledges. And you explained the reasons better than I ever could Matt! Enjoy the rest of PAX!

My one big argument against DMs rolling stealth checks this the Lucky feat or similar things. You’d be removing the option for player to make use of their abilities, which while it might make sense from a narrative standpoint, doesn’t work mechanically

omg can we just take a second to appreciate the extremely ugliness of the drapes

I like the idea of having players rolling three different colored dice and picking a color before the roll is made. It allows for the unknown aspect but gives them a general sense of what may have happened which seems fitting but also still has the player rolling which gives a better sense of control. Plus it makes it easier to nudge the roll a little if they really should be succeeding or what not.

This is why I like the dice tower in Fantasy Grounds. It allows the player to drop the dice in the box (so they are rolling the dice), but they are not able to see the result. Prime examples where a player does not need to see the results are saving throws, persuasion/intimidation checks, stealth checks, some survival checks, and a few others. It could even be argued that a player doesn't need to see the results of a to-hit check, since they don't need to know the AC of the NPC they are fighting.

Even if the players make the rolls, the DM still controls what happens. They could roll a 1 and still be undetected if the hostile creatures are oblivious for some reason or roll a natural 20 and be detected by a monster that has some magical ability to ignore stealth. Similarly, you can reward a player if they are being particularly brilliant even if they roll badly. The roll is just a chance to inject some fun and maybe give an even a bigger reward if they roll high because then the players will feel both lucky and good.

Passive skill checks.

I have done this and overall, it works pretty well! Of course it requires a certain level of trust between DM and players. Character snuck ahead, and I told him I will make the roll, and explained that he wouldn't necessarily know if he was successfully sneaking or not. Dice clatter. I describe the character moving forward, and describe what he sees. "Now what do you want to do?" I ask. He can continue moving forward, or go back. "Oooh, I don't like this!" The player said, but he was grinning. I had presented him with a real choice where his player knowledge was exactly the same as his character knowledge, and he loved it.

I’m getting ready to run a game for my kids next month with lots of dungeon crawl treasure hunts and I love how this could raise the tension and their sense of verisimilitude. I look forward to trying it.

Matthew is honestly the cutest person in the entire world.

Great idea, Matt. My 5e Curse øf Strahd group of six players played via the Fantasy Grounds GUI for 18 months to finish. It was superb. ALL skill checks were dragged into the “on-screen dice tower”, where ONLY the DM can see the result. We’ve now just embarked on SKT (Storm King’s Thunder). Awesome games, we have. 😜👍🏻🇺🇸

I gave this a go when running a one shot today and it worked so much better than I could have imagined! The group attempted to stealth past a giant crocodile and I rolled their checks. The paladin and barbarian failed completely and the monk passed. The crocodile then rolled to stealth itself and surprise them and passed against the same 2 characters perception and failed against the monks perception. Cue madness as the paladin and barbarian moved forward and found themselves ambushed as they had no clue if they were successfully stealthily or not and unaware the crocodile was also stealthing. Quickly followed by the croc itaelf being ambushed by the monk it had failed to notice sneaking up behind his team mates! That wouldn't have been anywhere near a funny or insane had they been rolling for themselves, so thank you for this awesome idea, I shall be using it a lot in the future!

For whether a character knows something or not, if they have an appropriate background, the roll for me just tells me how well they recall that information, so even a 1 or 2 could give them something.

If you don't use stealthy stealth checks, the players have an obligation to reverse meta role play. They shouldn't act like they just rolled a 5 or whatever.

I don't know if I agree with the idea that somebody doesn't know how good a job they're doing in the moment. Sure, you or I, total novices in stealth, don't know the first thing about it and so we'd be at a loss about how good a job we would be doing. But the trained thief KNOWS they took too long turning that corner and could have been seen, or that they're really in a groove with their silent footsteps - in much the same way that with something that somebody today would know when doing something they've studied long and hard at that they're just not operating at their best today. Something I might go with is only allowing characters who are trained in a skill to make their roll out in the open. Everybody else doesn't have the training to really know whether they're doing a good job or not, though I'd probably still give a description to hint at the general ballpark if I felt like it made sense. I do agree that it's really annoying when somebody rolls a low skill and everybody jumps in to try and save - but at the same time, it's also frustrating when your character knows their stuff but somebody else at the table excitedly shouts they're trying and before you know it they've rolled a 4, and you never got a chance to do anything. I would gladly take neither, but the one problem redresses the other. If you're calling for rolls from trained characters consistently, that avoids this pretty well - my GM expects us to call out our own rolls even when it isn't clear whether we should have to be, so I think about this now and again.

The fact that Matt Colville made a video on my tweet... This of the best birthday presents ever 😄 I am definitely wanting to try this in my upcoming campaign. Hoping my players will be cool with playing this. They've been good with me using the variant initiative system, stronghold warfare rules, and other homebrew mechanics.

I like the idea of the DM making Stealth rolls and Perception rolls for the characters, and the Player making all other rolls.

I'm afraid I'm in the "Not a good idea" half for these kinda checks. Although, I will admit, I can see the point behind it, and it makes sense, but only insofar as the character rolled a really high stealth check. I feel there's another side to consider, and that is the player knowing they rolled a "Decent" roll (around 15 which, with a good dex mod, is not unreasonable). This is at the point where it's also relatively easy to get a similar perception roll. Some even have a high enough passive perception to each 15. At that point the player rolled, knows their number, but is STILL unsure of whether they're getting discovered or not. Similarly, a character who failed miserably at stealthing, would probably have enough self-awareness to hear their own boots scuffing on the floor, realise they just kicked a stone across the cavern flaw, etc. I can see the logic behind Colville's decision to sometimes do this, but I only think it really works if the roll is in the 17+ area (die only).

Is this filmed in a circus tent?

I love that u made this video Matt. I had this thought a while back and really wasn't sure what the consensus would be. I also though about change to passive stealth as the normal hide check but if the player tried to go more skillfully, DM rolls. Possible more risk/reward. Passive Stealth 17 is good vs passive wisdom of a lot of things but if you knew you're dealing with a say alert bad guy, you ask to perform a skilled stealth. DM rolls and story unfolds. You find out if your fear of that skilled bad guy is aware of you or not through the story instead of "I got a 30" Thanks!

Three points on this, as someone who's tried it: 1. It does work for the tension. People not knowing their rolls makes them uncertain of how to act, in keeping with how their characters would feel. On the other hand, I feel it's important to trust your players to metagame appropriately. 2. It takes away a bit of the satisfaction from the players of having good stats, because they do not get to say "I rolled a 34 for stealth". All they get is "the orcs didn't see you". 3. I have too much to keep track of as a DM to appropriately judge when I should make rolls for the players. For me it's usually better to trust the players with their skills and have them be aware that they know more than their characters do.

i think the same aplyes to perception checks. the players should not know what they DON´T see ;-)

Well I only let them roll when there is someone important who could see them. Then we find out how well hidden they have been all the time

Skill checks are something I’m up in the air about. On the one hand I feel like it can take you out of your character, especially when you flub a stealth roll when you’re supposed to be a great ninja. On the other hand it helps keep certain shenanigans in check, it can feel good to succeed at a skill check (especially in the cases when you know you succeed by a narrow margin), it gives a sense of progression every level, and it gives players things to roll for outside of combat. I did once watch a video where a dm suggested that your skill roles should actually be partially indicative of the circumstances, and not your characters ability. For example your character that is good at climbing comes to a wall and flubs his climb roll jot meeting the challenge rating, so the dm says, the wall has no good handholds and you cannot climb it. In a way I like this as it reduces the feeling of “my character that’s supposed to be an expert at this failed”, which I know I and a lot of the other players I play with hate. However, I always thought of the circumstances dictating the challenge rating target.

@Matt Colville We do stealth checks by having players declare their intention for their character to hide, the DM makes sure that the character could hide (they have requisite concealment/cover/what-have-you), and then the DM tells the player their character thinks they are hidden. From there, no stealth check is actually rolled until the PC encounters a situation where a roll would be called for. That way, the player has no idea how well they're hidden until it actually comes time for it to matter. Sort of like a Schrodinger's Cat of stealth checks; no one (not even the DM) knows what the stealth roll is going to be until it actually comes up. The only time it can break down is when potential observers are not perceived by the character trying to hide, but then that's just the DM rolling the stealth check behind the screen for them and locking that number in for the rest of their stealthing about (or maybe not, it's up to the DM).

If you do this, try doing what I did, let players roll perception for the people trying to see them! If the reason you're doing this is for ludonarrative matching, well, certainly the players will notice if someone sees them!

A less then 10min video? What happened to the Kickstarter King?

Great thinking matt. I've thought about similar case for a while now. In my case, I was thinking about knowledge checks. There are things in the game that the character won't be able to know how well they do something. You can't know if the enemy can actually see you; you can't know if the guard actually believe in your lie or actually be swayed by your persuasion; you can't know if you remember that detail about the Troll's weakness right. You can't even know that there's totally no sign of trap in the corridor you are walking in. Definitely going to test this on my group, but for now I think this is way more realistic. Can you imagine everyone in the party making knowledge check without seeing the roll, and they end up getting conflicted information? Or imagine that you think the king believe in your lie but you end up getting ambushed by assassins during the night? This should be cool.

So, after considering your musings, I modified your suggestion for this evening's game. Before the action began, I had the players roll a dozen d20's and wrote down the raw results. During play, I ticked off the roll and did the check behind the screen. The overall affect on play wasn't much from THEIR perspective, but it was transformative on my end in being able to weave the narrative. At the end, I asked for feedback (as always) and they noted the improved narrative and speed. Thanks, Matt.

Have the other players making their "me too" rolls, after the first player fails their check, at disadvantage because they didn't come up with an in-game reason for rolling.

GMs should only ask players to roll dice, if there is a clear and interesting outcome in case of failure, *and* a clear and interesting outcome in case of success. In case of stealthily walking (and not actively hiding!) there is no interesting outcome in case of a success. The outcome on a success is (a good) "Nothing happens". Rolling for stealth is the GM fishing for a player rolling badly, so they can throw bad things at the players. In case of actively recalling some information (or the awful Perception check initiated and failed by one player, then repeated by every other player) there is no interesting outcome in case of a failure. The outcome on a failure is (a bad) "Nothing happens". Rolling for perception, recalling info, etc. is either the GM fishing for a player to roll good (in case the GM initiated it), or the players rolling a dice to get some attention, and a info dump from the GM (in case a player initiated it, but rolled bad to begin with). "Nothing happens" is one of the *worst* things to say in response to a roll of a player. This also applies to more descriptive "Nothing happens"s like "You can't recall anything - [continue story without consequences]" and "You feel stealthy - [continue story without anything changing]". If you can't think of an interesting thing to happen on a failure: Just give it to the players, without asking for a roll. If you can't think of an interesting thing to happen on a success: Also give it to the players, but keep the bad thing in mind for later, so you can ask for a roll, when there is something interesting to happen on a success (maybe in a situation, when you can't think of something for a failure … like when someone is absent minded walking through a dungeon, thinking about the runes he saw earlier?)

We turned perception checks over to the DM, and it changed everything. If you roll really low on perception, you know you wouldn't have seen anything anyway. However if a player doesn't know what the role is they might relax, or they could get more paranoid. It makes things a lot more tense.

Here's one thing I do: before we sit down and play, I get each character to roll a d20 ten to fifteen times, and record the results. I write them in order, and when I need to make a roll in secret for a character, I use the next number up and mark it off, and that's the roll. The huge benefit, there is no dice rolling noise to make the players suspicious of anything. It works amazingly well. Of course, I tell everyone what we are doing and why, and if anyone disagrees, we don't do it. I am not here to create angst. As a player, I love this. I actually got turned to stone because of this, but that's ok. It made for a really dramatic moment for the party.

That reupload though.

I have all the dice including those of the monsters etc. in public. So no hidden dice in my group. I like to have the players roll 3 different colored dice and I secretly choose a color before the roll. So three good rolls give them a good idea and so on and so forth.

I use Fantasy Grounds and Stealth checks are always done "in the tower", which means they drop the skill check onto an icon so it rolls with a shadowed die and only the DM can see the result. It works well and keeps the players guessing as to whether they're spotted or not. Another good thing is that the roll is still in the DM's chat window and the DM can share that roll at a later time (once they've been caught or succeeded sneaking to where they wish) so the players can also experience the excitement of a good or bad roll.

Your videos are awesome. Going single-take (well, mostly single-take) makes them even better.

Matt sounds so different here.

Ive watched basically all your content on youtube. Took awhile but i drive alot for work. Youre a legened matt

I've been running a game wherein all the characters started out as rogues with a street urchin background. Most of them have since taken up other classes, but they all still rely quite heavily on their rogue background in everyday adventuring. So the Stealth, Deception, and Persuasion checks have been predominant in our game play. Several times over the course of the campaign I've changed up my methods for handling these checks, but I think I've finally hit on a solution for Stealth that satisfies everybody. When my players are trying to sneak around, I have them make a Stealth ability check as usual. From their perspective this is a big dramatic moment. But I never reveal what DC would result in a successful sneak or explicitly tell them whether they've been successful. For sneaking to be successful, after all, is not only dependent on the person doing the sneaking. The perceptiveness of anybody else within earshot must also be factored in, so I always give my NPCs and monsters some kind of a Perception check of their own. I make a separate check for each NPC and creature within its own sight or hearing range of the PCs. As for the Perception checks, I can take a number of different actions depending on the situation: If an NPC or creature is just standing around taking in the environment (like a bored guard in the middle of his shift) then I simply match the results of the players' rolls against the NPC's Passive Perception. Easy peasy. If the NPC is engaged in some activity, alseep, or otherwise distracted, then I roll a Perception check for that NPC, sometimes with an ad hoc modifier depending on factors like their distance from the PCs and their level of concentration on the task at hand. If this is a situation where the players have a clear enough view of an NPC to be able to read their body language, then I will make the NPC's Perception roll in front of the screen for added dramatic effect. If the players' Stealth checks were higher than the NPC's Perception check, then they successfully sneak. But if an NPC's Perception roll is higher than the player's Stealth roll then the NPC is alerted to some degree, depending the magnitude of discrepancy. In that case I subtract each failing score from the NPC's Perception, tally all those differences and add them up to find the total "Magnitude of Failure." That metric determines the severity of the NPCs' reactions. If one or more NPCs' Perception scores beat the PCs' MoF by only a few points, I'll have one of the NPCs become momentarily alerted. If the NPCs stand still make no noise, they can make another Stealth check next round and continue on. If one or more NPCs' Perception scores beat the PCs' MoF by 5-10 points, then they spotted the PCs. The PCs' cover has been blown and the jig is up. If any NPC's Perception score beat the players' MoF by over 10 points, then that NPC has not only noticed them, but immediately realizes what they're up to. That NPC gets automatic initiative and an attack of opportunity if he should decide to engage in combat.

I implement this with Stealth and Insight rolls. I actually have a mildly amusing story that has arisen from it to share. The party were approaching a small clearing where a satyr that had supposedly “kidnapped” a local farm girl was in. Two of the players hid in the bushes and stayed on opposite sides of the outside of the clearing while the other three went in. The satyr wasn’t hostile, but he was unsettled by several armed individuals approaching him. He asked them to bring their friend (singular) out of the woods so they could all have a civil discussion. Well, the wizard had rolled very well on his stealth, while the ranger had, amusingly, tanked the roll abysmally. The Satyr only knew that the ranger was there. He had no clue about the wizard. So as you can imagine, he was very surprised when the wizard pops out of the bushes from the opposite side of the clearing that he had heard movement from. This only agitated the satyr more. And he audibly exclaimed “Where did you come from?!” which made the wizard’s player face palm because he could have stayed perfectly hidden if he had so chosen. The ranger, meanwhile, was left confused and uncertain as to whether or not the satyr actually knew he was there or not. If the players had rolled their own stealth then they would have clearly known who was sneakier and the wizard wouldn’t have come out of the woods, however because I rolled for them it resulted in mild hilarity. 10/10 Houserule Mechanic. Can recommend.

I used to do it that way, but recently I’ve started doing it this way: the stealth roll is only rolled in cases where failing it leads to a direct consequence. If a player says “I stealth past the monster”, a die is not rolled. When the monster turns around is when it should be rolled. Doing this will remove unnecessary rolls and also allow the player to roll the die. The only PC roll I do in secret is the search roll, since doing it differently will change the fundamental hidden quality of things like secret doors.

I also like the idea of doing this for insight rolls. When a player rolls a 24 on insight, they can pretty much be absolutely certain that whatever information I hand them is correct and that they should act on it. If the DM rolls the insight check, then you can't know just how good your read is on the person's state of mind or motivations. It's definitely a different situation from stealth rolls, but I do think that insight is an "I Win" button for social interactions when people abuse it. NPC's can never be mysterious or crafty when the players can just throw a dice, get a perfect read on the situation, and know that their roll will reward them with actionable information when the number is high enough.

The best implementation I've seen so far is how the Dungeons Dudes do it: no dice are rolled until the exact moment they might be spotted or the moment that them being spotted would be visibly impactful on the game.

In my group, one of my players made a huge communal dice tower. Everyone can throw their dice in from anywhere on the table, but only the DM can see the result. Best of both worlds, I think. We use it for stealth, perception, investigation, insight, and most charisma checks.

I like the dramatic impact of not knowing how well you are stealthed, i'd go for it.

Fascinating - love the idea of the stealth and deception checks being rolled by the DM - what an intriguing way to keep the tension building in the encounter :D

I really like the idea of running stealth checks this way, and we're going to try it in my current campaign. With respect to players all seeing a bad roll and making their own perception checks, I think it's largely a function of problems with exposition from the DM. I've been in a lot of situations where apparently the DM thought that rolling less than a 15 on a perception check means that the player character in question doesn't notice the wall 10 feet in front of them that they're staring at. Basic, important environmental information is neglected, and players pick up on that, so everybody wants to make a roll to account for it. This habit then follows in to sessions with other DMs, irrespective of whether or not they engage in the problem behavior. A solution I recently read about was to specifically tell players in session 0 that if the DM asks a specific player to make a check, it's because their backstory or skills would relate to revealing some very specific information that the other characters wouldn't pick up on, and in other circumstances to not be stupid about describing a scene, or at least using passive perception instead of rolls (a lot of DMs neglect this) for basic, non-specialized information.

I've actually had lots of success with this topic. First of all, I make the following skills "Trained Only" which is very much Pathfinder like, Arcana, History, Medicine, Nature, Religion, and Survival. If characters didn't pick one of these during character creation then they can't make these checks. It makes sense to me that characters who have no history of these in their past would mystically know more than someone who has picked it simply because they rolled higher. I also like this because it encourages players/characters to be unique and put thought into their backgrounds. Specifically to stealth checks, I have my players roll after the fact. When someone wants to stealth I will ask them where they want to stealth to. When they indicate where they want to go then I, or they, will move their token/mini to the location (within reason) and I will have them roll stealth once they have made it either to their destination, or close enough that I feel someone might notice them. When they roll, it isn't to see if they can make it there, it is to see IF they made it there. This forces players to respond to the result of the check, not the roll. If the roll goes well then it seems that nobody saw them, but if the roll goes poorly then maybe they've alerted the enemy who now knows there is a threat in the area and now they roll initiative! I have noticed that players remain more engaged in the game/moment when they roll after the desired decision and not before it is carried out. What frustrates me the most is when players respond to a roll and not to a circumstance that was a result of the roll.

I think it's good to reward those players that have a flash of insight. I usually don't have the roll go against them, but they can get more info if they roll well enough. I'm glad you've vocalized these issues!

I have found that if you are a Dramatic DM that enjoys story telling and building tension, then rolling stealth checks for a player works Beautifully. It's an excellent tool for keeping players on the edge of their seat.

I used to do Stealth, Spot, and Search checks behind the screen in 3/3.5 for similar reasons. It kept the players wondering, "was there really not a secret door or did I just fail at finding it?" which added some suspense to the game. 5e's "Passive Perception" seems to eliminate the need for the Spot check and I figure the Stealth check being opposed by Perception by the NPC means even if they roll a natural 20 doesn't automagically mean they weren't seen because the NPC could also have rolled a natural 20 with a bigger Perception bonus than the PC has for Stealth so I just let the players roll it themselves.

One situation would be, for long term stealth movements. Like sneaking around an enemy camp, the player would get their initial stealth roll, but after that the DM could roll for different movements, and DC's can shift the DC depending on what they are doing. As the DC constantly shifts and, there is always a chance of enemies turning the corner and bumping into your PCs. A good example of a stealth check would be the 1993 tom berenger movie sniper at the General's hacienda about an hour into the movie. Berenger crossed a stealth roll with a deception roll, by pulling a pile of dog muck next to him, throwing off the dogs and guards from finding him, while Zane on the other hand got a good hiding place, but it was in one where people were likely to look. Another good example is Clear and Present Danger 1994, Raymond Cruz is tested as a sniper. Cruz rolls high, and the Sargent Major rolls a high perception, but only finds the hamburger wrapper for Cruz's lunch. I look at skill checks, especially perception checks, as the type of moment like in LORT when the fellowship is on the mountain and Aragon asks "What do your elf eyes see legolas?" It was legolas' passive perception that drew his attention, gimley just thought it was a wisp of clouds after, ie failing his perception check, but legolas continued to watch it until, allowing him to make more perception checks. As for knowledge checks, I just ask the PC's based on their back story why would they have heard something. Normally the answer is "I might have heard something in a tavern one day," the DC is then 20. Keeping with LOTR, Pippin's player wants to make the check, and if they were asking about say Sauron, he would know that Sauron was a bad guy that once ruled mordor, Gimily could know a bit more, but Aragon would know much, much more, and Gandalf could roll a nat 1 and still know everything there is to know. But say Pippin again was doing an insight on trolls, goblins, or dwarves, it is very likely that Pippin would have heard some of Bilbo's stories about. Now even on a nat 20, Pippin wouldn't know the story of the dwarves creation, the layout of the mines of Moria, or how to get to Rivendell, because stuff like that wouldn't have been told to him. Frodo on the other hand, may have a general idea of where Rivendell is but not how to get there. Aragorn however has a very long history of traveling all around middle earth so he knows where he is going, and class feature ranger he cant get lost, so yup great guide to have, but the Player would have been expected to write it all out before the campaign, not adding stuff in as they went. Even Gandalf, the wisest wizard, needed to do research and quest with the help of Aragon for 17 years to get the knowledge he was looking for about the ring. Here he rolled a nat 20 on his perception of bilbo's behavior towards the ring, and all he got is something seemed off with bilbo and the ring was the cause. Just because a nat 20 is an automatic success, it doesn't mean that you are all knowing on whatever the subject is. It means that you know whatever your character would know.

One way to explain the character knowing their roll is that they discover something in the environment that helps/hinders their attempt. - I hide in the barrel. Make a stealth check. Rolls a 4. You jump into the barrel but realize that it is half full of cheese so the top of your mohawk is still above the rim.

In my game, I am going to begin experimentimg with me, the DM, rolling most perception, investigation, stealth, and insight checks for players. The idea is that if you look around a room, you wouldn't know if you missed something, but if you saw a 9, you would somehow know you did a bad job and other players will want to roll even though they would actually trust that you did a good job. At the same time, if you want to roll insight and I say "he seems genuine", the player would be fooled just as much as the character because they wouldn't know they rolled an 8. If this doesn't go well, I'll start letting them roll again. The idea is "anytime the roll doesn't result in something immediate that the character would also know, like an attack roll or trying to remember something, the player shouldn't see the result because they will instantly meta-game, and for good reason."

The pantheon building sounds great! For my home brew I’ve just smashed together a bunch of stuff. Some insight to building high quality content would be invaluable.I love that you hold posts to such a high standard, although I would love anything you post:)

Hello there Mr. Matt Colville. I am a DM that does believe that sometimes having the DM roll perception and stealth checks is appropriate. One reason I decided to reply to this video is on the topic of other players suddenly wanting to roll a skill check when one player doesn't roll well. I treat it as an assistance. In other worlds, I don't allow the other characters to roll their individual check but I allow them to help which gives the original rolling player and additional roll as if they had advantage from the start. I do believe that there is a description in the PHB where those helping can roll on like a DC10 to even see if they are successful I helping and giving the original player advantage. I, too, have issue with other players rolling skill checks just because another player didn't roll well. On the other hand, if they are collectively discussing what they next plan of action is and they all decide to take these actions, that's when I will allow them to each roll against the skill rather than use the helping or assisting rules. Great video, hope you had a good time at PAX. Thank you for the content you provide.

A good rule of thumb is: If you have a thing you want to tell them in response to their flash of insight, tell them. Reserve rolls for when you have two or three things you could tell - for 1-9, 10-19, and 20+ generally. If the 1-9 option is "tell them nothing," if it's a knowledge check they're making to confirm suspicions you should tell them - even on a 1-9 - that "that seems reasonable." Maybe at 10 or 15+, follow up with something their character noticed that supports their theory, to make it clear that yes, they're right. But if it's, say, an Investigation check but they're explicitly looking for the right thing - "Are there any goblin fingerprints on these vials or only human ones?" - don't make them roll. The DC to determine the answer to a question that specific is, like, 2. In essence the PLAYER just rolled a high Investigation check to intuit the right thing to look at. Let 'em have that.

I'm seeing a lot of people suggest passive stealth, and I think that it's a great idea - if a character is in a sketchy situation, they're probably going to be a bit more careful than normal, even if they're not specifically trying to be sneaky. For rolls, I might try gauging the character's awareness of their own success or failure by using comparing the stealth roll to a DC of 20 minus passive perception, minus proficiency bonus if they're proficient. That is, if a player's passive perception is 12, the DC for knowing their level of success would be 8, or 2-6 depending on level if they are proficient. If the player meets that, they know whether they're actually hidden well enough (e.g. if they failed the check but meet the awareness DC, they know that they're exposed and have to hope that the passive or rolled perception of whatever they're hiding from was lower). If the roll falls below it, they're unaware of how unstealthy they are (e.g. not hearing their own heavy footsteps and jangling armor as they try to creep through the castle).

I have never had a DM/GM roll for a PC's stealth check, but I have always been fine with the idea. This is one of my favorite bits of topic that you have made content regarding. I am something of a fan of the idea and after reading many comments (Since you last mentioned it) I feel that the majority of players against it are simply afraid of change, weak of character (quite literally) or just players who want to WIN over enjoying a narrative. However, I must say that if this ruling is to be used, the PCs must be properly informed. Beyond that, it is a fine idea and I can always create a new and interesting character when so ever I please. Seems like a great deal of huff and puff over conceptually respective narrative.

I am using a very similar approach, with a tiny extra: I have a small opaque plastic orb (originally intended as a lunchbox for a single apple, I believe) that I put a d20 in, and toss to the player who is making a roll whose result they will not be learning. they shake it and give it back, and I open it to see what the die says. It is essentially the same as the DM rolling (and half the time it is effectively me because the die gets shaken around when handed back) but it doesn't have the same psychological impact of taking away player agency. Strange, I know, but it works. It still feels like the player did something. I have been using this for solo stealth rolls like you point out, and also as I like to use passive knowledge skills for the part where they want to go beyond what they know, and try to guess. The idea is, they roll hidden, if its a high roll, I give them information, if they roll very low (sort of depends on what they are trying to figure out) they get false information, and nothing particularly useful in between. Giving bad information makes only sense if they don't know they just rolled a 2 on the check to find out more about that creature, etc.

Hey Matt, thank you so much for all these tips on Dming, you’ve made it so I have opened the world of dnd to my group of friends. You helped me leave the Railroading phase and I have taken many thing you have said to heart because I believe that you are the kind of dm I want to be, for you are truly a river to your people.

I like when players dive in to the RP to explain why they succeeded or failed. The more you do that, the less likely players are to try to roll themselves when they see failure; it’s stepping on the original player’s moment.

One of the benefits of rolling the stealth checks for your players, is that they fall into a routine of constantly being hyper aware and attentive. I notice that when someone knows they roll high, they tend not to worry so much about the minutiae of moving through hostile territory. Whereas when I roll for them even if they are very well hidden they still follow the general guideline of 'low and slow.' Also it preserves the tension during infiltration.

I am running a campaign on Fantasy Grounds (FG) for the first time as I playing with my family who are scattered all over North America. I played first ed, skipped THAC0 played 3rd and now 5 ed online through FG. I very much agree that if a player is rolling for a skill and rolls poorly it usually results in the "can I roll" calls, or the players changes their behaviour because there must is something there/to watch out for, or you would not be rolling. In FG there is the optional feature of the dice tower, which allow players to "roll" dice but only the GM see the results. We do this for all skill checks. Combat everyone rolls openly as it generally no secret how you are doing in combat. The not knowing the results of a skill checks helps build the tension in the campaign especially when they are using the social engineering skills bluff/deception, persuasion or insight. I am still working on knowledge checks and when someone should or should not roll.

Matt, thanks for sharing. I've been running a similar mechanic at my table. My variant, anticipating player push-back, is to have all players roll 30-40 random d20 and write the numbers on an index card with their name and give them to me, the DM, prior to starting the nights session. Whenever there's a check in which the PC wouldn't know how successful they've been, e.g., stealth, I look at that PCs index card and use the next d20 result in sequence as their roll. It's THEIR roll...not mine. I use the same mechanic for passive perception...just grab the next d20 in sequence. Cheers, Matt!

Fairly new DM here. I've been doing it for a couple of years, and I've actually had players ask me to do this for stealth and perception rolls (we weren't using passive perception). Honestly both the players and I thought this was really cool, and it drastically changes the mindset of the players in these scenarios.

I really like how you deal with this issue. I don't have much to debate about here. "All is in order move along!"

Back in the Third Edition days, one of the D&D For Dummies books (for Dungeons Masters, I think) recommended the DM rolling several skill checks for the players behind the DM screen. The reason, of course, was to keep players in suspense and to prevent meta-gaming due to knowledge of how good or bad the results were. (IIRC: Bluff, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Gather Information, Intimidate, Listen, Search, Sense Motive, and Spot.)