Episode 56.5? Some late night thoughts about the DM making stealth checks specifically and skill checks in general.
Пікірлер: 1 300
@NoahTopper6 жыл бұрын
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!
@Woodledude2 жыл бұрын
I think that's a great way of handling it - If it were ever a matter of just sitting there and messing with the thing ad infinitum until you finally figure it out, I wouldn't even ask for a roll for that from a character trained in the skill - Except to see just how long it does take them. There should be an interesting consequence from any bad roll that requires the players to react to it, not just "Well, that didn't work, anyone got any other ideas?"
@ItsShatter2 жыл бұрын
Sometimes he will also have the DC raise and lock break or become unpickable after a few failed attempts
@TheHazza12056 жыл бұрын
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.
@TheHazza12056 жыл бұрын
Further on the knowledge checks, you could always provide a snippet of information for the clever thinking of the player, and then ask them to roll to see if they recall any more info. And if they fail the check, they could instead recall there's a library in the town nearby...
@ReverendRover6 жыл бұрын
I might pinch that idea for stealth, I like it.
@snappygum17216 жыл бұрын
Me too. Awesome
@outkastagc6 жыл бұрын
TheHazza1205 love it! I think this is probably the best compromise!
@nyanbrox54185 жыл бұрын
Dude that is such a good idea, i am so using that in my campagn! You are a legend!!!!
@TheKarishi6 жыл бұрын
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.
@xanothavaeth58656 жыл бұрын
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.
@tyleremery70885 жыл бұрын
I love the idea of changing ability check DCs, especially intellingence and wisdom checks, based on the character's experiences and individual circumstance. Having played a very bookish sorcerer with a sage background who grew up under the tutelage of a wizard and spent every free moment as a child in a huge arcane archive, it was always frustrating to have consistently terrible rolls on everything that he would plausibly know or at least have a limited recognition of. The most annoying one was on an investigation check to find a certain _book_ in a _library_ . Depending on the situation and any relevant factors, I personally think a bonus such as a changed DC on certain checks - even outright advantage, if it's very logical in that instance - is totally an appropriate move for the DM. Your character was literally raised by wolves? It's probably a little easier than normal for them to soothe the mother wolf protecting her pup and threatening to lunge at the party. Your character was formally trained in stonework by a local guild? They're probably somewhat familiar with famous sculptures and certain widely known sculptors. Those are just two examples that came to mind, but obviously every situation is unique.
@MrBenwaan6 жыл бұрын
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.
@milesmatheson11426 жыл бұрын
Bwahahaha! That's what a Stealth-check is! You don't know if you've been found until you have been, and the not-knowing is the worst part.
@leroywilson85976 жыл бұрын
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 😊
@jimmurphy15916 жыл бұрын
I think that stealth and search dice should be rolled by the DM. But I seem to forget that sometimes when we play
@mcolville6 жыл бұрын
Yeah, how does anyone, ever, know how well they searched? Because they found something! I dunno, it's worth experimenting with on the next stream.
@johnkane79496 жыл бұрын
It's always been a matter of time in my games, especially searching. How long do you search? A few seconds? Roll. An hour? You find it. I generally lean toward "you find it" and forgo rolling if it's something the party needs to progress. But in general I'm in favor of the GM rolling any skill checks or saves the PCs wouldn't be actively aware of the outcome of, including things like constitution saves vs disease and poison.
@igotsmeakabob6 жыл бұрын
There's always DEGREES of success (hello Alternity!)- if they're searching the pile of grisly bones of the altar of the damned for loot, they roll a 10... they find some coins, they find a decent scabbard, but the rest is trash. If they had rolled a 15, they would've noticed the rusted mail at the bottom, covered in blood, bears the mark of the ancient House of Thol, and is magical. A 20 might've net them some extra jewelry!
@klausgaming73656 жыл бұрын
That can be said, in some extent, for almost every skill check. I don't know how bad my performance is going until someone in the audience throws a tomato at me. I don't know if the knowledge I've acquired on this particular character is all that can be known. Therefore, why should we take only stealth and search to roll secretly? Which leads to the real question: if every check can be made secretly, why not just make them all open and ask the players to do what they are supposed to do in a RPG? Role play.
@welcometohamton26496 жыл бұрын
I just want to say thank you both for your contributions to this crazy game. Have a great weekend.
@dukeironfist016 жыл бұрын
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.
@DungeonDad6 жыл бұрын
Classic early morning Colville upload.
@GaaMacgfx6 жыл бұрын
Classic Colville move.
@deptusmechanikus73626 жыл бұрын
It's noon where i'm at
@platinumsketch6 жыл бұрын
I was awake when he uploaded this at 1am for me, then I passed out before I got a chance to watch it
@theDMLair6 жыл бұрын
Gotta upload it when you can! 😀
@heltonmattei54512 жыл бұрын
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.
@AMRosa102 ай бұрын
I think the point of this video is more around the idea of players actively calling an action and possibly modifying their character choices based solely on the number that comes up on the dice. A player may act very differently if they roll a 3 on a Check for Traps (Perception) versus a 12. It may be that the DM has decided that the trap is so well constructed and hidden that it has a DC20. So a player seeing that they roll a 3 and not finding a trap may still consider avoiding proceeding whereas the player rolling the 12 may think they have a good chance that the check was successful and proceed, only to trigger the trap. The character wouldn't really know how close they were to finding something that they aren't able to perceive, so the player shouldn't have that insight either, unless the DM wants to build that narrative in. Maybe if a player checks for traps, and they have an expertise in Perception, and the DM rolls and gets the 3, they could say, "Because you just barely survived the confrontation with the Lizardfolk guards, you are having a hard time concentrating, and while you don't see anything that looks like a trap you are also filled with a degree of self-doubt as you can still feel your heartbeat pounding in your ears..."
@pretzelpanda6 жыл бұрын
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
@simonprout84656 жыл бұрын
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
@KingCreepa6 жыл бұрын
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
@PeppoMusic6 жыл бұрын
Ah yeah, though sometimes this can make sense however, if they are stealthing as a group they are aware of each other, and they can see/hear the others not being so stealthy, if their perception allows for it.
@zame9516 жыл бұрын
Solo stealthing, the DM rolling for just one player when no one in the party can see them I think is a good idea. Group stealthing though, have everyone roll themselves and then using good rolls to counter bad ones would save the rogue who falls on his face or the cleric in loud armor, then the party can maintain a more combat friendly marching order.
@KautionTape6 жыл бұрын
Typically, the stealth roll would be for the act of sneaking with the group. If they rolled badly, it's relative to the act of that, so if they say "Er, I stop and go in a different direction" it will happen *after* the wizard was caught sneaking the group. In other words, you can't fail your stealth roll and decide not to stealth. You already stealthed, you just didn't do well at it.
@DysnomiaATX6 жыл бұрын
Lazy Pony agreed. Rolls are for the result of an action, they aren't a forecast. If you roll, you've done the thing and you get to roleplay the result.
@roxxon6138 Жыл бұрын
@@KautionTapeBoom, 4 years later, here's my take: Depending on the GM's narration, I think PCs could totally notice how badly they're doing at stealth. If the GM describes "as you move through the forest, your armor keeps rustling", I think it's 100% fair for any PC to just give up on the approach after a few meters. If the GM describes "you unfortunately stumble and make a loud noise", I think it's 100% fair to get up and re-evaluate your approach. It'd be better if the GM narrates this sort of failure as still being stealthy, and their enemies were simply perceptive enough to catch them. Nevertheless, I don't like making 1 roll to dictate the outcome of a longer process. If you wanna sneak into a castle, and fail the one stealth roll that dictates how well that goes, it's gonna be a disaster and it won't be fun. Instead, I think players should roll stealth in the exact moments where they could be discovered, like when there are guards at a point they have to get by, they wanna sneak up on someone, or if someone is looking for them. If they want to move through an area and simply want to avoid notice without knowing of any threats in that area, I'd let them roll stealth once, and if they learn they could be detected by something (maybe through a perception roll), they would get a chance to react, either by hiding specifically from that threat, or by doing something else. If that innitial stealth roll was really bad because of wearing armor, I'd also allow a re-roll at a later point if they decide to slow down or try a new approach. I feel like that's how it makes the most sense and reflects the very active parts of trying not to be detected.
@ToxicGnat6 жыл бұрын
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"
@Azzurite6 жыл бұрын
Shy P. This is the exact thing I've been doing as well, for any roll the characters would not know how well they did and when it is dramatically appropriate. Stealth, insight and perception are almost always rolled by me, but also other checks where something cool can happen when they don't know the result, for example when they try to deceive someone, and the NPC would go along with the deception even if it fails, the roll will be hidden. The visible result will always be the deception succeeding, but the NPC will come back later in a dramatic moment of "Haha! I saw through your deception!" which is often funny or awesome.
@penaxor6 жыл бұрын
Denying your players rolls might be discouraging in certain groups. E. g. I have a campaign with a guy who min-maxed knowledge skills for character reasons and I think he would be very annoyed if I didn't let him enjoy seeing his insanely high rolls. NPC rolls are a different matter, however.
@ReverendRover6 жыл бұрын
Different groups of players are always going to enjoy different things. I roll my player's perception, investigation and insight checks. We all agreed it would be quite fun. They aren't sure if someone is lying to them, some of them might think they are, some might think they aren't, so they decide in character who's judgement they trust. There's never a right or wrong answer with these things. You put the idea to the table, if people like it, then you roll with it (bad pun.) If the people at your table don't, then don't do it. It never hurts to ask with these things
@klausgaming73656 жыл бұрын
The point is that your players should come with that line based on their rolls, not you, the DM. I believe your players forced your hand, though. They must be more worried about success or failure than about the role play aspect of a skill check. Which is sad.
@captainzachgaming29206 жыл бұрын
Yes, but its better than just using a passive score. As the DM, you could make a passive perception skill expand to passive insight, passive stealth, passive deception... Advantage and Disadvantage are +5 and -5 respectively.
@ricstubbs68026 жыл бұрын
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.
@BlunderfulGuy6 жыл бұрын
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.
@MasterCheif03006 жыл бұрын
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 ;)
@whatcookgoodlook6 жыл бұрын
So we're going to try a new rule this session... *sips PC tears*
@zeek001116 жыл бұрын
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.
@EvinScully6 жыл бұрын
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.
@Grimbanks6 жыл бұрын
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.
@Grimbanks6 жыл бұрын
I'm definitely a fan of giving some amount of roll-free info to characters with the right skills. I don't like punishing someone who ought to know a particular thing just because the dice aren't in their favor, but at the same time it is a game based around dice - so it's always a tricky path trying to balance the two.
@theDMLair6 жыл бұрын
Grimbanks I think there is some truth to that argument -- a character should know how quiet he's being -- but I think, too, that some players just like to make that argument (or any other argument) because they use the information from their roll to make decisions (metagaming).
@ballsmcgee77836 жыл бұрын
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.
@jibbyjackjoe6 жыл бұрын
And that's the rub.if a player isn't actively doing something, it defaults to passive. Passive perception and passive knowledge checks. Remember kids. Passive scores are for the DM, not the players.
@denniscantrell54866 жыл бұрын
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.
@ryanmcdonald56566 жыл бұрын
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.
@Calgarylames6 жыл бұрын
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)
@EXXTSON6 жыл бұрын
Quixotic Fool that sounds really awesome! Gonna steal this shamelessly
@twistedblast52536 жыл бұрын
Quixotic Fool This sounds great,but could become a problem if you have a lot of players.Way too many rolls to keep track of.
@EXXTSON6 жыл бұрын
Twisted Blast nope, only one dice to keep track of
@PluckyPecan6 жыл бұрын
You could perhaps, roll your own dice (behind the screen) and depending on something (coin flip), have your dice take count. Or, roll a d6, and depending on something, add or subtract that value from their roll. They roll really high, the probably still turn out OK, roll really low, and your d6 might make or break their attempt.
@gengar11876 жыл бұрын
Nice, thanks for keeping the flow of good ideas going, I'm going to propose this next week, though there won't be any stealthing, just a death kiss and an oculo swarm against 4 and the wizard in an out of phase battle with himself via the machinations of a mirror of opposition, with a sphere of annihilation in the mix.
@xxspaceapexx6 жыл бұрын
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.
@zacharyharwell3512 жыл бұрын
I like this solution; seems like a good middle ground between rolling to do something at the start (thus knowing your effectiveness) and having the DM roll for the players. I personally don't mind, as a player or a DM, the idea of the DM rolling for the player. As I think about it from the player perspective though my mind immediately says that I'd have to trust said DM IMPLICITLY in regards to the honesty/fairness of the game. Good solution I think, well done!
@FlatOnHisFace2 жыл бұрын
As an alternate method, I suggest just using the hero's passive Stealth score. So, if'n he has a +7 Stealth, the sentry that might notice him rolls Perception against a 17 to determine if she detects him. It is still skill vs. skill and a dice roll is still involved. But this way, you needn't ask for a multitude of rolls from the player, depending on how often you feel like it, such as why a different roll in the woods and then again at the castle grounds? And won't a player be upset to learn that the 24 that was first rolled was superfluous, but the 12 at the castle grounds is what the sentry is checked against? By using the hero's passive score, you don't alert them to the danger of possible detection, so you needn't request phantom rolls, just to throw them off. Also, I don't think anyone can complain about the DM rolling a sentry's Perception, even if they would object to the DM rolling a skill check for a player.
@johnrehm22496 жыл бұрын
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
@staceybertran526 жыл бұрын
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!
@ToxicGnat6 жыл бұрын
I like how you removed the video and put it back up, all stealthy-like
@smrhansen6 жыл бұрын
Shy P. I mean, who's going to be paying attention at 1am? /s
@cinnamonbun1086 жыл бұрын
Sam people in Australia are awake and paying attention.
@smrhansen6 жыл бұрын
Alexander Hanrahan-Newton Frigging time zones. Why you always gotta make things so complicated?
@AD-en5dq6 жыл бұрын
Time Zones don't exist
@deptusmechanikus73626 жыл бұрын
Samuel Hansen it's noon where i'm at
@MalamuteX6 жыл бұрын
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. :-)
@keithdiaz61476 жыл бұрын
Malamute I do it similarly except I let them roll their own. I'm witholding the results and giving it one scenario at a time instead of oh you pass undetected blah blah.
@Hew916 жыл бұрын
Even in ludonarrative perspectives don't you think that you would know if your stealth was going terribly. Perhaps you make noise, or you cannot see a way to slip through the shadows. All these types of things. The suspense comes in that middle area when they are unsure of themselves. Because they don't know what the DC is. Or, what's more I generally have my stealth checks be opposed rolls. So I would roll dice for those checking, so they still don't know what is good or bad. My point is that there are ways to inject that suspense without taking player agency away
@contumelious-84403 жыл бұрын
@@Hew91 No, your character would not automagically know if they are undetected by their foe. How would they? Even a natural 20 stealth check can make noise, reflect light, or be countered by a simple area under heavy, hidden surveillance that nothing except an invisible character can traverse undetected. It's all about whether they are DETECTED which can be a passive DC or a skill check. It's unreasonable to assume a character knows something they can't possibly know. High rolls and bad rolls by the character are going to be assumptions by the player that they failed or succeeded. So there is a very small range of numbers where they aren't sure whether they failed. Why not just expand that to every time? Dm rolls aren't taking player agency away (that is decision making, just so you have your terminology correct.) Stunlocking a player for an entire fight could be, however.
@Hew913 жыл бұрын
@@contumelious-8440 if you want to give that level of uncertainty though, then make a stealth check an opposed roll. I am saying a character would absolutely know how well they are doing by their own standards of stealth. In real life when performing any task we have an idea of how well we are doing. But when we are performing against someone else, it is harder to gauge if we are doing better than they are. In this cause, I know I am doing pretty well at trying to hide py presence. But I didn't realize that that goblin is paranoid and can notice the slightest thing out of place. By your assertion, I feel like all skill checks and saving throws should be rolled by the dm. I don't know how persuasive I am being. Or how perfectly I recalled the information from history. Or if I searched this room well....so should the DM roll those as well? When it comes down to it, while who rolled the dice SHOULDN'T matter because it is random either way, there is a perception of control in being the one who rolls the dice. I don't think there is that much meta info given to the player, nor is the little meta info enough to outweigh the value of making players feel like the outcome was in their hands and not the DMs. Lastly I would argue that this perceived lack of control from the player absolutely affects their perceived sense of agency (a term I am quite clear on the meaning of...though I appreciate you trying to ensure I was informed.)
@davidmassey82406 жыл бұрын
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.
@davidmassey82406 жыл бұрын
Also, perhaps if they fail the roll give them partial or maybe slightly wrong information. It lets them be rewarded with information not knowing how they succeeded or not and every one at the table just assumes that it was a successful roll.
@Auter7116 жыл бұрын
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!
@DanteneNyx6 жыл бұрын
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
@quaaludes91455 жыл бұрын
In all fairness, the player can request to use it and the DM will pick the better roll. And it gives way into some interesting notes on the DM's part: "you crawl under the table and hide, only at the last second noticing you had left one of your feet out, in plain sight, you squeeze tighter and have a feeling of having done a better job now."
@contumelious-84403 жыл бұрын
I don't see a thing wrong with the lucky feat and DM rolling stealth dice. Lucky feat: {{You have 3 luck points. Whenever you make an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, you may spend 1 luck point to roll an additional d20. You can use this ability after the original roll, but before the outcome is revealed. You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw. You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. Roll a d20, and choose whether the attacker's roll uses their d20 roll or yours.}} The lucky feat is not dependent on being able to see the result of the roll. Already, you won't see the result of an attack roll against you, but you can roll against it and decide which die to use. This works exactly the same way during a stealth check. When you really think it matters, you can roll an additional 20 and decide which one to use, you don't know what the DM rolled, only what you did. If it works just fine on an attack roll against you, why doesn't it work mechanically on a stealth check?
@CondensedMalk6 жыл бұрын
omg can we just take a second to appreciate the extremely ugliness of the drapes
@Veran42 Жыл бұрын
5 years later and this comment still makes me laugh
@Lechteron6 жыл бұрын
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.
@BlueCyberPhoenix6 жыл бұрын
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.
@toshomni94786 жыл бұрын
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.
@diegopilati30526 жыл бұрын
Tosh Omni A player that rolls badly is encouraged to not commit to his previous plan.
@olli62716 жыл бұрын
But why let a roll happen at all if Dm has already decided the outcome? As a player it feels bad if roll badly, but nothing bad happens. It disinsentivizes the roll if the result is meaningless. It can also lead to distrust so that I can't trust any of my rolls to matter (like attacks hitting)
@toshomni94786 жыл бұрын
Couldn't disagree more. Rolls are more a guideline that can be discarded whenever the DM wants if it fits the story they want to develop and to keep the players guessing. You should never be a slave to the dice because that gets boring.
@studmcmillionaire88076 жыл бұрын
Definitely. With the case where the player has a flash of insight or thinks of something clever/cool to do, ask for the roll. If they roll high, the thing goes off spectacularly or even better than they were expecting. If the roll goes against them, they still do the thing but with mixed success or a complication is introduced that the PCs need to work around.
@MetaKaios6 жыл бұрын
@Tosh Omni "You should never be a slave to the dice" But... they're advocating discarding the dice...
@tearstoneactual97736 жыл бұрын
Passive skill checks.
@seanmcphillips54456 жыл бұрын
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.
@carlelife6 жыл бұрын
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.
@benpebbles41116 жыл бұрын
Matthew is honestly the cutest person in the entire world.
@Flexapr6 жыл бұрын
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. 😜👍🏻🇺🇸
@bobbistarwinde6 жыл бұрын
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!
@Malicious_Hero6 жыл бұрын
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.
@armageddonbound6 жыл бұрын
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.
@smileyface94516 жыл бұрын
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.
@captcorajus6 жыл бұрын
Unless you're psychic, you have no way to KNOW 100% whether you've been seen or not. You might be 'confident'. That's not the same thing as knowing. The DM might even say to the player, "You feel confident no one saw you". That doesn't mean 100% that no one did. There will ALWAYS be a sliver of doubt.
@smileyface94516 жыл бұрын
captcorajus I didn't say anything about knowing 100% whether you've been seen; I was talking about knowing how good of a job you did relative to your general capability. You can still do a really good job and get seen, that's how D&D works - I rolled a 19 for Stealth, they rolled a 20 Perception. We both rolled well, but the stealth still fails. The reverse is true as well - you don't know 100% whether you screwed up enough to be seen. You might have rolled badly; perhaps so badly that you think "Ah man, there's no way nobody noticed that" - but you don't know for sure, you're just inferring from your performance and experience - which is far more reasonable than the alternative, where you don't know you rolled a 2, even though if your character had any brains they'd be able to assess how well they were doing relative to previous attempts and realize that knocking a loud suit of armor over is probably going to get them noticed - not 100%, but probably.
@captcorajus6 жыл бұрын
Exactly, so there's no reason for you to see the die roll. Han didn't need to see the die roll, he knew he'd rolled poorly as he snick up on the stormtrooper because of the twig snap. I will say this: If the DM is going to roll certain actions for the players, then he or she needs to be descriptive of the result so the player can accurately assess the situation. Perhaps not all DMs have this skill, and therefore should just let the players roll. However, its been my experience that anytime you can mingle a player's experience with that of their character's the immersion in the game is going to be reinforced.
@smileyface94516 жыл бұрын
captcorajus The main problem I'm trying to avoid is putting all of that on the DM. If you go with this system, then the DM has to describe the result of the roll in narrative terms EVERY SINGLE TIME, or the player is not being given information they should have. If you feel there is a chance of you mistakenly not doing this, which I would imagine is something that would happen for most DMs, then you are in fact going to be restricting this information from the player. They're only equivalent if you nail it EVERY TIME, and if you can then you're an impressive DM and I salute you. But even then, you're only giving them the same information they would have otherwise. So all I see is risk without any worthwhile reward. And even that isn't what Colville's talking about here. In both of our scenarios, the player knows they've done a pretty decent job. Colville's scenario is focused around creating tension through uncertainty, because the players have no idea how well they did. In both of our scenarios, the player should know, either narratively or numerically, how well they did, and thus the kind of uncertainty he's suggesting doesn't occur, because the character is capable of assessing their action in the moment.
@captcorajus6 жыл бұрын
Hmm, well, I hate to tell you, but 'most DMs' did it this way for decades, as that was the default setting for D&D until 3E came out. Its hardly as difficult a you make it sound... in fact its not hard in the least. It requires the bare minimum of descriptive ability. "You're certain you fooled the guard". "You made your way across the court yard, but half way through you inadvertently stepped on a twig." See? Not that hard. I know EXACTLY what Colville is saying here. What's he's saying is that a player who rolls a 23 for their stealth will meta the level of success versus if they only rolled say... a 13. While both might very well be successes, the player might moderate their actions based on the die roll rather than the in game situation. Further, a player missing the needed number by 1... say a 14 when they needed a 15 would have no discernible comprehension of their success or failure. this is an 'old school' way of doing things. As I said, this was the default way of doing things in the game... The 1e DMG specifically said that the DM made these rolls for the players.
@RobinBaggett6 жыл бұрын
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.
@stevenpeterson85822 жыл бұрын
I like the idea of the DM making Stealth rolls and Perception rolls for the characters, and the Player making all other rolls.
@1Kapuchu1006 жыл бұрын
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).
@abcrasshadow93416 жыл бұрын
Kapuchu I see where you are coming from. But all the stuff you mentioned should not be a problem. I feel if the DM takes over the rolls for skills they should also describe the results. I.e. You move along the hallway when you flinch you just hit a stone kicking down the hallway the guys you were following begin to halt and investigate the sound. Or You feel there is something wrong you approach the scene being quiet as usual every thing looks normal the guards are chatting as usual. Everything feels normal but something is off. Another quick glance behind your shoulder and you see the third guard weapons drawn standing behind you. You were spotted. There are many ways to describe it and if the DM can't describe the roll then you are in the right and this method should probably not be used however if the DM is good at describing the scene then I feel that this would work wonders!
@sethdeapen69786 жыл бұрын
Yeah I agree with your point. But it prompted a thought. What if the DM compensates for the players self awareness by using it as a role play opportunity. For instance, the player wants to hide, and the DM makes the roll, its about a 9, which is not good but not an instant fail. The DM also makes the perception checks. So when The player rolled a 9, he says "As you attempt to hold completely still behind the rock you begin to lose your balance causing your foot to slip, some pebbles begin to roll down the cave." The goblin guard is about to pass, but he only rolls a 5 on perception. As the pebbles roll, the guard stops, looks around, and picks up a copper piece, before continuing on his way. It relies heavily on the creativity of the DM, but it makes me wonder if it is worth it for the player's satisfaction
@jibbyjackjoe6 жыл бұрын
Should be a passive perception since they're not actively looking.
@abcrasshadow93416 жыл бұрын
Yeah exactly it relies on the DM to decribe the situation other wise this is bonkers.
@abcrasshadow93416 жыл бұрын
Dude I know what you mean. But is that relevant to the discussion? Also you could easily just interpreted the message with passive perception in mind.
@OsirisMalkovich6 жыл бұрын
Is this filmed in a circus tent?
@Omegacalgar6 жыл бұрын
PAX East is a circus.
@matt.oconnor6 жыл бұрын
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!
@misterfluffkins21616 жыл бұрын
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.
@GirlPainting6 жыл бұрын
i think the same aplyes to perception checks. the players should not know what they DON´T see ;-)
@concibar42676 жыл бұрын
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
@partysnick6 жыл бұрын
I was thinking about doing this, but does the stealth check then become some kind of radar. The player stealthing could know if anyone is around if they have to make a roll, sort of thing? just a thought
@concibar42676 жыл бұрын
jonas winther ; well the players never tried to break the game in this way and they know I wouldn't let them if they tried. That's a problem I never had. But I have fewer rolls and more "you just succeed"s then most groups I know. I only let players roll if they have a chance to fail, a chance to win and they can't just try again. Otherwise they just fail or succeed like normal human beings. So you don't get to roll just because you'd like to. You have to actually do something risky.
@niduroki6 жыл бұрын
This is really the best thing to do. Stealthily walking isn't an active thing, it's walking with intent. GMs don't ask for rolling, when their players are walking with intent … Unless they're walking stealthily. It basically boils to Nat-1 fishing. You want each player to roll, to see whether one of them rolls a 1, to then make something bad happen (when the book says a Nat-1 is nothing bad, btw). Unless there's a clear, immediate consequence for failing a check (not just a stealth check), don't ask for a roll!
@partysnick6 жыл бұрын
yeah it makes sense. Whenever i have played people have just done exactly what he said, someone fails a perceptions roll and everyone else wants to try. maybe just have to be more comfortable with saying that they can't in some way. :)
@concibar42676 жыл бұрын
jonas winther well if they search something and there is nothing preventing them from trying again and again I don't let them roll, they just succeed. If it is the "do you notice the sneaking rogue" they don't roll, the rogue rolls vs their passive perception anyway.
@thecoolerrats71446 жыл бұрын
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.
@MrFoxBait6 жыл бұрын
@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).
@twistedironpaw6 жыл бұрын
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!
@MalcIgg6 жыл бұрын
interesting, the DM rolls fort he players, Players roll of the NPC
@gengarwarrior68024 жыл бұрын
Not if they are hiding from the players
@javaterry16616 жыл бұрын
A less then 10min video? What happened to the Kickstarter King?
@Arkandos426 жыл бұрын
*King of Kickstarter, please get the title right next time!
@Knight52646 жыл бұрын
All that loot causes encumbrance...
@fatmoocow2496 жыл бұрын
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.
@meraduddcethin28126 жыл бұрын
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.
@MrBenwaan6 жыл бұрын
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.
@whitecloud1975 жыл бұрын
I really like this idea. As a gamer and a brand new DM i see this all the time. This might be a tool to help combat this
@niduroki6 жыл бұрын
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?)
@jibbyjackjoe6 жыл бұрын
Niduroki absolutely. Scenario 1 "You walk into a chamber, a weird glowing orb is floating there." "ill check out the orb" wizard rolls a 7 "you don't recognize it" 3 other players, all like vultures, "do I recognize it?" barbarian rolls a 16 "Smasher knows what this is" Scenario 2 "you walk into a chamber and see a weird orb." DM checks passive arcana. " wizard, you recognize this orb. It's...." See how much faster that was? Just give them the info. Rolling for stuff like this isn't the game. They didn't actively do anything. Think about combat. We (usually) don't design combats to be failures. They're balanced. Why would we set up scenarios for the players to fail in. And then what, they just kind of sit there staring at the orb?
@snowman96316 жыл бұрын
Niduroki but that’s also not correct, sure if it’s an insight check on a rando npc they will never see again, but if they pass a stealth check to sneak through an area they don’t know is being watched but they are being Cautious because they are smart then a passing check literally means nothing happens, but if they happened to fail then they would be spotted and a fight or chase could break out I only let them pass checks if it’s something they could normally, like I won’t make the 16 or higher strength barbarian roll to knock down a door (unless it fortified) but the wizard with an 8 then I would make him roll if it isn’t fortified
@niduroki6 жыл бұрын
@Cade Carter that is *literally* what I meant with "Rolling for stealth is the GM fishing for a player rolling badly, so they can throw bad things at the players." There is nothing good you can throw at the players, only bad. Not even a "You leave the watched area behind" or "You manage to stay hidden, when the guard takes a look at your position". If there is no one actively looking for the players, the players say the are sneaking, and the NPCs aren't looking for the players: Why make the players roll? Do you assume they are incompetent of sneaking? This btw also applies to the good old door players have to kick in, without time or any other constraints. "I want to kick the door in" - "Okay, roll STR" - "3" - "You fail." - "So … can I try again?" - "Yeah … (( Since I want you to go in there anyways ))" Case here: No interesting outcome on a failure → Don't make players roll. Even the weak wizard will eventually figure out how to bust the door open (unless the universe - read GM - is a d*ck …).
@geoffelliott16386 жыл бұрын
Dice rolls don't necessarily need to be only "success vs failure" either. In some cases you can have the dice determine whether someone succeeds or succeeds GREATLY. In the case of knowledge checks, if the DM thinks the character has the appropriate background and features then they can still gleam some information on a low roll, but if they roll high then perhaps the DM can throw in a bit more... For example, say your party is ambushed by a group of orcs while traveling. After successfully mopping the floor with them, one of the party members asks "Do I know if orc ambushes are common in this area?". As the DM you may think "since this character is from the area so they would automatically know this is a common hazard on the roads" --- but maybe if they make a intelligence/history check and roll well, they might also know why the orcs are ambushing travelers, how large their tribe is, or which roads are safe to travel. You can't do this with all checks of course. Things like Stealth or Slight of Hand really only allow for success/failure in most cases. But other skills like perception, insight, and any knowledge check can all have a success/greater success outcome.
@quily20026 жыл бұрын
Agree with Geoffrey here. Being trained in something like Insight is near useless if you go by the "only success or failure" route. On a failure, nothing happens with insight. Sure, on a low roll you could say the PC thinks the exact opposite of what the NPC is thinking, but (assuming the player rolled) the player will just disregard that information and take it as a joke. I'd never automatically tell my players what my NPCs are thinking just because on a failure "nothing happens". In this case, the "nothing happens" is actually quite a failure as they were trying to discern someone's true intentions during a key moment, and they failed. But in that case, I'd also argue that stealth functions the same way. It keeps the tension up, they're not sure how inhabited an area is, or who's searching for them. So sure, on a success "nothing happens", but that "nothing happens" is actually quite good because it allows the player to feel confident moving forward. Of course, I wouldn't ask for these kind of rolls all the time. Perhaps we're even saying the same thing using different words. But I do think there are moments where asking for the roll are warranted.
@Lymmar6 жыл бұрын
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.
@scook99996 жыл бұрын
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.
@nickclinton97746 жыл бұрын
That reupload though.
@bugsybro30116 жыл бұрын
He failed his stealth check
@nonwashable95406 жыл бұрын
BugsyBro But how did he know?! He must have been rolling for himself!
@markjohnson96656 жыл бұрын
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.
@aaronmiller95456 жыл бұрын
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.
@WyleBryss6 жыл бұрын
Your videos are awesome. Going single-take (well, mostly single-take) makes them even better.
@testpattern71866 жыл бұрын
Matt sounds so different here.
@nonwashable95406 жыл бұрын
Talking all day and being exhausted will do that to you.
@super88cloud6 жыл бұрын
The frank voice of uploading at 3 am in the morning
@everybodytogether55326 жыл бұрын
Ive watched basically all your content on youtube. Took awhile but i drive alot for work. Youre a legened matt
@johnstephenalbert6 жыл бұрын
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.
@CaronDriel6 жыл бұрын
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.
@powderpuffarpeggio39686 жыл бұрын
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.
@peytonsimon25526 жыл бұрын
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.
@josephpement5938 Жыл бұрын
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.
@samuelhowarth65716 жыл бұрын
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.
@mordiveer59576 жыл бұрын
I like the dramatic impact of not knowing how well you are stealthed, i'd go for it.
@januzzell86316 жыл бұрын
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
@harriswilson99526 жыл бұрын
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.
@lordbahj6 жыл бұрын
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.
@maxscott30076 жыл бұрын
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!
@tjstorm1766 жыл бұрын
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.
@JamesECarlisle6 жыл бұрын
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.
@exile38976 жыл бұрын
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.
@styrax69906 жыл бұрын
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.
@geoffreyperrin43476 жыл бұрын
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."
@williamhoving55926 жыл бұрын
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:)
@JesterJayCreations6 жыл бұрын
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.
@TheKarishi6 жыл бұрын
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.
@tyleremery70885 жыл бұрын
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).
@SmashJazzBlammyMataz6 жыл бұрын
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.
@theopromes75136 жыл бұрын
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.
@therumdragon40796 жыл бұрын
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.
@gregv36296 жыл бұрын
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.
@Sexpizza6 жыл бұрын
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.
@ivormackay6 жыл бұрын
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.
@seanreeves61806 жыл бұрын
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!
@Gamerpark5556 жыл бұрын
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.
@Zawfee6 жыл бұрын
I really like how you deal with this issue. I don't have much to debate about here. "All is in order move along!"
@williamvieira61254 жыл бұрын
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.)