@Kurt “Telas” Schneider and Omnus – I’m also a big fan of passive checks (in 4e) or take 10 in 3e– they’re very nice for cutting out routine rolling.

Since 3rd Edition D&D introduced the “take a 10″ concept (seems so obvious now…) I’ve been using that in 3rd Edition for Listen and Spot…unless a players declares they are using the skill, in which time I let them roll it. Of course, now there’s the Persistent Insight and Perception, which is the same thing in 4th Edition. When they roll their own numbers, though, I never let them know the number, so if they fail, they can’t be sure it’s not a panic roll. Letting them roleplay rolling a natural 1 can be fun for all…though usually very wrong for my groups.

I do like the idea of a player RPing a roll result, *why* it was an awesome or sucky result, and sometimes I even remember to do it as a player or DM.

When it comes to “Sense Motive” type things, I usually try to RP first, then go to the mechanics. If we can handle whatever it is with RP, then all the better. (As with the passive check, with my next game, I plan on using the character’s pertinent bonus as a guideline here.)

Finally, I tend to roll everything in the open. If the actual rolls are close, and the player character has a large bonus but still loses the roll, it tells the entire party that the opponent is really good at this.

@kevinrichey – Sounds like a system that works. Passive perception’s a great shortcut for skipping over “do you see the posies?” type questions.

Players roll their own perception checks when they explicitly say their PCs are actively looking or listening. I don’t roll for them, and I don’t ask for rolls out of the blue. It’s their responsibility to keep the PC’s eyes and ears open, and they’re pretty good about it. The rest of the time I rely on my own judgment, or passive perception when the conditions are not obvious.

The nice thing about opposed checks is that a low roll doesn’t necessarily mean failure – the opposition could just as likely roll an even lower stealth.

@BryanB – I think that there is tension from a failed roll, and that it can be harvested by a GM. While I’m likely to lay out the full deal (roll spot to see the glint of light off the scope before they fire, DC20), incomplete information can do a wonder on getting people to concentrate and worry about what shoe is about to drop.

@Sarlax – Sounds like your group’s comfortable and has their expectations set. The work part is done and you get to concentrate on making the game cool. That’s a nice place to be.

2edition here.

Though it’s some thing when the DM has now decided to roll ROPE-USE behind the screen… with the logic if I failed I woundent know it… come on… I’m rolling versus 17 dex…

Other wise, when we fail to notice stuff, we just say that we are counting the tiles on the roof or some such.
Oh hey critical failure to notice the dragon… oh pretty daisies, might fine arrangement, who ever is the gardener ought to get a metal.

My group assumes that all checks to determine character knowledge should be made by the GM, but we never do it. It usually goes like this:
“Roll knowledge(arcanum) to see if you know anything.”
“I roll a natural one.”
“I really need to start making these checks for you people.”
“Yeah.”
This happens in both our ongoing games, so I don’t feel so bad when I do it, and I suspect our other GM feels similarly.

The thing is, it’s frustrating as a player to have control of your character taken out of your hands. In theory, the GM rolling his d20 is going to have the same probability of any given outcome as you rolling your d20.. but how many of us actually believe that? If the GM rolls a 1 for me, I feel somehow cheated; if the GM rolls a 20, I feel cheated then, too. In theory I wouldn’t know these numbers anyway, but who wants to roll a 1 or a 20 for an important check and not share it? It’s just as true for GMs as for players.

Most of the time, knowing the roll won’t matter. “You think it has something to do with necromancy, but you’re not sure” makes it pretty clear to the player that the roll was mediocre. And while “You’re positive there’s no traps” can mean either very high or very low, most players I know enjoy roleplaying their character as a moron every once in a while when they roll that 1 and convince the party of something that’s completely untrue. Likewise, players who roll high should be allowed to feel confident in their success, rather than constantly second-guessing themselves.

It’s also just a lot of work for the GM to make all those rolls, especially when half the party immediately chimes in with, “I make a knowledge check, too! Does my bonus for nature count?”

So I guess I would say that while I appreciate the immersive effect of hiding rolls, it’s more often easier and more fun all around to just let the players do it.

I used to have everyone make about a dozen d20 rolls before the game started. Then I would look at their list of rolls whenever the need came up for a hidden check. If they used their last one, I asked them to make a dozen more, writing them down as they rolled. It seemed to be a good compromise between “rolling for the players,” which the players didn’t like, and “make me a d20 roll please” pseudo rolling that often became tedious.

I’m not sure why I stopped doing that. I think in my current group, I’ve just been asking for the roll when they have needed to roll. This might be because of Saga Edition’s species abilities or class talents, which give player’s a second roll if they don’t like the first, or because my group is experienced enough not to act upon something their characters “failed” to perceive. Might it even add tension to the game if the players (not their PCs) know that there is something they missed?

Combat usually follows such “failures” (flat footed!) but not always. Sometimes the unknown roll is over finding a clue or detecting the fact that a PC is being followed by an NPC.

As far as searching for clues go, I think it is poor adventure design if the entire scenario relies upon the result of single die roll, hidden or not. “Well, everyone failed to spot the widget, so the players simply fail,” just kind of stinks to me. I’d much rather see if anyone spots the critical clue right away, thus saving the PCs a lot of time (gain advantage), or if their failure just means that it takes them much longer to find the clue than the PCs would like (maybe giving opposition time to contest the recovery of the widget).

There certainly are several different approaches to “hidden” checks that one can use.

The way it works is usually something like, “Roll a Spot check,” or, “Make a Wits + Composure roll at minus 2″ and the consequence are discovered through play.

@deadlytoque – It sounds like you and your players have reached a good point. Having a backup plan for failed rolls is very wise. It’s a bad mystery if one failed roll derails it– or if one success cuts out several fun encounters.

In D&D4, I just roll a stealth check against my players’ Passive Perception (which is info I take down before we start).

My rule is that if something secret is happening, I either -want- the characters to know about it, or I don’t. If I don’t, then I make it very hard — but still possible — to notice, and if I do, then I give out some information even on a failed roll.