LethalDose said:

And this is why some of us try to avoid talking to LethalDose.  When you disagree with him, he's right, anyone else is wrong *and* insulting.

Doc, the Weasel said:

And, you could, as I noted in discussions of WFRP3E, roll the difficulty dice  separately, but that is in fact set up to be seen as needlessly antagonistic.

The system explicitly has you roll everything in the open, and tell the players the difficulty (either by voice or by handing them the dice).

Voice said:

I may have missed something, but it seems like there are two points here:

1. The player knows more than character regardless
2. The GM can't make secret rolls without giving away to players he's making secret rolls.

On the first point, yes the player will invariably know more than the character, and nothing can be done about this, but no one on this thread ever said that we should pretend that's not true, unless I missed that part.

The issue is how much more the player knows than the character.  Just because they know more than the character doesn't mean that the GM is must/should/needs to give them more still.  Besides that, you wouldn't show the characters your story script/outline/module/etc, would you? I hope not.  According to descriptions, the Beginners box has parts that say "PLAYERS SHOULD NOT READ!!!", so the game is meant to be played with the players ignorant of some things.  The issue is where to draw the line, and that's up to the GM to decide.

Next, the veracity of the second point requires 2 assumptions:

1. The only reason for the GM to be rolling dice behind the screen was to make secret checks
2. The GM can't hide the fact that he's rollsing from the players

These are both false.  When running Saga edition, I would, occassionally rolls some sice behind the screen for no reason other than to roll dice.  The players learned that everytime I rolled, it didn't neccesarily mean something.  Now, this was easier with a d20 and few d6, it doesn't work as well with handful of dice EotE/WFRP3 need.  But, the point remains it IS possible.  

Second, rolling that handful of dice behind a screen makes a whole lotta noise.  If only there were away to get dice results without making noise or gestures…

oh wait, there is.

And, I don't think your wrong because you disagreed with me, I just thing your wrong because of facts.

-WJL

aramis said:

I think I've made it clear that there are reasons I use hidden rules other than the fact that I'm trying to hide diffculty.  In fact, I never invoked that as a reason to do it.  I do it to hide the either the need for the check or the result.

And I'd really like to hear why people think using these hidden rolls is synonymous with the GM being out to get (i.e. antagonistic towards) the players.  Explicitly, how does this practice hurt the players? Having been on both sides of this on different games, I've never had a problem with it.

-WJL

Doc, the Weasel said:

Completely agree with this. Many GMs will find there is really no reason to keep dice rolls hidden except that the GM and players don't trust each other.  Everyone has to trust the other participants at the table to play their characters and to tell an emergent story.  Once you do, there is no need to keep any rolls hidden. 

However, this observation is not a solution for everyone.  If a GM of her players aren't having fun because players aren't responding to the fiction, but are metagaming the mechanics, telling the GM to trust her players is not really a viable solution.

Personally, I would never hide dice rolls, but some GMs may find it is more enjoyable for themselves and their group if dice rolls are hidden at times.  I would encourage GMs to try keeping all the rolls in the open for awhile though and see how it goes. If you don't like it, you can always go back.

LethalDose said:

Fundamentally, if the GM is trustworthy, it doesn't. But if the players can be trusted to roleplay appropriately, the GM need never do so, because they won't act upon the roll.

And I've also found that hidden rolls by the GM generally do not build suspense. They eventually become just background noise, noise to which the players become inurred.

The "Please roll this skill at this difficulty", followed by noting it, and then applying it later is better for building suspense, and shows them clearly something is in fact up, but not what. Later, telling them the meaning of that roll, that reinforces the suspense felt, and rewards it by showing that it was in fact justified.

Hidden difficulty before rolling can be suspenseful in and of itself. Edge and WFRP don't do that well, but if you have and use a dice cup, you can build suspense by taking the difficulty dice all in hand, then quietly dropping the right number in, and then have them roll. For WFRP3, we experimented with rolling into a tube (made from a large coffee can), and the players rolled the good dice into it, the GM then added the bad dice without looking, then finally the tube was lifted; it wasn't worth the extra effort. Simply requiring the player to ask for the difficulty and not allowing any wheedling for bonus dice after that has much the same effect.

The use of opposed rolls, however, in Edge, that does reveal information. Still, it's a trust issue. Good players will only act upon character knowlege, not player knowledge.

Let's see if I'm actually allowed to post today. I haven't been for the past too days.

@Riplikash

I appreciate and acknowldge that you didn't intend to use the term "antagonistic" in a negative way.  I'd ask you to understand how this:

riplikash said:

came acroass as…  Well, to put a point on it, antagonistic.

Using phrases like "…in order to trick [the players] into making a mistake a perfect example of GM antagonist style game play", and encouraging 'paranoia' and 'power plays' generates a denegrating tone.  And I will still vigorously disagree that this practice is in any way antagonistic, even in your current clarified 

Regardless, it doesn't excuse the fact that I did not see that you had posted:

riplikash said:

and did so before I had posted my repsonse.  I didn't fully read this since I was writing the response, and I see how my post after that response makes my post look even more obnoxious.  I am sorry for the confusion that caused, and as far as that goes, I hope we're cool.  My bad.

However, that's not really the whole issue.  The definition/connotation of "antagonism" was really only part of the reason why I took offense to what was said there. I want to draw attention the bolded section, which implies, or just straight out states, that hidden rolls are not the core of this game.

I simply cannot understand how is hiding a few roll results is somehow contrary to the nature or core of EotE.

And while you said its not "bad", the rest of your post makes it pretty clear that its inappropriate to implement in this game, or at the very least reduces the richness of narrative generated by using this method. And I have a problem with that because it is untrue.  There is nothing that reduces the quality or the richness of the narrative by hiding some rolls.  So when you state that this practice is somehow doesn't belong in this game because it's narrative, 

Finally, there also seems to be the implication that I never even tried allowing the players to make these rolls.  For the record, I did.

It caused problems.

So I fixed it.  

I don't make every knowledge roll secretly.  I don't make every perception roll secretly.  In fact, I make almost no hidden rolls like this. One of the reasons is that EotE has a vastly reduced need for them, but they absolutely still have a place.

In short, there are still reasons to use hidden rolls in narrative systems, and they do not violate the nature or the core of this game.

There is no conditionality in that statement, nor does any belong there.  You can choose either to use them (appopriately) or forgo their use entirely, and it will have minimal effect on the narrative quality of the game, though some groups may prefer one to the other.

So, turning the tables, have you tried using occasional secret rolls to see what kind of effect it has on the narrative of your games?

-WJL

@LethalDose

Awesome, we're cool.

Like I said, I fully understand how many of the words I use can have negative connotations. I'm an engineer and tend to use words in a technical sense, while often ignoring their other connotations, because they are more descriptive. So "antagonistic", "core of this game", and "tricking your players can very easily sound like "mean spirited", "doing things the RIGHT way", and "malicious manipulation" when what I actually mean is "primary source of conflict", "rules as written", and "using obfuscation to facilitate a failed skill check to minimize the temptation to meta-game".

Paranoia and power plays also have unfortunate connotations. I use them to mean encouraging the players to use caution, planning, and manipulation to overcome obstacles (as they should in most dangerous situations). Contrast that with a very narrative game where the players, rather than being cautious, are actively involved in generating many of the conflicts.

As for hidden rolls not being in the "core" of EotE, again, I meant in the technical sense. Secret rolls are, quite literally, not in the core rules as they have been released. Beyond that, I still feel the dice mechanics "show everything up front" is intentional, and further indicates that the system was avoiding secret rolls as a playstyle choice. I fully accept I could be wrong, it could be an oversight, or it may appear in the core rulebook. It's just my interpretation.

So hiding a few roll results is NOT necessarily somehow contrary to the nature of EotE. It's just not in the rules, and I suspect that was intentional.

I simply cannot understand how is hiding a few roll results is somehow contrary to the nature or core of EotE.

No, I don't feel it is innappropriate to implement, or that it reduces the "richness" of the narrative generated. I do feel it makes the play style less like a fully narrative game, but that is not a comment on the "richness" of the narrative generated. You can get a great narrative from a simulationist game, and a poor one from a narrativist. The word narrative here is being used to describe two things: a playstyle, and an actual narrative. Taking information and narrative power away from the players and giving it to the GM will always make the game less narrative based.

That being said, would I ever want to play a game that was 100% in the narrative style? No, that's basically just free-form role playing. I like rules, I like simulation.

I really am just trying to encourage people to try something different.

Do I use secret rolls in my game? Yeah, I have for years. In EotE I try to limit myself to behind the screen rolls and leaving the player rolls untouched. I agree that EotE has vastly reduced the need for them, they still have their place. Again, just trying to show people that EotE DOES run different from a traditional D&D style game. Secret rolls are much less common, and opposing rolls aren't hidden, and there is ar eason for that. If a more simulationist game is desired GMs can change things up from the default, but I like to explain they can also work as written. It's just a different paradigm.

Thank you for the concilitory response by the way. I appreciate it.

(Can I just chime in here and say how refreshing it is to have civility on an online forum? Bravo to the both of you!)

I only bother with secret rolls on things where they may not know if they passed, such as a guile test or a when they are trying to pass off a disguise. There are many times when the outcome may not be immediately known to the characters. Here's how I do it:

I let my players roll their pool, including any boost or setback dice. That way, they know how the various environmental or situational factors affect them and have a general idea of their success chances.

I roll the challenge (purple) dice behind the screen. I have the players respond to me with a net result from their pool and modify it with my pool. I signal this sort of roll to my players with "I've got your purple". When they hear this, they know I'm rolling the difficulty dice.

This method has worked very well throughout our years long Warhammer campaigns and seems to be working very well with the new Star Wars campaign.

NezziR said:

That's how I'd imagined doing it, but I'm interested in testing out the fully open narrative method others are advocating.  It will probably take a few sessions, and if I find the players can't adapt and act on character knowledge, not player knowledge, then this would be the alternative.

I tend to agree with Nezzir.  I've been keeping more information out in the open lately, and EotE helps with that mentality.  Does it really matter if the player knows the target number to hit orcs # 1-12?  I think the character would figure that out pretty quick, and it saves bookkeeping.  It's the same with lockpicking or a lot of social rolls.  The character may not know his exact difficulty going in, but he's gonna figure it out pretty quick.  Just give them the difficulty.  You throw out about five seconds of realism and save yourself an extra thing to keep track of.

The trouble really comes in with "notice" checks, whether against stealth or some sort of deceit.  I don't even really like the players to know such a check has been made.  As a player, I don't like knowing much more than my character.  "You're walking into a trap, but pretend you don't know that," is not a fun roleplaying challenge (though really, when are PCs not walking into a trap?).

I haven't found an ideal solution.  It probably involves something other than dice.  Secret thunder behing a gm screen is kind of a dead giveaway when everything else is out in the open.

NezziR said:

Thanks much, I will add this to my notes!

Question - The RAW typically have the referee interpreting disadvantages/despair and the player interpreting advantages/triumphs. Since part of the results are secret, how are you dealing with this? The players will not know the net amount of disadvantages/advantages, so you as referee are interpreting advantages secretly for the players? The players WILL see a triumph roll. Is there a problem of the players interpreting the triumph without knowing whether the action was a success or failure?

The Grand Falloon said:

Years ago using d20 I sometimes would roll several d20's before a session and have their results in order on a scrap piece of paper. If I needed a secret roll, I picked the top of the list then scratched it off, so the players would not hear/see me making a die roll. You could do the same with EotE by having a table of pre-generated die results (for all dice) to choose from, starting at the top.

Or, have a smartphone or Ipad behind your screen with the dice roller app and volume turned off?