I'd like to see a Blind Roll option added to the Dice Roller allowing a player to roll a dice such as a skill check or saving throw but the results would be hidden from them and only visible to the GM.

Just a checkbox option which would sit nicely on the Dice Roller option screen next to Secret Roll - or alternatively bundle 'em all up as a dropdown list "Roll Type: Standard/Secret/Blind".

Of course the GM can make any roll on a player's behalf, but it adds to the tension and the sense that your fate is in the dice if the player throws the dice and sweats on the outcome without a clue as to whether they've rolled well or badly.

Bonus points if the GM has an option to subsequently reveal the roll if they choose, but I think that would be a bit more work to implement as it would require an option to be added to the results screen.

I'd like to see this also. It'd be nice if players can roll the rolls their not supposed to know the results of (stealth, perception, etc) without seeing it, but would prefer that the option for the GM to show rolls was added. Shouldn't be harder than adapting the code that does the clear all/some rolls to add a third option to show rolls.

Keep them separate. That way you could have

• Standard Rolls -- the usual
• Secret Rolls -- only you and the GM can see them
• Blind Rolls -- you see that you rolled, but only the GM sees the result
• Secret Blind Rolls -- only you and the GM see that you rolled, only the GM sees the result

I like this idea. +1 from me.

Not to throw too much cold water on this building excitement, but if the result needs to be hidden from the player, it matters not one whit to its outcome who makes the throw - the RPoL Dice Roller will render a fair result in any event.

GMs are perfectly capable of making rolls (Secret Rolls) when the results need to be kept from the player(s).

Am I wrong about this?

I actually was just about to say the same thing. While I understand players need to do skill checks or saving throws, or anything else in regards to this topic; however the Game Master could proceed to take on that responsibility instead by using the “Secret Roll” option.

It would be kind of useless to add this option when there’s a better alternative already in place.

While the idea is nice, there’s definitely already an implemented option for this.
This message was last edited by the user at 04:55, Tue 27 Feb 2018.

+1 because this is absolutely not the same thing as a GM secret roll on behalf of the player.

While a GM could just make a secret roll, doing so can leave players feeling that they have no connection to the result.

Additionally, since a GM secret roll is entirely hidden, with no record that it was even made visible to the player he was rolling for, a bad spell on the roller can leave players thinking, "Gee!  Another 1.  Is he really rolling, or is he just telling me that he is, and auto-failing my skill checks?"

+1 from a player perspective.

In line with what the others are saying, I sure would like to feel like the roll is in my power especially if I can't see the result. The anticipation is way higher, IMO, if I'm waiting for the result of MY die roll rather than the GMs. Couldn't tell you exactly why that is, but regardless I think it'd be great to see as an option.

another +1 from the player prospective

If may be silly of me, but if my character fails a roll, then I want it to be my finger that pushed the button that made that roll fail, even if it's a Secret Blind Roll.

Another +1. I go back and forth on how to do this in games without this option. Rolling for them doesn't seem fair.

What it seems like is this gives the player more of a sense of ownership in the roll?  It still has no impact on the fairness of any particular roll.  The dice roller cares not, so long as a roll is made, it will spit out as nearly a random result as its algorithm is capable of producing.

I'm not saying that how the player feels about the roll is unimportant, nor am I saying I'm vehemently opposed to doing this.  I just feel the two are pro forma equivalents in that they both produce the same results for any particularly defined roll whether the player pushes the button or the GM does. To wit:  a random result in the domain specified by the dice= portion of the roller's command, said result being hidden from the player's sight.



With the Blind Roll as narrowly defined, the player would be blind to the actual result, anyway, so where's the verify-ability?  (I mean, unless the "reveal" option is implemented...)  Am I missing something here?

Sequences of low numbers can occur, just like sequences of high numbers can, and there are all sorts of gamer superstitions about this sort of thing.  (I've actually seen someone use salt and sage smoke to "purify" their dice(!), but I digress...)  If the player can't trust the GM to be honest about it, why even play?

Let's switch gears for a bit:  Technically speaking, what sort of coding would be needed to implement such a feature?  If the coding is trivial, why not?  On the other hand, if the desired feature set (I'm thinking the "reveal later" function) makes it an unwieldy task that turns our dice roller into a kludge, well...

1 Update UI to add the hidden option
2 When hidden option is taken treat as DM secret, with flag
3 Just use the same code that you'd use for the clear some rolls, but make it show some rolls, and turn the hidden flag to secret so the player can see their roll.

I do like the idea of having both Blind and Secret options, thank ye LonePaladin.

That works well for the reveal too - if the player ticked Secret as well as Blind, then when it is Revealed the Secret flag will hide it from any but GM and the player themselves.  If you just have Blind without Secret, then if/when the GM reveals it, then it is visible to all.

Revealing feels tricky to me, but like an interesting option to have.  We don't have anything, so far, that can change things in the Dice Log after they happen, and I assume that's because the Dice Log is, like, super simple.  Perhaps even some kind of... text file.  Or primitive stone carving.  I don't know.  But if that can be done, yes, I think it would be cool.

Horus, no, I don't think you're missing anything.  But as a player, that "sense of ownership", even if it still doesn't actually stop the GM from just lying... Skald is absolutely right about the psychological tension this could create.  When you know the dice have been rolled, it just goes in your head differently.  A GM Secret roll, the players don't even know happened... which has its place, but it's a different place.

It's also worth noting that when a GM links a Secret Roll to a character, the player does see the roll.  This would presumably also mean that the GM could make a Blind Roll connected to a character that would then show in the log that a roll had been made for that character, but not what it was.  And that feels different, too; like hearing the clatter of dice behind the Screen.  Sure, they might or might not be fudging the results, but it certainly feels more real than when they just say, "Nope, you failed," without any clatter.

Pushing the button yourself is the online equivalent of blowing on the dice and always rolling them left handed, and with one eye closed.


It doesn't have to make any sense at all to you or to me, but it definitely makes sense to some players.  I have a player in one game who swears the dice will always give him the result he needs when he really needs it.  A secret roll by the GM wouldn't be the same.

I had another player who swore that if he rolled with blue dice, he got better results.  So we aren't dealing with logic in these cases.

So wile you might feel it would be the same, and logically it would be, to the players it wouldn't necessarily feel the same.

From a GM's point of view, I would prefer if something bad were to happen to the player, it would be their action, either in game or a bad roll. Or if a player fails a roll that it was the player who had control. To me, it gives the player more control over their fate.

And it can make a difference. Unlike real life, WHEN you roll the dice does make a difference, as the random number generator updates for each roll, so a roll made 10 minutes after a post, or one made 30 minutes afterwards would have different results, as the number of dice rolled in between affects the result.

Thanks to all who replied to address my concerns.

Yeah, I'm aware of superstitions regarding dice, so if there is sufficient interest, why not?  The only thing missing is that immediate gratification from being able to actually see the result when rolled, and, who knows, maybe that's a good thing too?

I'm sold.  +1

+1 from me too, something that I didn't even know I wanted.

I'm on the fence - BUT...

Without the GM revealing the roll, how could you prove that it was your roll and not some arbitrary number pulled by the GM?

I'm not saying they would mess with you, however, I am saying that have a hidden roll (that everyone can see you have made a roll, but not the result) and a secret roll that only the GM can see.

But both have to revealed by the GM in the interest of fair play

+1 from me.

In reply to Escribblings (msg # 19):

If you're worried about the GM being fair, then you probably shouldn't be playing with that GM. I have one GM that makes a lot of the rolls for me and have no problem as I believe he is fair. The blind roll or hidden option would be nice as it still gives the players some control, but I would play with that GM regardless of whether there is a blind roll or not.

GMs have been fudging rolls since before there were dice, and in my experience, it's usually in the player's favor.  It's an option they already have on RPoL, even, so, yeah.  It's really no different than having you roll without having already told you what the target is -- how do you know they don't adjust the target according to your roll?  Or when you choose which door to open in a dungeon, how do you know they haven't already decided what the next room will be regardless?  And more importantly, is that really a problem?

Just embrace the illusion.  Give in to your hat--- wait, no, wrong lesson.
This message was last edited by the user at 01:15, Fri 09 Mar 2018.

I'm on the fence too.

On the plus side, I love that it put the responsibility of the modifier in the players hand the same way a normal roll does.

On the other hand, I feel that it wouldn't help that much because players would be as distrustful of the resulting gm post as they are now when they fail a check or, for in-person game, when the gm ask for the PCs' modifier and roll behind his screen.

In reply to MalaeDezeld (msg # 23):

I don't think you should think of it as a trust issue against the GM.  I think most players don't trust the Dice Roll generator.  (not the GM)  It is obvious it has a beef with them from the start.  I think it is more of a being able to take ownership of generating the roll, and feeling like it is their action.

As mentioned, its primary benefit is that it allow the player to look up the necessary modifiers and dice for the roll, the GM gets to verify assuming they want to, and then determine the result.

Is it Required?  No, games can go on much like they have been.  Players could make an arrangement to post the dice and modifiers required for rolls they want to make, and the GM can then roll it for them.  This would however same some of the GM's time.  So the two benefits I see, more player ownership of the responsibility of the roll.  A bit of a psychological benefit.  But as the player may be more directly connected to the modifiers for their character, it might make the person defining the roll, closer to the information needed to make the roll.  It also, as I mentioned by allowing the Player to be responsible for setting up and making the roll, would save the GM's time.  Allowing them to simply check the result and determine what that means according to the game.

I'm +1 for the idea, if Jase is up to it.

Any other options such as the ability for the GM to later choose to reveal die rolls if the want.  That would really be extra stuff.  It could potentially be done, not unlike how they can choose to clear the log of all or specific rolls, but the ability to eventually reveal rolls wouldn't really be that important to me.  If it were simple to do, sure, but the more functional part is letting the player make/define the roll and let the GM see it.

Had missed this aspect of it, now I'm double plus one.

I was thinking more in term of metagaming paranoia: the gm asks for bonus and rolls secretly, the player are now paranoids and search every nook and cranny in case they missed something. I believe that the scenario would be mostly the same with an hidden roll (but with the added bonus of the psychological effect of pressing the button and that the gm don't need to roll for all of the players).

In this format, there is no need for the gm to ask for bonus, they can look it up easier and way, way faster than asking for it. If they do ask for it, then they do so for a reason, whether logical (they want the players paranoid) or lazy (can't be bothered to follow a link and look at a character sheet).

I would tend to agree with you here:  blind should mean blind.  Players should not know anything about a blind roll in play other than that they made it until it takes effect.  This maximizes surprise, if any, and gives a bit more verisimilitude to the play-action.
This message was last edited by the user at 05:51, Sat 24 Mar 2018.

I don't know about that. Certain instances of blind rolls being useful would be in games such as d20 Modern, where a player may make a Demolitions roll to prepare explosives, or a Forgery roll to fake a passport, and is not intended to know the result, even though the player would be aware of their modifiers.

I see your point.  It would seem that anywhere a result should have a measure of uncertainty surrounding it,  a blind roll might be a good fit?

Still, I tend to agree with what DarkLightHitomi said earlier:  for a blind roll, the GM can easily look up the required modifiers instead of asking for them.

And why should they know they made a check?

If they know they made a perception check, but nothing was revealed, the players know they failed a perception check, which significantly defeats the purpose of the perception check.

For cases like Demolitions, they know what the character did, if the gm decides to use a check instead of handwaving it, does it matter to the players? Like really?

Certainly, some players are in it for the dice rolls, but for them, not seeing the result is as bad as not making the check at all.

Also, consider that everything a character does can be represented by a check, but that doesn't mean it needs to be. Why does it matter if the gm decides a particular case deserves a dice check but not a different case?

Because in the "blind roll" option under discussion, the player makes the roll (meaning he or she casts the virtual dice) not knowing what its purpose is...  Maybe I phrased that poorly.  (I blame Archer for this...)
This message was last edited by the user at 11:32, Sat 24 Mar 2018.

In a word, yes. To some players, anyway. I know there are players in my home games that would be very displeased should I handwave their Demolitions/Forgery/Whatever rolls. Why those players care is their business, but they do.

Actually, the purpose behind blind rolls (in this discussion) is to give players the option of making rolls -- with all the modifiers and 'reason for roll' put in as they usually do -- but without seeing the results.

If the GM wants a skill check for a character without that character seeing there was a roll made at all, then the GM can just use a secret roll (not assigned to that character) as usual.

In reply to LonePaladin (msg # 34):

Yea, but why? For what purpose? It makes no sense what-so-ever. I'm just not seeing how it adds anything with a shred of value. The entirety of what it does is let the player go "Look! I pushed a button!"

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 35):

If it has no value to you, then don't use it.  For those who would use it, and enjoy the psychological effect of pushing the button ("Hey!  I did something!  And I'm on a lucky streak just lately!") it adds plenty of value.

Just like a lot of other site features...

Many freeform gamers don't use dice, so the dice roller is of no use to them.  If you're running a discussion forum, that doesn't use character sheets, then they are of no use to you.  If you don't use a mobile device to access the site, then working to make the site mobile friendly is a waste of effort.  Etc, etc...

For those who do use these features, then they are useful.  To those who don't, then there is no point to them.  Should we scrap the dice roller completely because freeform players don't use it?

I don't really have a dog in this hunt either way, so, yeah, take what I say here with a Small Siberian Salt Mine (TM) in your hip pocket.  (I'm one who will probably never use this feature, but I see where others have interest, so why not?)

What I do have interest in is the methods and practices for implementing this feature as another sub-function of the Dice Roller, and that's purely for personal reasons.  (It's a hobby.)

But... question:  could not a blind roll option accommodate both types of scenarios?  That is, those where the purpose of the roll is not known immediately and those where it is known from the outset?

I have a blind roll option would solve, actually: My players refuse to NOT send me rolls they shouldn't see the outcome of. Every time they want to do something, they send me a roll for it, no matter how often I tell them not to. a Blind Roll option would come in handy ... assuming I could convince them to use it, rather than peeking at their rolls to judge the outcome by their result.

The die color choice is also "pointless", and yet, there it is. So's rolling particular dice for particular characters, switching from a poor-rolling die to a different one, etc.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 36):

I understand it doesn't need to have value for me specifically.

What I'm saying is that I don't understand how anyone finds value in "Look! I pushed a button!"

I'm siding with the +1 crowd finally.

I chuckle at the idea of using them as the gm to introduce paranoia, like rolling dice behind the gm's screen at the table.

---

Spoiler for From the players' point of view: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
Blind Roll: Gm blindly rolled 100d12+bazillion. Monster's HP.
Blind Roll: Gm blindly rolled 1d100. Night's random encounter (impossible).

---

I think this is a great idea, and I'm a GM who does all of the dice rolling for my players in my RPoL game.  I wouldn't use this function in my game, but I can see how it would be extremely desirable in games where the players do their own rolls for most things already.

For people asking about how you could confirm a GM uses the blind roll result, here are a couple points:

1. If you don't trust your GM already, you shouldn't be playing in your GM's game.

2. A GM can always copy and paste a roll from the dice roller and post it so the players can see what was rolled.  For blind rolls, that's probably something best done considerably after the fact since the point of a blind roll is a player isn't supposed to gain meta-knowledge from the roll result (e.g., the player shouldn't know whether a thief failed to detect traps because they rolled poorly or because there wasn't a trap).  For my game, these sorts of situations are the only time I use secret rolls.  Otherwise, I cut and paste everything from the dice roller into my update posts and put a spoiler tag on it.  That way the players can audit my work if they want to or just sit back and take a somewhat more narrativist approach to playing.