ah i see, thank you.

I think it would be a good idea to add another check box by "secret rolls" like "secret to GM" that the players would not see.

There are two benefits for this:

First:
This allows for many rolls to be made on behalf of characters, which can be collated, copied, and assessed, without the added burden of having to type in which character it is for and sorting it out later.

(It might not be useful in games with only a few rolls or where the rolls aren't collected for analysis, but in at least one of my games, this would be very helpful.)

Second:
For rolls in which players are not allowed to know the results of the roll, it gives them a sense of participation and control (i.e., they still get to roll themselves!), instead of having the GM do all the rolling.  For example, "I search for secret doors," then roll under "secret to GM."  Normally, the GM would have to roll secretly because there might not be a secret door, or if there was, it may not have been discovered because of the bad roll.  This way, the player gets to announce an action, roll, and the GM gets to see the result and decide the consequence without giving the player a metagaming "clue."

(The main aspect of this secondary issue is emotional, not practical, but it adds to the feeling of it being a more interactive game.)

+1

In reply to Heath (msg # 4):

I confess, I like this idea.  +1 from me!

Unfortunately rolls will always be seen by whichever character makes the roll, whether it is the player himself, or the GM doing it on their behalf.  There isn't really a way to change this.

The GM can already roll on behalf of a character without the player knowing.  If the PC is called "Bob", then the GM can create an NPC for himself called "Bob - Secret", and use that character to make secret rolls that he wants labelled with the PC's name, but doesn't want the player to see.

Couldn't such rolls be bifurcated when published to the rolls page so that two different results are shown?

For example:

PLAYER SEES:
08:58, Yesterday: Secret Roll to GM: Player rolled [SECRET] using 1d6.

GM SEES:
08:58, Yesterday: Secret Roll to GM: Player rolled 5 using 1d6.

The GM's dice roller has:
On Behalf Of [select character] (or) NPC Name: [           ]
So a GM can do a totally secret roll by entering the character's name in the NPC Name field.

As for the metagaming advantages of a player rolling without knowing the result:

If the GM wants to hide you rolls from you they can roll on your behalf as above.

Otherwise if you roll 1d20+8 in D&D and get 10, you know that a success made it a low threshold test.
If you failed then you may or may not include a mention in your post about how your character perceives the failure. Either they blithely assume they succeeded in finding nothing in their search, or they realise they're struggling.
Even if the GM rolled secretly on your behalf, that wouldn't really change the result or your character's perception of the result.
I guess in the example of D&D it would be good to not know the result of your saving throws, but again the GM can roll this without you even knowing it has been rolled.

That's not what the suggestion is.

The suggestion is to allow a PLAYER to roll a secret roll and not know the result.  This way the player gets to participate more fully without metagaming creeping in when what he thought would be a success (or failure) does not have the expected result.  Right now, the GM has to make all these rolls, which leaves the players out a little bit.

EDIT: If I understand what you are saying, I think your statement is inaccurate.  The "on behalf of" roll, even if secret, can be seen by the player it is on behalf of.  At least, that's my understanding.  And I think that was the point of the original post.
This message was last edited by the user at 22:02, Wed 20 Aug 2014.

thanks heath, yes that was the intent of the original post.  i was looking for a shortcut for recording the secret rolls made on behalf of characters when i discovered that the players were able to see the rolls i was making for them the entire time anyway.  this led to the idea of finding a way to hide them while still finding them in the "rolls" space for that character.   i have really only been a gm except in [game name removed], so ive never seen secret rolls on behalf of a character as a character, only as a gm.  seven plus years on rpol and im only discovering this now :)
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 07:13, Thu 21 Aug 2014.

In reply to Heath (msg # 9):

No, no, there is a difference between rolling on behalf of a player and rolling "On Behalf Of [Character]". If I roll under the GM name or as manual NPC name on your behalf, you can't see the roll. It does not change that I have done it on your behalf, I just haven't done it On Behalf Of [Character].

I can kind of see the point: let players do the rolling and also see the rolls in the character's roll log.

I just don't see how letting the player roll the dice themself, but with no visibility of the result, would be better over the player not knowing when dice are rolled. They still have to wait for the GM to declare the results the same way as if the GM had rolled behind the scenes.

If it's an option for the players to use it will be used inconsistently from player to player. If it could be implemented it might make more sense for it to be part of the dice roller config menu: the GM setting it so no players can see the results of any rolls. Otherwise you'll get Joe gamely using it, but Dan persistently using normal Secret rolls and continuing to divine extra information about the roll.

It already bothers me that some of my players keep every roll Secret for no good reason. To me only covert actions should be rolled Secretly. Otherwise either everyone should roll everything Secretly or no-one should roll anything Secretly. It would be good to have the ability as a GM to turn the secret roll option off for players.

Because if the player performs an action, the die roll is a physical manifestation of doing the action.  Whether the action succeeds or fails is the dominion of the GM, but the physical action is taken by the player.

Not knowing when dice are rolled is for when the GM takes an action (on behalf of an NPC, the environment, etc.), so that is a completely different situation.

In reply to Heath (msg # 12):

Ah, but in a face 2 face game, if the DM asks a player to roll a dice, the player sees the result - he may not know if it is a success or not, since he doesn't know what constitutes a pass - but he will know if he rolled high or low.

What you are suggesting is akin to a player rolling the dice with his eyes closed - a situation that doesn't happen that often at the table...  or at least not without the player cracking them open when he hears the gasps from the other players around the table!

You're right.  It's actually an improvement that cannot be mirrored at the table--and hence adds at least one degree of superiority over tabletop.

There are many parts of playing online that take away the social and interactive involvement of players.  This is one way to add it back in, albeit through means that cannot be duplicated face to face.

I've been thinking about this -- the difference between saying, "I search the room," stopping, and waiting for the GM to roll and tell you the results -- or saying, "I search the room," making a roll you can't see, stopping, and waiting for the GM to tell you the results...

...is clearly not a big one, mechanically.  And it's very much the kind of roll that, at the table, if the GM wants kept secret, they would traditionally just make behind a screen.

But, 1) I can see where it would be a little bit simpler (and in some ways more intuitive) for a GM to be able to do a Secret On Behalf Of... that gets connected to that character (for when the GM uses their "Rolls" link), but that the player still can't see; and 2) There is a different psychology to that second sequence, and it feels like a good psychology to me.  There's a tension there that isn't; once the roll is made, it feels done.  When the GM is going to come and roll later, well, heck, anything could still happen.  It's all in your head, but it does feel different.

So, well, I guess where I land is, if BBR is right and it's just not doable, then it doesn't feel like a particularly big loss to me.  But if it is doable, I think it's very interesting.  Enough to get a +1.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

There's also the other reason I mentioned, which is for GMs to easily collate multiple rolls by person and saving a step or two.  Less psychological and more utilitarian, but useful for games with many rolls.

But this was the point of bucket's original post.  He wants to collate and easily categorize the rolls by person the GM rolls on behalf of.  Typing that person's name into the "Reason for Roll" for each and every roll gets cumbersome when you have a game with many rolls.  (I have had mass combat situations with 20+ rolls per character/player, per round, so I see his point.)

I have to say that I can think of a few different reasons why a player might roll dice, but not know the result.  You might be repairing or building something, trying to convince someone of something, etc.


@ Heath

And it might not be helpful for some or in games with large numbers of dice rolls, but in others it would.

In reply to Heath (msg # 17):

It doesn't go in the "reason for roll" section. There is a box, next to the character drop down, in which one can manually enter an NPC name.


Ultimately I can see where OP is coming from, but it sounds like a lot of work for not much gain. I think GMs would use it, but players wouldn't which undermines half the justification given. The same way you get the metagamers insisting on rolling everything Secretly and normal people only rolling for secret actions Secretly.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:18, Thu 21 Aug 2014.

That's funny.  I don't know of any of my players who wouldn't use it.  They are always asking me if they can roll, and I often have to tell them not to, or I allow it but their result is not what they expected, giving them metagaming advantages I might not want them to have.

Anyway, I think the issues are discussed.  The only questions are (1) if others would +1 it, and (2) if it is even feasible technically.

+1 from me then.

His proposal has a face to face component that I have both seen and done before.  Gamers time to feel connected or responsible for their characters, and often want to roll what they can.  I have seen others and have myself rolled my dice behind a GM screen, where I did not see the result.

Is it generally necessary.  No, but it could be helpful in such circumstances.

How about a checkbox obscured from player.  The player can check it, making if a GM only seen roll, probably showing the type of roll but not result.  Or the GM can check it... Causing the same thing.  A perfect example would be when a player wants his character to make an act rive perception or appraise check.  The player knows their skill modifiers, so puts in a roll.  The roll helps the GM by prompting them to check their result to see if the get any valuable information.  This can save the time of the GM.

I suspect I would have occasions to use it, so would be a +1 if there was a way for a player to make a roll the result was only seen by the GM.

Actually, it works very much in a way face to face doesn't. Because in face to face; there's no way if you make the roll, that you don't know what you rolled. You may not know what you needed to roll; but you know what you rolled. I roll all things where the result wouldn't be clear myself as a GM. Sense motive; perception; etc.

Couldn't care less; but would never use it.

In reply to willvr (msg # 23):

Incorrect. In face to face, one roll with a screen between them and the dice.

___
I see two suggestions basically,
1, GM roll on behalf of characters in way that doesn't show the players the result and doesn't require manual typing of names.
This can easily be done by making characters except with secret in the name as suggested earlier.

2, is to allow a player to make a roll without knowing the result.
I like it, but don't find it important, so +.5

___
Another ability that would be nice that ties in with rolling, would be to include a group and round tags. This way you can ask one group to make perception checks and easily sort them out from rolls made for other groups. Also, it is nice to know the in-game timing of rolls for reference and sorting, particularly with a larger group of players.

I haven't discovered everything about the roller yet, but being able to sort rolls by these tags and then character, would be useful, particularly for recap posts in combat, as I could see all the rolls each character made in a particular round sorted by character (or at least of it sorted by the various fields/tags)

You beat me to the punch there.  I was going to say that this is done face to face by the player announcing a roll, and the GM doing it behind the screen.  The auditory component here would be substituted with a secret roll component.  The feeling of participating would be the same.

The other component that is missing here is when a GM rolls secretly, they may not know.  To add tension, I indicate with ...  to let them know I have just rolled, and the next part of the post will describe the results.  In face to face, you see (or hear) the DM make the secret roll behind the screen, but that is not automatically duplicated in RPoL, yet is easy to reproduce through some symbol or another, like ....

-1 for that idea, since I use ellipses a lot.  So players would be continuously thinking there's been a secret roll.

Instead the GM can always include a Private Line to the player which just says "Secret roll" - that way only the player the roll applies to will know it was made, but not why, or whether it was a success.

Or even just post [Secret Roll] if he wants all the players to know about it, but not what it related to.

Sorry, that wasn't a suggestion or idea, just a workaround that I use now (and tell the players about in advance).

The suggestion was allowing the players to roll secretly and not know the result.