Back in the day when we played together at a table, I would actually lift my DM screen and they would roll the die towards me and I would lower the screen like a portcullis. That way, they got to roll, but only I knew what they rolled. Looking back it was kind of silly, but it was fun.
I have always advocated for certain rolls to be secret DM rolls, any skill check that the player character would not know how well they did on is secret. Insight, perception, search, etc. tend to be secret, whereas physical skills like acrobatics, athletics, or attacks are rolled by players because the character would innately have a sense for how well they executed those skills. I'll make secret rolls if players promt them, but I also tend to make unannounced insight and perception checks and just feed the relevant info based on the secret check without mentioning the roll to maintain immersion.
I just don't think secret checks work for dnd because there are so many abilities that let you choose to make a re-roll or give yourself advantage or use your bardic inspiration. Passive perception and insight are already things that allow your players to understand their baseline passive abilities so that when you hit them with a surprise they aren't like "wait we didn't roll" only for you to say "I rolled for you and you got a 2". I just think that can only make for a feeling of unfairness. If someone sneaks up on them and they weren't actively on the lookout, you can say "I rolled stealth and it beat your passive" and that's absolutely fair. Next time they'll know to actively be on the lookout so they don't rely on their passive abilities, but rolling for them makes the act of having their characters be on the lookout pointless since you're just gonna roll for them anyways.
@@benh2339 I can't think of many abilities that let you reroll a failed perception check after the fact. The tradeoff if I run it as you described is that players inevitably wind up looking at their bad roll, and playing as if their character knows whatever they gleaned from that check must be rubbish. This is way worse than telling them they failed a check they didn't roll themselves, at least for most groups I play with. More often than not my players would rather explain what they want to do and just let me crunch the numbers rather than actually figure out the mess of stats you can have on a dnd sheet and roll for themselves, I know there are players who really want to handle their own math and dice, but they seem to be getting rarer and rarer.
@@alricfremanosrs1509 halfling lucky, lucky, portent, inspiration, reliable talent, bardic inspiration, guidance, and bless all allow the player to decide wether to affect an ability check roll or not. If your players prefer not having to roll then that works great for your group, I just think the philosophy of secret rolls messes with dynamic of the game a bit too much to be recommendable for most tables. If characters are acting on player knowledge then that's metagaming which is already frowned upon. I think of a roll like that as being dramatic irony haha
My favorite phrase as a DM is "okay now do that in character". It is so funny to see the players faces when I put them on the spot like that, and of course no one is exempt because as the DM you have to at least maintain the illusion of fairness. If someone really can't handle it, and is taking to long to figure out what they are going to say I tell them I let them slide this time but they have to speak in character. I have a signal in my in person games where you put your thumb on your head to designate out of character speech, and that tends to work fairly well and becomes a reflex of sort for some people which unfortunately doesn't work as well in online games.
@@Skewrz Yes I find it helps players engage in role playing though you have to be careful as some people will have a harder time keeping themselves out of their characters.
I do this for Wisdom based checks, both insight and perception. My favorite was when our Paladin with a 6 wisdom, who knew someone in the tavern tried to poison their drinks... leaned up against their tavern room door asking if he heard anything... I secret rolled a natural 2 which was a 0 for him. There were people down the hall just casually talking, but he heard with almost absolute certainty they were about to raid the room to steal his dragonborn scales and belongings. The group freaks out and ties the bed sheets to go out the window making a lot of noise... the Paladin asks what he sees outside the window before they make their escape (Rolls a 3 = 1)... "The night seems still, but then you see something dash through the tall grass, then again, and then you see more of them... you notice they are moving without making a sound. It appears they are circling the Tavern... what do you do?". The group truly believes they are about to be ambushed and ignores the Tavern Keeper begging them to calm down on the other side of the door (their insight roll was really low too).. so they jump out in the grass, and he lets out a warcry and says, "I swing at the first thing that moves." "You swing and there is nothing there. The group realizes in your panic it was the wind passing through the tall grass..." By this point they were dying laughing and turned themselves in for public intoxication and vandalism... they were released on bond to pay back the tavern keeper for the damages... it was really funny. If you don't roll in secret you rob your players of that authentic opportunity.
I’m glad you are tackling this because this is a real rub and it’s not the players fault they have a brain and can make deductions based on how well they rolled. I have an alternative for you other than secret checks. Flip a coin or roll a 50/50 die roll of your choosing before they roll. On a heads the scale is normal on a tails the scale is inverted (rolling low is better and the dm mentally subtracts the modifier rs instead of adding and adjusts the DC. Make sure your players know this how it’s being done. This way you remove their ability to deduce the outcome based on the die roll.
YES I have done something like this. I just choose in my head "normal or inverted" and then give them feedback on their roll... keeps it fresh FOR SURE, great points!
I did a table I call Rando-o-Tron for my players, they roll a d6 and d100 and give me both numbers which generates a d20 roll. I ask for those when I don't want them to know the result (stealth, perception, insight, etc). The players love it because they have no idea how the result turned out until something happens. Makes the RP and descriptions a lot of fun.
@@ZurfCTRL Oh absolutely! Always glad to share :) drive.google.com/file/d/1Y5dKJaELUfvG_VJx8g-8AzczTPQbO9SQ/view?usp=sharing Concept is they roll a d6 for which table the roll will be generated from and then a d100 for the specific result within that table. Each table has 5 of each possible result for a d20 so the odds of any specific number should be roughly the same as a straight d20 roll (I'm not a statistician, so the placement of the specific numbers my skew the results slightly). It does take a little longer especially if multiple players need to roll, so I don't use it all the time. Just for those occasions I don't want them to know what they rolled ;) So far my players have loved it, so I hope other folks out there can get some good use out of it.
I play online using fantasy grounds and they have a tower player can drop their dice in and only the DM can see the result and share the result if they wish.
Recently had players on an island where everyone is falling under a charm from an aboleth, unbeknownst to them. I mention 1 player is 'liking the idea of staying for a bit longer', and another player FREAKED OUT about it in game. Wish I could've hid that a bit better in hindsight 😅
I would've texted the player secretly so they get the option to roleplay it out how they wish to. Probably mention to be a little discreet with it too.
Another way you could go is to still have them roll an insight check for themselves, but you make a secret counter roll of persuasion or deception against their insight. If they roll high but you roll higher, they still get bad info. If they roll low and you roll lower, they still get good info. Works especially well if you make it clear that their insight check only gives them info on how they're feeling, not necessarily the truth. So rolling low and being told that they might be right in their suspicions doesn't mean they succeeded, because the info that their feeling is correct might actually be wrong.
I came up with an easy way for my players to role at my table but not know the result. I create a random d20 table behind my DM screen of the numbers 1-20. To clarify, you make a table with the numbers 1-20 on left side of table and then the numbers 1-20 randomly distributed on right side of table. The only exceptions are numbers 20 & 1 (ie rolling a 20 is still a 20 and rolling a one is still a one). Players roll their dice, tell the DM their total modifier and then only the DM will knows how well they did. The excitement and despair of 20s & 1s remain but otherwise they live & die in uncertainty. You can regenerate this table each session if you think you’re players with start to remember results. I just have three and pick one each session to hang on my screen. Players love how it builds suspense and know that it is their roll that guided the story.
I love this, especially the specifications in the Time Out at the end. I think the Insight Check problem is especially difficult - compared to other aspects of players asking for rolls. Though it's difficult, and best used occasionally, I really like the secret role thing to keep plans subtle and tense.
At my table, I have my players drop their die into an empty toilet paper roll, and slide it to me. All of these “blind” or “dice tower” rolls require a lot of trust between you and your players. But my players have always mentioned how much they prefer this method to take the meta, and the stress away from the perception, investigation, stealth, insight, etc. rolls.
Thank you for the tips! As DM i usually categorize social encounters into scenes and in a scene, i only allow my players (depending on the party size) to roll 2 or 3 insight checks, I adjust the DC and think beforehand what am i willing to give out to my players, if it was player-specific information, i drop them a secret note, never give them lies unless i was planning for the lie. To me, most of the problems related to insight check is because i don't plan ahead. I always try to stop myself from improvising even if i have to tell my players to give me 5 or 10 minute time off
Secret checks I often use. -Insight -Intimidate (are they intimidated or just acting like they are?) -Investigation (particularly for traps and secret doors) -Perception (as above, or in horror/suspense. Is it real or their mind playing tricks) -Stealth -Thieves’ tools (disarming traps)
I'm sure it depends on the person, but I wonder whether a player would feel more or less beholden to the result of the roll with a secret check. That is, if you say, "she's being honest, as far as your character can tell," the player has the option to say, in character, "I think she's being honest," or "she's not acting like she's lying, but that doesn't mean I trust her." With an open roll, which approach they take may depend on how high they rolled. With a secret roll, they may default to "I think x" because the system encourages them to immerse themself in their character's view of the world and believe the things they believe. Or they might default to "it seems like x, but I can't be sure" because the system reminds them that they're not infallible and should be wary of making assumptions.
Toward the end you say “you really don’t trust this kid” and I think this is better than “you can tell they are lying”. The social interaction rules in the DMG talk about insight discovering bonds and flaws and I think overall this may be a good way to go, “this stewards behaviour is not consistent with their job because of some flaw or secret they seem to be keeping”. As you can tell I am still trying to reverse engineer this into something cool. There are two other ways to roll 1. The player rolls their profociency die and the dm rolls the d20. 2. The dm rolls npc deception against the PCs passive insight (fake rolls if no deception)
I sometimes use NPCs' goals in that regard. "You notice that the shopkeeper is eyeing the newly acquired dagger you swiped from the abandoned fortress earlier, specifically pining for the emerald embedded in the hilt..."
(2:30) - Insight Check : I like to ask the players when they ask for an insight check, "What is it you are looking for?" Have the player tell you what information they are trying to gain. Perhaps they ask something that doesn't pertain to the part of the dialog that is the lie or cover up. This way, they get a focused answer to what they are trying to uncover. Example: (the 'shady' part of this dialog is that the rat didn't take Fred away... the NPC ran away and doesn't know what happened to Fred) NPC : "...so Yeah, the big giant rat chomped on Fred and took him away in the sewer." PC : "Insight Check!" (discerning look...) DM: "What are you trying to learn with your Insight Check?" PC: "I want to know if he is lying." DM: "What do you mean if he is lying? What don't you believe is true?" PC: "I don't believe it was a Giant Rat." DM: "Ok, roll for Insight" PC: rolls 5 DM: "You think he is telling the truth. You are pretty sure he saw a Giant Rat" This way, you can focus the roll on a specific part of the verbiage and give the player what they want to know about, without giving other parts of it away... Alternatively: ... DM: "What are you trying to learn with your Insight Check?" PC: "I think he is lying. I don't believe a 'Giant Rat' could drag a whole person away" DM: "Roll" PC: Rolls 15 DM: "You get the sense that he believes the rat dragged Fred away, but something still doesn't sit well with you. You might be right about the weight and strength ratio of a Giant Rat and Fred the Orc being dragged away.
On of the things I found as a DM is how players understand Insight Checks across different game and DMs... See for me, as a DM I do not make it a case of "He seems to be telling the truth," or anything that gives a false or true result. Instead I aim for cases of players rolling high and the response would be something like. "Ah he talks, he seems to be constantly shooting a glance over your shoulder every few seconds, at the mention of X his pause caused his right hand to start shaking." They are picking up more details about the person they are talking to, their ticks, their nerves and their mannerism, which in its own way can be read in different forms of understanding what it presents. In this case, this NPC might be aware of more then he should, so they are constantly making sure that no one else is listening or looking at him. The shaking hand might be cause of fear of a memory or because he knows what he would lose if caught talking about X... Meaning to ask the player to question why and how much info they can get if they calm the NPC down... But this sometimes leads to some problems... Like, a Player had been with a DM which did do, "Yeah he lying" kinda responses. Now that glance of the shoulder and twitching hand is telling that player "He gonna attack you cause you caught him lying..." and they attack the NPC without second guessing... Like Crit Skill Checks, if a Player has been taught by one DM that this is how it runs, it leads to problems when it comes to other DMs that don't do that or insist otherway. Stuff that sure could be addressed if the DM sat down at Session 0 and said "Hey, just FYI, Crit Skill Checks are not real. Stop trying to roll a Nat20 to insta win a check." But the issue is that certain things are not always easy to pinpoint for a recalibrating for DMs and Players to know what is what...
I feel that you may as well just not allow insight checks at that point. If a player is suspicious of one thing and that suspicion is either founded or not, then it becomes a 50/50 what your doing with a secret role is just flipping a coin on whether they were right or wrong but then not showing them the coin. Which is the exact same as just not letting them role and just stay suspicious anyway
When I first started playing in the 90s, the GM rolled everything for you. So I don't view secret rolls as some sort of bad thing, they have to be used for many circumstances to actually be immersive. Like, for example, traps. You can't even use traps properly if the players know they are rolling perception, they get paranoid because the roll had to be for something - and if you have them roll to detect the trap and they fail, well this circumstance pops up where the tension is gone.
This is why I prefer to establish certainty/uncertainty rolls, usually delineated by physical (STR/DEX/CON) and mental (INT/WIS/CHA) checks. When a result is immediate and obvious, it is a certainty and is rolled openly, to the point where I mention how many hit points or AC an opponent has; it does wonders for a group's excitement to see exactly when an enemy bites the dust. When a result is unknown and long term, it is an uncertainty and is rolled in secret. How I handle secret rolls is to lift a small cloth for a player to roll underneath, then cover the roll as it enters and read it for myself - that way, when an uncertainty becomes known, I lift the "veil" and show what the player rolled. I want to make a dice tower with a cover at the end to make this easier. Another way is to roll in the open, but the player rolls 2d20 and doesn't know if I'm counting the advantage (high roll) or disadvantage (low roll), and if both dice roll low or high, I consider that a fair assessment for the player to ascertain. Of course, the key to an uncertainty roll is to withhold or even outright lie about a success or a failure, which should be established in Session Zero. This poses the danger of imbuing analysis paralysis, but it also makes an adventure more tense.
Hey Dungeon Coach, just wanted to let you know but for my campaign I've been having almost every player do the random rolls for stats using your fix. It's been amazing and has made for some really unique builds plus made everyone a lot more equal. The absolute best part is, is if I ever want to make everyone weaker or stronger all I would have to do is change the max number. So it scales amazingly. I also really love this change. So much better for the insight, but I'll need a much better poker face.
I tend to go with useless information if a character rolls low for insight or perception rather than false information, and also it is always how the character feels about a situation rather than information about the situation. For example, if they are interacting with an npc and they make an insight check to determine honesty, and they roll low, I would say something like "you have no reason to distrust this person" whether the npc is lying or not. If they roll high, I would give off details that the characters could notice, like "they appear to be rather nervous," or "they keep glancing at x" or "they are very relaxed about this conversation." The information still doesn't necessarily mean lying/not lying, but it gives avenues the players can approach to get more information from the npc, or the world.
Yep -- love it. It intersects with the dice as story developing tools, and it personalizes information; combine it with insights (and knowledge, history, arcana, etc... ) being delivered by text message, and then the players actually need to sort through the information that is being filtered through individuals and filtered differently. Analyzing the information becomes a team activity, a roleplaying experience, and it connects the PCs as numbers on a sheet to their backgrounds, their setting (ultimately all information comes from a relationship to the world and how the character functions within it), and roles/functions in the party become something alive as do the relationships between the PCs -- they HAVE to care about listening to each other and working together or they just don't get the information.
It might depend on your players... And if they're willing to act out what they know to be wrong, because that can be really fun too! Some of my most memorable gaming moments came from me having to act on character knowledge, even though, as a player, I knew I wasn't doing "the right" thing. If they rolled a Nat 1 on that Insight Check instead of a Nat 20, and therefore "implicitly trusted that person, forever!" I think that would be more exciting, and interesting, from a narrative perspective.
The way I handle checks like insight is I have the roll represent how confident the player is in their conclusion and then I roll the contesting NPC roll in secret. So if the player rolls really low I'll say something like "You are unsure if they are lying or not". If the player rolls really high but the NPC rolls even higher I'll say something like "You are absolutely sure they are telling the truth". So the player sees their roll but even if they roll high it doesn't always mean the information they are getting is correct. But because the NPC roll is secret they can never be 100% sure of their conclusion thus it isn't metagaming. I sometimes also throw in extra bits of description like "You think they are telling the truth because you can see tears running down their cheeks" even if the person is lying but is an amazing actor or something.
And it uses resources. And the target could always succeed on the save! You either shoot for a sure thing, or (literally) take your best guess with a check. I love this kinda choice in my games.
@@CooperAATE Doesn't zone of truth tell you whether they've passes the check. I thought it did that for some reason, but I may be wrong on that account.
@@YourBoyNobody530 Yeah, you know the result of the roll for each creature in the zone. However, the creatures know they're under the effect of the spell so they can simply clam up or otherwise be evasive in their answers so long as what they're saying is "technically true".
In my homebrewed system, I want one step further. Insight skill has a random value that I hide from the player. Not even he knows if he has a good gut feeling or not. He has to decide to trust it or not. Since it is a progression through use system, they don't know how much they improved it with time. It has been a blast. After all, some people believe their own gut feeling to their own peril. It takes time for them to discover if they have a good gut feeling or not, but not even then they are sure. Besides, there is no sure method for discerning lies. Its not something that can be taught reliably. Not even psychologists that are experts in human behavior are any better at detecting deception. We love the tension it creates.
secret insight checks are the way to go, because most players have a difficult time understanding that their characters may not know what the players know
A thought to add to this: Rather than stating publicly what the PC "feels", create some cards or something to hand to the player: "You think the NPC is lying." "You think the NPC is genuine." "You're really not sure, you don't get a good read either way." Make several copies of each. When the PC calls for the check, you roll behind the screen then hand them one of the cards as appropriate. On a very bad fail, you might give the PC the card that says, "you think the NPC is lying" when the NPC is actually telling the truth. The Player reads the card and returns it, and they role-play it.
This is very interesting! I’m thinking about having the player roll publicly while I roll behind the scenes. Whatever I roll is the “1” and everything else is based on that, so If I roll a 15, the player’s 14 is a Nat20. Add their modifier to that process at the end and they still got to roll and they’re controlling their PC, but don’t have enough information to metagame with it. I’ll have to think more and maybe try it in a one shot or a mini scene to see what players think.
One issue I see with having certain skill checks rolled in secret is, there are things like the Lucky feat, Bardic Inspiration, and the inspiration token that you can expend to reroll or improve your roll. And these allow you to roll your die before deciding whether or not to use them. How does a player know if he wants to use them, if the die was rolled secretly and he can't see it? Overall, it seems like a pretty good method of handling certain checks where you don't want the player to know if he succeeded, but I was wondering how you'd handle a situation like that.
3:15 If you roll then maybe you should roll the NPCs deception against their passive insight. Also that what you can roll once against all of their passive insights.
I run GURPS games. In there rules clearly state: When the GM Rolls There are two sets of circumstances under which the GM should roll for a PC and not let the player see the results: 1. When the character wouldn’t know for sure whether he had succeeded. 2. When the player shouldn’t know what’s going on. These kind of rolls would apply to for example insight, interrogation, knowledge, perception and so on. On top of that if appropriate on critical failure GM is supposed to lie/misinterpret or otherwise provide false information.
In my games I have players make a list of 20 d 20 rolls with no modifiers and my character cheat sheet for background and stats. Rather then asking for a check I go down the list for any lore skill I want them to do. I use this for insight as well.
Good video. Outside of an attack role a nat 20 does NOT guarantee automatic success for anything in D&D. Its absolutely normal for a DM to make "private" roles in order to maintain a level of secrecy/intrigue and to eliminate meta-gaming. As a DM I always track my players stats, bonuses and modifiers. I love it when my players use "phrasing" to describe what their characters do. I encourage that and reward that type of play whenever I can.
The way I look at it is a nat 20 represents the "best possible outcome" for an event, while the nat 1 is the "worst possible outcome". So if a player rolls Persuasion in telling a king to hand over his crown a nat 20 has the king laugh it off as a mild jest, while the nat 1 would see him get cross with the players and possibly send them into the dungeon for a night. Either way they aren't getting a crown by asking for its surrender in dialog.
I personally don't mind letting high insight rolls be "Human Lie Detector" moments. If it's something the character is doing, a check they're character is making, I don't like to roll it for them. Feels like I'm taking something away from them. (Also I play with a bunch of filthy dice goblins.) I'm fine with giving them the information, you roll high? You get good thing. Welcome to Tabletop RPG's. As for low rolling insight checks, rather than "lie" to the player, clearly giving away that the opposite is true, I like to say things like "you have no idea, you can't really figure out this guy," or something along those lines. If youe intuition is really good? Sure you're pretty confident this guy's bad/good. If not? Well you have no clue? Maybe the masked man with a dagger dripping purple liquid stalking you is pretty cool and just wants to say hi. Maybe the toddler you're babysitting is actually an evil Ancient Red Dragon plotting to take over the world? Who knows? Not you idiot. Your insight sucks.
How about this response as the DM?... "I know you believe you understand what you think the npc said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what the npc meant.
My players are generally fine with this sort of metagaming but I also have them roll their insight check and use that as DC to beat and roll that for myself as a deception check and base the narration on that roll. I abhor taking agency away from a player so rolling their skill checks is off the table for me, but if it’s a particular NPC they’re trying to gain insight from I generally only call for a roll if they’re proficient in the skill, that way it prevents dogpiling on the skill. If a PC isn’t proficient with insight then they’ll get “eh seems on the up and up.” Or “Something doesn’t feel right.” Proficiency is key, if the PC uses insight that doesn’t necessarily know that NPC is lying for sure, just a hint at an instinct. But the PC with proficiency means to me that they know how to read their instinct to discern the messaging.
There’s no point having players make rolls for things where they can’t possibly know how well they did. I make rolls for the players all the time. The most common rolls I make for players are: - Remembering things - Realizing something - Noticing something The last one includes perception and insight. Overall players like this method. They know it’s working because I will say, “You think this person is lying” or whatever. They can ask for a roll, but if I already made the roll I just say “You do not notice anything”. I apply modifiers based on what the character says they are doing. For example, if they tell me how they search the room or they roleplay asking a NPC questions to see if they are lying then they get a bonus, or I might just tell them. I do not like making rolls when something is very likely/unlikely. I did have one person take issue with this and insist on making their own rolls. They quickly noticed that they were doing less well than other players because I would not roll for them, and as the DM I know when a roll is most appropriate. For example, in a conversation I would let it play out and then roll at the point where it is most likely the PCs would notice a lie, but the player calling his roll has to time it right because if he calls for the roll before the lie then then he won’t spot the lie when it happens.
Player rolls their Intuition check, then the DM rolls Deception. DM sets DC or several for degrees of success (Intuition - Deception = X DM checks vs DC)
I as a player dont usually ask to to an Insight I think it takes away from you RP your character. Say you think the NPC is lying and he is and you roll bad then you have to go with the roll. I dont think I have ever asked for an Insight.
I'm commenting before I watch so I'm not influenced. I'm a D&D lover and former player/DM starting in 1982. Old school. Although we had no insight checks back then, watching Crit Role Campaigns 1& 2 and now watching 3 live, I've thought out loud this... PLAYERS SHOULD NOT ROLL NOR KNOW THE RESULTING ROLE OF ANY INSIGHT CHECKS. Knowing you rolled high or low instantly is a meta-gaming moment without wanting to. The DM if asked by a player for Insight check should allow only 1 player to act and should get a specific Insight want. Then secretly the DM should roll knowing their modifiers. It's 100% better. The party will learn to only allow their best ability players to ask and if the results end up being successes or failures over time the party will judge if they are good at it or not. Matt Mercer should realize it's better all around and change the practice immediately. Can only make the experience even better and more intriguing than it already is.
My Players would never let this happen. I am a notoriously low roller. Especially when I'm a PC or an ally Npc Lol. I actually roll pretty well against them when I dm, but that doesn't help my case either.
I'm torn on this subject. If I trusted the DM, then I would love for them to male all the insight rolls because, like you said, knowing that result is very meta. That said, some DM's fudge rolls a fair bit, "all in the name of their story." In that case, I would be much more wary of giving them even more meta shaping power.
Another thing I've had in the back of my head is that characters who ask for a lot of insight checks on someone might themselves seem suspicious. Not sure how I would implement that. Maybe if you botch a roll you could reduce your interaction status ... friendly to neutral, or neutral to unfriendly.
I once played a game where we did this, but we also rolled stealth in secret. The rogue would go forward thinking he was hidden, but he didn't have the meta knowledge of knowing how he rolled. It made him way more careful about his stealth attempts. Personally, I loved it. But every time I've tried to implement it in to a game as a DM, my players have dismissed the idea before even trying it.
I can understand their reservation. Part of the game is rolling dice, so proposing that they surrender that aspect to secret DM control is a big sell. It also doesn't help that 5e's system of giving Disadvantage to various armor types is a death sentence for groups not running Pass Without Trace. It's possible that players simply give up on stealth altogether if it seems to always fail. E.g. when attempting stealth the DM asks for 3-6 rolls in sequence and a single failure at any point immediately destroys all sense of stealth and starts a combat.
Literally just use the NPCs passive perception against the rogue's stealth or do secret rolls for the NPCs. There is no reason for you to take away the players agency like that
@@user-pi8pi3wj7h Yeah, that's the same argument I hear from everyone, hence why I haven't implemented it as a DM. It's more important that I give my players an enjoyable experience. But it's not taking away agency, it's taking away meta knowledge. If it's about the feel of rolling a die, you can use a dice tower or have the players drop their die behind your screen. Not knowing the number raises the tension and makes you approach stealth in a different way. If you're a player, I strongly suggest you at least try it out. Run it by your DM and do a one shot or a single session with hidden stealth rolls. It's fun.
I just ask the players to roll several d20 at the begining and note the numbers rolled. I use this on insight and any other check that must remain hidden from the players or would be to revealing to roll right on time.
I crafted a tower of doom dice tower for big rolls. I could easily craft a cover that allows the players to still roll but not see the result, only the DM does. After seeing this I may give this a try or even craft a new insight tower with better suited decor. Lightbulbs and question marks spring to mind as a base. Well that’s my next two weeks spare time gone. 😂🤣😂
A low insight check should never mean the character is automatically wrong, it should mean there is no link between that character's conclusions and reality. If a player rolls super low, I ask the player what their character expected the answer to be and then just throw a bunch of bullshit supporting that view. It does a good job of simulating confirmation bias, the character is seeing what they wanted to see instead of what's actually there. Maybe the player guessed right and the person actually is lying, maybe they guessed wrong and they are about to piss off a potential ally. The other players might still go along with the player who rolled low because they genuinely believe the same thing, me reinforcing that player's belief doesn't tell them if they are right or wrong.
Why do so many DM's let insight become an at will, component less version of detect thoughts? The only thing you should give away on an insight check are observable details relevant to the context of the scene. It should never result in detailing the thoughts of NPC's or telling players what they think or feel. Good video, some great ideas, especially on banning 'insight check' requests.
Any check regarding player knowledge should be made behind the screen. You don't know what you don't know. You don't notice that you didn't notice a dollar bill in the grass.
I just trust my players to not metagame. It's fun for them to RP the result. It's the same as when they make an Athletics check. The player knows they pass or failed, and roleplays accordingly. It's pretty simple.
I never feel bad about rolling behind the screen. As a GM we need to keep the game flowing and interesting and that's all that matters. And I don't let anyone roll for skill checks unless I ask for one either. I never let the players control the scene. A secret dice roll now and then does wonders for mystery
While I'm a proponent of "describe what you intend to do, if it is determined that a check should be made then do so at that time" it's in rather bad taste to simply roll for the players. There's also a serious disagreement that the "DM's flow" is all that matters. At its core D&D is meant to be a fun, cooperative storytelling experience. If you intend to deviate from that be sure to clearly communicate beforehand what you'll be doing.
@@XoRandomGuyoX My players always have fun. I've been DMing since 2nd edition and I get no complaints. In 5E the skill checks can get out of hand sometimes and players will just walk around rolling for perception checks or they'll tell me they're rolling for investigation or whatever. I simply tell them they don't have to roll for them all the time and they just need to tell me what they want to accomplish and how they're going about it. I will tell them if I need them to make a check or not. If I roll behind the screen it's for a passive check. Players wandering around rolling dice for a dozen checks in a 30' square room is much too meta-gamey, not required and a huge waste of time. Players will waste immense amounts of time if you don't keep things moving and that's when it's not fun anymore. I communicate everything quite well, really. Thank you for the advice though
@@tonyr.546 Rolling for a passive thing, that's an interesting way to go about it. If it's something the player is actively curious about though, like they mention that they're watching a particular NPC's demeanor to see if they appear or sound nervous, if there are any unusual tics that would be out of place for the conversation, then at the very least it would be nice to have some sort of scrambler in place for their roll, so that they're actively rolling for something they want to achieve. When I see DMs commenting on this video and one of them went so far as to say that they roll Death Saving Throws for their player that goes too far. Players want a sense of agency, to have an actual role in the story. The dice determine twists and turns, but that input should come from the player when it involves active agency.
@@XoRandomGuyoX No. I agree that is going much too far. I don't ever roll anything FOR them other than passive skill checks. My only point was that I don't want them telling ME that they are making a skill check. I want them to role play. Tell me what they're doing and what they want to achieve and I will tell them if I need a check from them to go against a DC. Often times they don't even need a check at all. Passive perception, intimidation, insight and even performance checks I do for them. They don't need to know I'm checking, they just need to know what happens as they're doing what they tell me they're doing. I have a bard player who always sings when walking down the street. I do random passive performance checks for him now and then to see how people react. Usually it's great, but sometimes it just irks an NPC and she tosses an insult at the bard. He doesn't know why but now we have an interaction and things will happen based on how they handle it. When he's actively trying to gain approval or get some information from a gruff innkeeper or smooth talk a guard to let them into a building then I will ask him to roll for a check for the pertinent skill against the NPC's DC. I want him to tell me that he's breaking out his lute and singing a tune about what a great town this is or he's slathering the NPC with compliments - or platitudes - whatever. It's up to him, and I have him make a check to see if people cheer or throw tomatoes or invite them over for dinner. I don't want them just rolling dice to make things happen. I don't allow meta-gaming at my table because it's unnecessary and it's bogs down the game flow, just as Coach is talking about at the very beginning of the video.
The difference is that a character or characters rolling insight now can't know that they don't know. If they roll low and they know it, now they're gonna know they don't know something, which can lead to metagaming. The hidden roll ensures that they actually don't know.
@@TheDungeonCoach You realize as much as you HATE those feats as a DM the players LOVE those feats because the feeling of "getting screwed by RNG" is the worst. The more rolls are called for in a given session the more likely it is for the players to be screwed over at least once. There is also the Divination Wizard whose main schtick is bypass RNG completely in critical moments.
If you want player to do the roll just make a roll on d4 to determine if low or high roll is the good one. 1 and 2 needs low and 3 and 4 need high. You roller 1 player has +4 modifier on that skill and rolled 10 10 -4 is 6 so low and thats good. Easy and they never know ehat is good or bad
Wrong from the word "go". Perception. persuasion, insight and several other skills are very important. Two members of a party should be proficient in these. A check should be resolved as the player with the highest skill value rolling with Help (Advantage roll) from the second player with proficiency and probably with the cantrip Guidance (+1d4), too. So no more, "Everyone roll for perception.", etc. That's how an experienced team beats a bunch of individual players.
I don't like Insight checks and the alternative (secret rolls for my players) feels even worse, like taking away their opportunities. So I don't ever ask for insight checks now. Hear me out: the same the DM doesn't roll Deception or Persuasion for the NPC's, Insight should be always treated as a passive skill. We see in a Monster block a +7 in deception and we never ever use it, we just go "this dude is really good at lying" and roleplay them as such. Mechanically, I compare the insight bonus from the PC and the Deception bonus of the NPC and give the info depending on the result (which is mostly a scale from 1 to 10).
Totally a 5e problem. OD&D created this problem with their original "detect traps". If the players don't "know" how the check went there's no point in rolling in the first place. The dice should only roll when there's an element of chance with physical actions, like combat. Intellectual activities don't work with dice because of the meta-aspect. I'm just an old grognard but I'd remove all perception checks. The game gets way better just like you're seeing with your method.
So DMs seem to love this idea... But wouldn't a specific subset of players want to, you know, roll their own dice? I mean, I even see some people in the comments saying that they make Death Saving Throws for their players. What? Don't do that. No! Bad DM! Never make a Death Saving Throw for a player. That's terrible, destroys the player's sense of tension, and possibly causes out-of-game drama if the PC quickly dies due to someone else's rolls. Showing a system to scramble results is better, and would be fitting for a campaign centered on intrigue. But I think it's a bad habit in general to simply 'roll for the player'. If players get the sense that the DM is messing with them then engagement might plummet.
That's why I like the list method he explained in a previous video. You have a list of of d100 rolls, with each result correponding with a random d20 roll. Since each d20 has five different results, the statistical probability of each side of the die remains the same. This way, you ask the players to roll a d100 instead of a d20, and only you, the DM, knows the result. This works wonders for checks like Stealth, Perception, Insight, Investigation, Deception, Persuasion, and so on. It can even work with Death Saving Throws, since realistically, your companions wouldn't know how close you're to death, thus cutting down on that BS "Oh, he has two successes, we can take our time in this fight." Now, since they don't know, a downed player is a lot more urgent. If you don't like the player in question not knowing how they are, you can also have them stand up and roll behind the screen with you, so only you two know the result.
This, whisper rolls and passive insight already exist. This comment section just feels like dms admitting to railroading their players with secret rolls because they wanna be lazy
I wholeheartedly and respecfully disagree with alot of this video. I don't think Insight checks should ever give opposite information. A low Insight check should simply result in "they are hard to read." The check is to see if you can intuit anything, so the scale should be from, you learn nothing, to you learn everything, not, you learn the opposite of the truth, to you learn everything. It's not like when you roll a bad Perception check, you start seeing things that aren't there, you just don't see the things that are there, and Insight should be the same. If I suspect an npc of something and ask the DM if I can intuit anything from them, and the DM rolls a dice in secret and tells me something completely different to what I suspect, I suddenly feel like my agency as a character and player has been taken away because now I have to believe this thing you've told me because otherwise I'm metagaming, which isn't fun and honestly doesn't even make sense. At that stage, all choices we make as players might as well be left up to a secret dice rolled by the DM who then tells us what our characters believe is the best choice and then we have to do it because anything else would be metagaming. I didn't ask to make an Insight check because I want to know what my character now believes is true, I asked to make an Insight check to see if I could gain any new information.
Nice! That seems like a really good way to handle it, just saying, "you don't notice anything" on an insufficient roll. 5E has several resources that you can expend to reroll or improve a roll, after rolling but before you know if you succeeded, and rolling in secret would sort of take away the player's ability to decide if he wants to use one of those.
@@biffwellington6144 Yeah, its a reason I don't like any of the hidden rolls a lot of dms recommend. Ability checks are used to supplement my own roleplaying, not to do all the roleplaying for me.
I love the concept of getting the player rolling 10 d20 and I roll a d 10 to decide For insight, if they roll low, I usually still tell them the truth but less useful info Or even vague answer where you cannot really have a definite conclusion That way the player has to rely on their own instincts
I may be to stupid or my english isnt enough, but I have no idea how your system work, I really dont understand. For a moment you talk about a table with the wis modf of your players and I think you never refer ir again and just never says if a npc is lying or not, instead describe what the player feel or think. I really feel like a miss a part of the video or simple dont understand any thing.
He keeps player stat information behind his screen. Stuff like, "Perception: +7". So if he rolls for the players he can glance at the info and add that number to the result. It's a very DM-centered approach, as it takes direct agency away from players: they are no longer rolling their own dice but being spoon-fed information as the DM sees fit.
Back in the day when we played together at a table, I would actually lift my DM screen and they would roll the die towards me and I would lower the screen like a portcullis. That way, they got to roll, but only I knew what they rolled.
Looking back it was kind of silly, but it was fun.
OMG... my jaw dropped when I read this... I AM TRYING THIS! Wow, how fun!!!
Dice towers are great for this, just make sure the only the DM can see the tray.
I have always advocated for certain rolls to be secret DM rolls, any skill check that the player character would not know how well they did on is secret. Insight, perception, search, etc. tend to be secret, whereas physical skills like acrobatics, athletics, or attacks are rolled by players because the character would innately have a sense for how well they executed those skills. I'll make secret rolls if players promt them, but I also tend to make unannounced insight and perception checks and just feed the relevant info based on the secret check without mentioning the roll to maintain immersion.
I just don't think secret checks work for dnd because there are so many abilities that let you choose to make a re-roll or give yourself advantage or use your bardic inspiration.
Passive perception and insight are already things that allow your players to understand their baseline passive abilities so that when you hit them with a surprise they aren't like "wait we didn't roll" only for you to say "I rolled for you and you got a 2". I just think that can only make for a feeling of unfairness.
If someone sneaks up on them and they weren't actively on the lookout, you can say "I rolled stealth and it beat your passive" and that's absolutely fair. Next time they'll know to actively be on the lookout so they don't rely on their passive abilities, but rolling for them makes the act of having their characters be on the lookout pointless since you're just gonna roll for them anyways.
@@benh2339 I can't think of many abilities that let you reroll a failed perception check after the fact. The tradeoff if I run it as you described is that players inevitably wind up looking at their bad roll, and playing as if their character knows whatever they gleaned from that check must be rubbish. This is way worse than telling them they failed a check they didn't roll themselves, at least for most groups I play with. More often than not my players would rather explain what they want to do and just let me crunch the numbers rather than actually figure out the mess of stats you can have on a dnd sheet and roll for themselves, I know there are players who really want to handle their own math and dice, but they seem to be getting rarer and rarer.
@@alricfremanosrs1509 halfling lucky, lucky, portent, inspiration, reliable talent, bardic inspiration, guidance, and bless all allow the player to decide wether to affect an ability check roll or not. If your players prefer not having to roll then that works great for your group, I just think the philosophy of secret rolls messes with dynamic of the game a bit too much to be recommendable for most tables.
If characters are acting on player knowledge then that's metagaming which is already frowned upon. I think of a roll like that as being dramatic irony haha
My favorite phrase as a DM is "okay now do that in character". It is so funny to see the players faces when I put them on the spot like that, and of course no one is exempt because as the DM you have to at least maintain the illusion of fairness. If someone really can't handle it, and is taking to long to figure out what they are going to say I tell them I let them slide this time but they have to speak in character. I have a signal in my in person games where you put your thumb on your head to designate out of character speech, and that tends to work fairly well and becomes a reflex of sort for some people which unfortunately doesn't work as well in online games.
I like it. It's like putting on you player characters mask and now is the time to act!
@@Skewrz Yes I find it helps players engage in role playing though you have to be careful as some people will have a harder time keeping themselves out of their characters.
I do this for Wisdom based checks, both insight and perception. My favorite was when our Paladin with a 6 wisdom, who knew someone in the tavern tried to poison their drinks... leaned up against their tavern room door asking if he heard anything... I secret rolled a natural 2 which was a 0 for him. There were people down the hall just casually talking, but he heard with almost absolute certainty they were about to raid the room to steal his dragonborn scales and belongings. The group freaks out and ties the bed sheets to go out the window making a lot of noise... the Paladin asks what he sees outside the window before they make their escape (Rolls a 3 = 1)... "The night seems still, but then you see something dash through the tall grass, then again, and then you see more of them... you notice they are moving without making a sound. It appears they are circling the Tavern... what do you do?". The group truly believes they are about to be ambushed and ignores the Tavern Keeper begging them to calm down on the other side of the door (their insight roll was really low too).. so they jump out in the grass, and he lets out a warcry and says, "I swing at the first thing that moves." "You swing and there is nothing there. The group realizes in your panic it was the wind passing through the tall grass..." By this point they were dying laughing and turned themselves in for public intoxication and vandalism... they were released on bond to pay back the tavern keeper for the damages... it was really funny. If you don't roll in secret you rob your players of that authentic opportunity.
WELL SAID! That is a great way to put it "authentic opportunity" LOVED that story! what a great moment!
I’m glad you are tackling this because this is a real rub and it’s not the players fault they have a brain and can make deductions based on how well they rolled. I have an alternative for you other than secret checks. Flip a coin or roll a 50/50 die roll of your choosing before they roll. On a heads the scale is normal on a tails the scale is inverted (rolling low is better and the dm mentally subtracts the modifier rs instead of adding and adjusts the DC. Make sure your players know this how it’s being done. This way you remove their ability to deduce the outcome based on the die roll.
Nice idea, simple
@@seekingfurtherlight34 thanks a little of math gymnastics but that’s what we do as a DM anyway.
YES I have done something like this. I just choose in my head "normal or inverted" and then give them feedback on their roll... keeps it fresh FOR SURE, great points!
I did a table I call Rando-o-Tron for my players, they roll a d6 and d100 and give me both numbers which generates a d20 roll. I ask for those when I don't want them to know the result (stealth, perception, insight, etc). The players love it because they have no idea how the result turned out until something happens. Makes the RP and descriptions a lot of fun.
Could you share the table with us? :)
@@ZurfCTRL Oh absolutely! Always glad to share :)
drive.google.com/file/d/1Y5dKJaELUfvG_VJx8g-8AzczTPQbO9SQ/view?usp=sharing
Concept is they roll a d6 for which table the roll will be generated from and then a d100 for the specific result within that table. Each table has 5 of each possible result for a d20 so the odds of any specific number should be roughly the same as a straight d20 roll (I'm not a statistician, so the placement of the specific numbers my skew the results slightly).
It does take a little longer especially if multiple players need to roll, so I don't use it all the time. Just for those occasions I don't want them to know what they rolled ;)
So far my players have loved it, so I hope other folks out there can get some good use out of it.
@@bsparky01 Noice! Might have to pilfer that for a taste test.
I play online using fantasy grounds and they have a tower player can drop their dice in and only the DM can see the result and share the result if they wish.
Recently had players on an island where everyone is falling under a charm from an aboleth, unbeknownst to them. I mention 1 player is 'liking the idea of staying for a bit longer', and another player FREAKED OUT about it in game. Wish I could've hid that a bit better in hindsight 😅
Should've hit that player with the illusion of nearing a personal goal. 😁
I would've texted the player secretly so they get the option to roleplay it out how they wish to. Probably mention to be a little discreet with it too.
Another way you could go is to still have them roll an insight check for themselves, but you make a secret counter roll of persuasion or deception against their insight. If they roll high but you roll higher, they still get bad info. If they roll low and you roll lower, they still get good info. Works especially well if you make it clear that their insight check only gives them info on how they're feeling, not necessarily the truth. So rolling low and being told that they might be right in their suspicions doesn't mean they succeeded, because the info that their feeling is correct might actually be wrong.
I came up with an easy way for my players to role at my table but not know the result.
I create a random d20 table behind my DM screen of the numbers 1-20.
To clarify, you make a table with the numbers 1-20 on left side of table and then the numbers 1-20 randomly distributed on right side of table. The only exceptions are numbers 20 & 1 (ie rolling a 20 is still a 20 and rolling a one is still a one).
Players roll their dice, tell the DM their total modifier and then only the DM will knows how well they did.
The excitement and despair of 20s & 1s remain but otherwise they live & die in uncertainty.
You can regenerate this table each session if you think you’re players with start to remember results. I just have three and pick one each session to hang on my screen.
Players love how it builds suspense and know that it is their roll that guided the story.
I love this, especially the specifications in the Time Out at the end. I think the Insight Check problem is especially difficult - compared to other aspects of players asking for rolls. Though it's difficult, and best used occasionally, I really like the secret role thing to keep plans subtle and tense.
This is probably one of the best homebrew rules I have introduced! I recommend everyone to use this!
At my table, I have my players drop their die into an empty toilet paper roll, and slide it to me. All of these “blind” or “dice tower” rolls require a lot of trust between you and your players. But my players have always mentioned how much they prefer this method to take the meta, and the stress away from the perception, investigation, stealth, insight, etc. rolls.
Thank you for the tips! As DM i usually categorize social encounters into scenes and in a scene, i only allow my players (depending on the party size) to roll 2 or 3 insight checks, I adjust the DC and think beforehand what am i willing to give out to my players, if it was player-specific information, i drop them a secret note, never give them lies unless i was planning for the lie. To me, most of the problems related to insight check is because i don't plan ahead. I always try to stop myself from improvising even if i have to tell my players to give me 5 or 10 minute time off
Secret checks I often use.
-Insight
-Intimidate (are they intimidated or just acting like they are?)
-Investigation (particularly for traps and secret doors)
-Perception (as above, or in horror/suspense. Is it real or their mind playing tricks)
-Stealth
-Thieves’ tools (disarming traps)
Dude, we should do lunch and flush this out some more.
Beer pretzels
It’s a date!!!
And deviled eggs!
I'm sure it depends on the person, but I wonder whether a player would feel more or less beholden to the result of the roll with a secret check. That is, if you say, "she's being honest, as far as your character can tell," the player has the option to say, in character, "I think she's being honest," or "she's not acting like she's lying, but that doesn't mean I trust her." With an open roll, which approach they take may depend on how high they rolled.
With a secret roll, they may default to "I think x" because the system encourages them to immerse themself in their character's view of the world and believe the things they believe. Or they might default to "it seems like x, but I can't be sure" because the system reminds them that they're not infallible and should be wary of making assumptions.
I love the psychoanalysis here, all really good points! Good to see ya Rebel!
Toward the end you say “you really don’t trust this kid” and I think this is better than “you can tell they are lying”. The social interaction rules in the DMG talk about insight discovering bonds and flaws and I think overall this may be a good way to go, “this stewards behaviour is not consistent with their job because of some flaw or secret they seem to be keeping”. As you can tell I am still trying to reverse engineer this into something cool.
There are two other ways to roll
1. The player rolls their profociency die and the dm rolls the d20.
2. The dm rolls npc deception against the PCs passive insight (fake rolls if no deception)
I sometimes use NPCs' goals in that regard.
"You notice that the shopkeeper is eyeing the newly acquired dagger you swiped from the abandoned fortress earlier, specifically pining for the emerald embedded in the hilt..."
@@commandercaptain4664 Sorry yes, DMG says Goals and Flaws (not Bonds, my bad) so exactly as you do.
(2:30) - Insight Check : I like to ask the players when they ask for an insight check, "What is it you are looking for?" Have the player tell you what information they are trying to gain. Perhaps they ask something that doesn't pertain to the part of the dialog that is the lie or cover up. This way, they get a focused answer to what they are trying to uncover.
Example: (the 'shady' part of this dialog is that the rat didn't take Fred away... the NPC ran away and doesn't know what happened to Fred)
NPC : "...so Yeah, the big giant rat chomped on Fred and took him away in the sewer."
PC : "Insight Check!" (discerning look...)
DM: "What are you trying to learn with your Insight Check?"
PC: "I want to know if he is lying."
DM: "What do you mean if he is lying? What don't you believe is true?"
PC: "I don't believe it was a Giant Rat."
DM: "Ok, roll for Insight"
PC: rolls 5
DM: "You think he is telling the truth. You are pretty sure he saw a Giant Rat"
This way, you can focus the roll on a specific part of the verbiage and give the player what they want to know about, without giving other parts of it away...
Alternatively:
...
DM: "What are you trying to learn with your Insight Check?"
PC: "I think he is lying. I don't believe a 'Giant Rat' could drag a whole person away"
DM: "Roll"
PC: Rolls 15
DM: "You get the sense that he believes the rat dragged Fred away, but something still doesn't sit well with you. You might be right about the weight and strength ratio of a Giant Rat and Fred the Orc being dragged away.
On of the things I found as a DM is how players understand Insight Checks across different game and DMs...
See for me, as a DM I do not make it a case of "He seems to be telling the truth," or anything that gives a false or true result. Instead I aim for cases of players rolling high and the response would be something like. "Ah he talks, he seems to be constantly shooting a glance over your shoulder every few seconds, at the mention of X his pause caused his right hand to start shaking."
They are picking up more details about the person they are talking to, their ticks, their nerves and their mannerism, which in its own way can be read in different forms of understanding what it presents. In this case, this NPC might be aware of more then he should, so they are constantly making sure that no one else is listening or looking at him. The shaking hand might be cause of fear of a memory or because he knows what he would lose if caught talking about X... Meaning to ask the player to question why and how much info they can get if they calm the NPC down...
But this sometimes leads to some problems...
Like, a Player had been with a DM which did do, "Yeah he lying" kinda responses.
Now that glance of the shoulder and twitching hand is telling that player "He gonna attack you cause you caught him lying..." and they attack the NPC without second guessing...
Like Crit Skill Checks, if a Player has been taught by one DM that this is how it runs, it leads to problems when it comes to other DMs that don't do that or insist otherway. Stuff that sure could be addressed if the DM sat down at Session 0 and said "Hey, just FYI, Crit Skill Checks are not real. Stop trying to roll a Nat20 to insta win a check." But the issue is that certain things are not always easy to pinpoint for a recalibrating for DMs and Players to know what is what...
I feel that you may as well just not allow insight checks at that point. If a player is suspicious of one thing and that suspicion is either founded or not, then it becomes a 50/50 what your doing with a secret role is just flipping a coin on whether they were right or wrong but then not showing them the coin. Which is the exact same as just not letting them role and just stay suspicious anyway
When I first started playing in the 90s, the GM rolled everything for you. So I don't view secret rolls as some sort of bad thing, they have to be used for many circumstances to actually be immersive. Like, for example, traps. You can't even use traps properly if the players know they are rolling perception, they get paranoid because the roll had to be for something - and if you have them roll to detect the trap and they fail, well this circumstance pops up where the tension is gone.
Use passive insight, there I fixed it for you. EZ. Roll for the NPC or the environment or whatever against a dc of insight + 10.
This is why I prefer to establish certainty/uncertainty rolls, usually delineated by physical (STR/DEX/CON) and mental (INT/WIS/CHA) checks. When a result is immediate and obvious, it is a certainty and is rolled openly, to the point where I mention how many hit points or AC an opponent has; it does wonders for a group's excitement to see exactly when an enemy bites the dust. When a result is unknown and long term, it is an uncertainty and is rolled in secret. How I handle secret rolls is to lift a small cloth for a player to roll underneath, then cover the roll as it enters and read it for myself - that way, when an uncertainty becomes known, I lift the "veil" and show what the player rolled. I want to make a dice tower with a cover at the end to make this easier. Another way is to roll in the open, but the player rolls 2d20 and doesn't know if I'm counting the advantage (high roll) or disadvantage (low roll), and if both dice roll low or high, I consider that a fair assessment for the player to ascertain.
Of course, the key to an uncertainty roll is to withhold or even outright lie about a success or a failure, which should be established in Session Zero. This poses the danger of imbuing analysis paralysis, but it also makes an adventure more tense.
Hey Dungeon Coach, just wanted to let you know but for my campaign I've been having almost every player do the random rolls for stats using your fix. It's been amazing and has made for some really unique builds plus made everyone a lot more equal. The absolute best part is, is if I ever want to make everyone weaker or stronger all I would have to do is change the max number. So it scales amazingly.
I also really love this change. So much better for the insight, but I'll need a much better poker face.
Hidden stealth checks can also add suspense and fun in the right groups.
I tend to go with useless information if a character rolls low for insight or perception rather than false information, and also it is always how the character feels about a situation rather than information about the situation.
For example, if they are interacting with an npc and they make an insight check to determine honesty, and they roll low, I would say something like "you have no reason to distrust this person" whether the npc is lying or not. If they roll high, I would give off details that the characters could notice, like "they appear to be rather nervous," or "they keep glancing at x" or "they are very relaxed about this conversation." The information still doesn't necessarily mean lying/not lying, but it gives avenues the players can approach to get more information from the npc, or the world.
Yep -- love it.
It intersects with the dice as story developing tools, and it personalizes information; combine it with insights (and knowledge, history, arcana, etc... ) being delivered by text message, and then the players actually need to sort through the information that is being filtered through individuals and filtered differently. Analyzing the information becomes a team activity, a roleplaying experience, and it connects the PCs as numbers on a sheet to their backgrounds, their setting (ultimately all information comes from a relationship to the world and how the character functions within it), and roles/functions in the party become something alive as do the relationships between the PCs -- they HAVE to care about listening to each other and working together or they just don't get the information.
It might depend on your players... And if they're willing to act out what they know to be wrong, because that can be really fun too!
Some of my most memorable gaming moments came from me having to act on character knowledge, even though, as a player, I knew I wasn't doing "the right" thing.
If they rolled a Nat 1 on that Insight Check instead of a Nat 20, and therefore "implicitly trusted that person, forever!" I think that would be more exciting, and interesting, from a narrative perspective.
The way I handle checks like insight is I have the roll represent how confident the player is in their conclusion and then I roll the contesting NPC roll in secret. So if the player rolls really low I'll say something like "You are unsure if they are lying or not". If the player rolls really high but the NPC rolls even higher I'll say something like "You are absolutely sure they are telling the truth". So the player sees their roll but even if they roll high it doesn't always mean the information they are getting is correct. But because the NPC roll is secret they can never be 100% sure of their conclusion thus it isn't metagaming. I sometimes also throw in extra bits of description like "You think they are telling the truth because you can see tears running down their cheeks" even if the person is lying but is an amazing actor or something.
This is what zone of truth is for it is literally a lie detector spell.
And it uses resources. And the target could always succeed on the save! You either shoot for a sure thing, or (literally) take your best guess with a check. I love this kinda choice in my games.
@@CooperAATE Doesn't zone of truth tell you whether they've passes the check. I thought it did that for some reason, but I may be wrong on that account.
@@YourBoyNobody530 Yeah, you know the result of the roll for each creature in the zone. However, the creatures know they're under the effect of the spell so they can simply clam up or otherwise be evasive in their answers so long as what they're saying is "technically true".
In my homebrewed system, I want one step further. Insight skill has a random value that I hide from the player. Not even he knows if he has a good gut feeling or not. He has to decide to trust it or not. Since it is a progression through use system, they don't know how much they improved it with time. It has been a blast. After all, some people believe their own gut feeling to their own peril.
It takes time for them to discover if they have a good gut feeling or not, but not even then they are sure.
Besides, there is no sure method for discerning lies. Its not something that can be taught reliably. Not even psychologists that are experts in human behavior are any better at detecting deception.
We love the tension it creates.
Pathfinder 2e actually calls for a lot of secret checks for similar reasons. It does actually work pretty well.
secret insight checks are the way to go, because most players have a difficult time understanding that their characters may not know what the players know
A thought to add to this: Rather than stating publicly what the PC "feels", create some cards or something to hand to the player: "You think the NPC is lying." "You think the NPC is genuine." "You're really not sure, you don't get a good read either way." Make several copies of each. When the PC calls for the check, you roll behind the screen then hand them one of the cards as appropriate. On a very bad fail, you might give the PC the card that says, "you think the NPC is lying" when the NPC is actually telling the truth. The Player reads the card and returns it, and they role-play it.
Dig it!!!! One of my pet peeves as a DM is a player shouting “INSIGHT CHECK” and rolling a d20, as opposed to role playing intent.
This is very interesting! I’m thinking about having the player roll publicly while I roll behind the scenes. Whatever I roll is the “1” and everything else is based on that, so If I roll a 15, the player’s 14 is a Nat20. Add their modifier to that process at the end and they still got to roll and they’re controlling their PC, but don’t have enough information to metagame with it. I’ll have to think more and maybe try it in a one shot or a mini scene to see what players think.
If a player fails an insight check just saying 'your opinions remain your own' works fine for me and my table!
One issue I see with having certain skill checks rolled in secret is, there are things like the Lucky feat, Bardic Inspiration, and the inspiration token that you can expend to reroll or improve your roll. And these allow you to roll your die before deciding whether or not to use them. How does a player know if he wants to use them, if the die was rolled secretly and he can't see it?
Overall, it seems like a pretty good method of handling certain checks where you don't want the player to know if he succeeded, but I was wondering how you'd handle a situation like that.
3:15 If you roll then maybe you should roll the NPCs deception against their passive insight. Also that what you can roll once against all of their passive insights.
I run GURPS games. In there rules clearly state:
When the GM Rolls
There are two sets of circumstances under which the GM should roll for a PC and not let the player see the results:
1. When the character wouldn’t know for sure whether he had succeeded.
2. When the player shouldn’t know what’s going on.
These kind of rolls would apply to for example insight, interrogation, knowledge, perception and so on.
On top of that if appropriate on critical failure GM is supposed to lie/misinterpret or otherwise provide false information.
In my games I have players make a list of 20 d 20 rolls with no modifiers and my character cheat sheet for background and stats. Rather then asking for a check I go down the list for any lore skill I want them to do. I use this for insight as well.
This makes a lot of sense. I'm going to give it a shot in the next campaign I run.
Good video. Outside of an attack role a nat 20 does NOT guarantee automatic success for anything in D&D. Its absolutely normal for a DM to make "private" roles in order to maintain a level of secrecy/intrigue and to eliminate meta-gaming. As a DM I always track my players stats, bonuses and modifiers. I love it when my players use "phrasing" to describe what their characters do. I encourage that and reward that type of play whenever I can.
The way I look at it is a nat 20 represents the "best possible outcome" for an event, while the nat 1 is the "worst possible outcome". So if a player rolls Persuasion in telling a king to hand over his crown a nat 20 has the king laugh it off as a mild jest, while the nat 1 would see him get cross with the players and possibly send them into the dungeon for a night. Either way they aren't getting a crown by asking for its surrender in dialog.
I personally don't mind letting high insight rolls be "Human Lie Detector" moments. If it's something the character is doing, a check they're character is making, I don't like to roll it for them. Feels like I'm taking something away from them. (Also I play with a bunch of filthy dice goblins.) I'm fine with giving them the information, you roll high? You get good thing. Welcome to Tabletop RPG's. As for low rolling insight checks, rather than "lie" to the player, clearly giving away that the opposite is true, I like to say things like "you have no idea, you can't really figure out this guy," or something along those lines. If youe intuition is really good? Sure you're pretty confident this guy's bad/good. If not? Well you have no clue? Maybe the masked man with a dagger dripping purple liquid stalking you is pretty cool and just wants to say hi. Maybe the toddler you're babysitting is actually an evil Ancient Red Dragon plotting to take over the world? Who knows? Not you idiot. Your insight sucks.
How about this response as the DM?... "I know you believe you understand what you think the npc said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what the npc meant.
My players are generally fine with this sort of metagaming but I also have them roll their insight check and use that as DC to beat and roll that for myself as a deception check and base the narration on that roll. I abhor taking agency away from a player so rolling their skill checks is off the table for me, but if it’s a particular NPC they’re trying to gain insight from I generally only call for a roll if they’re proficient in the skill, that way it prevents dogpiling on the skill.
If a PC isn’t proficient with insight then they’ll get “eh seems on the up and up.” Or “Something doesn’t feel right.” Proficiency is key, if the PC uses insight that doesn’t necessarily know that NPC is lying for sure, just a hint at an instinct. But the PC with proficiency means to me that they know how to read their instinct to discern the messaging.
There’s no point having players make rolls for things where they can’t possibly know how well they did. I make rolls for the players all the time. The most common rolls I make for players are:
- Remembering things
- Realizing something
- Noticing something
The last one includes perception and insight.
Overall players like this method. They know it’s working because I will say, “You think this person is lying” or whatever. They can ask for a roll, but if I already made the roll I just say “You do not notice anything”.
I apply modifiers based on what the character says they are doing. For example, if they tell me how they search the room or they roleplay asking a NPC questions to see if they are lying then they get a bonus, or I might just tell them. I do not like making rolls when something is very likely/unlikely.
I did have one person take issue with this and insist on making their own rolls. They quickly noticed that they were doing less well than other players because I would not roll for them, and as the DM I know when a roll is most appropriate. For example, in a conversation I would let it play out and then roll at the point where it is most likely the PCs would notice a lie, but the player calling his roll has to time it right because if he calls for the roll before the lie then then he won’t spot the lie when it happens.
Player rolls their Intuition check, then the DM rolls Deception. DM sets DC or several for degrees of success (Intuition - Deception = X DM checks vs DC)
I as a player dont usually ask to to an Insight I think it takes away from you RP your character. Say you think the NPC is lying and he is and you roll bad then you have to go with the roll. I dont think I have ever asked for an Insight.
I'm commenting before I watch so I'm not influenced. I'm a D&D lover and former player/DM starting in 1982. Old school.
Although we had no insight checks back then, watching Crit Role Campaigns 1& 2 and now watching 3 live, I've thought out loud this...
PLAYERS SHOULD NOT ROLL NOR KNOW THE RESULTING ROLE OF ANY INSIGHT CHECKS.
Knowing you rolled high or low instantly is a meta-gaming moment without wanting to.
The DM if asked by a player for Insight check should allow only 1 player to act and should get a specific Insight want.
Then secretly the DM should roll knowing their modifiers.
It's 100% better. The party will learn to only allow their best ability players to ask and if the results end up being successes or failures over time the party will judge if they are good at it or not.
Matt Mercer should realize it's better all around and change the practice immediately. Can only make the experience even better and more intriguing than it already is.
My Players would never let this happen.
I am a notoriously low roller. Especially when I'm a PC or an ally Npc Lol.
I actually roll pretty well against them when I dm, but that doesn't help my case either.
I'm torn on this subject. If I trusted the DM, then I would love for them to male all the insight rolls because, like you said, knowing that result is very meta.
That said, some DM's fudge rolls a fair bit, "all in the name of their story." In that case, I would be much more wary of giving them even more meta shaping power.
Another thing I've had in the back of my head is that characters who ask for a lot of insight checks on someone might themselves seem suspicious. Not sure how I would implement that. Maybe if you botch a roll you could reduce your interaction status ... friendly to neutral, or neutral to unfriendly.
I like the idea, I think it would work great, alot of times players will do a check when the other failed...
I once played a game where we did this, but we also rolled stealth in secret. The rogue would go forward thinking he was hidden, but he didn't have the meta knowledge of knowing how he rolled. It made him way more careful about his stealth attempts.
Personally, I loved it. But every time I've tried to implement it in to a game as a DM, my players have dismissed the idea before even trying it.
I can understand their reservation. Part of the game is rolling dice, so proposing that they surrender that aspect to secret DM control is a big sell. It also doesn't help that 5e's system of giving Disadvantage to various armor types is a death sentence for groups not running Pass Without Trace. It's possible that players simply give up on stealth altogether if it seems to always fail. E.g. when attempting stealth the DM asks for 3-6 rolls in sequence and a single failure at any point immediately destroys all sense of stealth and starts a combat.
Literally just use the NPCs passive perception against the rogue's stealth or do secret rolls for the NPCs. There is no reason for you to take away the players agency like that
@@user-pi8pi3wj7h Yeah, that's the same argument I hear from everyone, hence why I haven't implemented it as a DM. It's more important that I give my players an enjoyable experience.
But it's not taking away agency, it's taking away meta knowledge. If it's about the feel of rolling a die, you can use a dice tower or have the players drop their die behind your screen. Not knowing the number raises the tension and makes you approach stealth in a different way.
If you're a player, I strongly suggest you at least try it out. Run it by your DM and do a one shot or a single session with hidden stealth rolls. It's fun.
Just use passive insight vs Deception check
I just ask the players to roll several d20 at the begining and note the numbers rolled.
I use this on insight and any other check that must remain hidden from the players or would be to revealing to roll right on time.
Louder for the people in the back: HOMEBREW YOUR DRAGONS FOR YOUR CAMPAIGN
I think I need to start doing insight checks secretly…
I don't make them role in secret I simply give them a random answer when they role low, maybe its the actual answer maybe its not, who knows.
Awesome idea Coach. Build the Big R of role playing and get away from just the Character Sheet
There's something amusing about 5e players slowly inventing mechanics that already exist in other games.
I crafted a tower of doom dice tower for big rolls. I could easily craft a cover that allows the players to still roll but not see the result, only the DM does. After seeing this I may give this a try or even craft a new insight tower with better suited decor. Lightbulbs and question marks spring to mind as a base.
Well that’s my next two weeks spare time gone. 😂🤣😂
Hhahahah YES! Post a picture of it on my discord and ping me if you end up doing this!!
A low insight check should never mean the character is automatically wrong, it should mean there is no link between that character's conclusions and reality. If a player rolls super low, I ask the player what their character expected the answer to be and then just throw a bunch of bullshit supporting that view. It does a good job of simulating confirmation bias, the character is seeing what they wanted to see instead of what's actually there. Maybe the player guessed right and the person actually is lying, maybe they guessed wrong and they are about to piss off a potential ally. The other players might still go along with the player who rolled low because they genuinely believe the same thing, me reinforcing that player's belief doesn't tell them if they are right or wrong.
I do insight and death saving throws behind the screen
Why do so many DM's let insight become an at will, component less version of detect thoughts? The only thing you should give away on an insight check are observable details relevant to the context of the scene. It should never result in detailing the thoughts of NPC's or telling players what they think or feel. Good video, some great ideas, especially on banning 'insight check' requests.
Nice!
I absolutely love this idea. 😊👍
Hey....we've always done this as well. Just makes sense.
Any check regarding player knowledge should be made behind the screen. You don't know what you don't know. You don't notice that you didn't notice a dollar bill in the grass.
I just trust my players to not metagame. It's fun for them to RP the result. It's the same as when they make an Athletics check. The player knows they pass or failed, and roleplays accordingly. It's pretty simple.
I never feel bad about rolling behind the screen. As a GM we need to keep the game flowing and interesting and that's all that matters. And I don't let anyone roll for skill checks unless I ask for one either. I never let the players control the scene. A secret dice roll now and then does wonders for mystery
My players have learned not to randomly roll before I tell them to. So often they hear "Man it's too bad you wasted that Nat 20, now roll for X"
While I'm a proponent of "describe what you intend to do, if it is determined that a check should be made then do so at that time" it's in rather bad taste to simply roll for the players. There's also a serious disagreement that the "DM's flow" is all that matters. At its core D&D is meant to be a fun, cooperative storytelling experience. If you intend to deviate from that be sure to clearly communicate beforehand what you'll be doing.
@@XoRandomGuyoX My players always have fun. I've been DMing since 2nd edition and I get no complaints. In 5E the skill checks can get out of hand sometimes and players will just walk around rolling for perception checks or they'll tell me they're rolling for investigation or whatever. I simply tell them they don't have to roll for them all the time and they just need to tell me what they want to accomplish and how they're going about it. I will tell them if I need them to make a check or not. If I roll behind the screen it's for a passive check. Players wandering around rolling dice for a dozen checks in a 30' square room is much too meta-gamey, not required and a huge waste of time. Players will waste immense amounts of time if you don't keep things moving and that's when it's not fun anymore. I communicate everything quite well, really. Thank you for the advice though
@@tonyr.546 Rolling for a passive thing, that's an interesting way to go about it. If it's something the player is actively curious about though, like they mention that they're watching a particular NPC's demeanor to see if they appear or sound nervous, if there are any unusual tics that would be out of place for the conversation, then at the very least it would be nice to have some sort of scrambler in place for their roll, so that they're actively rolling for something they want to achieve. When I see DMs commenting on this video and one of them went so far as to say that they roll Death Saving Throws for their player that goes too far. Players want a sense of agency, to have an actual role in the story. The dice determine twists and turns, but that input should come from the player when it involves active agency.
@@XoRandomGuyoX No. I agree that is going much too far. I don't ever roll anything FOR them other than passive skill checks. My only point was that I don't want them telling ME that they are making a skill check. I want them to role play. Tell me what they're doing and what they want to achieve and I will tell them if I need a check from them to go against a DC. Often times they don't even need a check at all. Passive perception, intimidation, insight and even performance checks I do for them. They don't need to know I'm checking, they just need to know what happens as they're doing what they tell me they're doing. I have a bard player who always sings when walking down the street. I do random passive performance checks for him now and then to see how people react. Usually it's great, but sometimes it just irks an NPC and she tosses an insult at the bard. He doesn't know why but now we have an interaction and things will happen based on how they handle it. When he's actively trying to gain approval or get some information from a gruff innkeeper or smooth talk a guard to let them into a building then I will ask him to roll for a check for the pertinent skill against the NPC's DC. I want him to tell me that he's breaking out his lute and singing a tune about what a great town this is or he's slathering the NPC with compliments - or platitudes - whatever. It's up to him, and I have him make a check to see if people cheer or throw tomatoes or invite them over for dinner. I don't want them just rolling dice to make things happen. I don't allow meta-gaming at my table because it's unnecessary and it's bogs down the game flow, just as Coach is talking about at the very beginning of the video.
Love this. Great idea.
This is great.
this is genius, I am going to do that
It seems fun, but doesn’t this make being proficient at insight sort of redundant?
There's always the opponent's proficiency of deception as well as the dreaded fumble.
The difference is that a character or characters rolling insight now can't know that they don't know.
If they roll low and they know it, now they're gonna know they don't know something, which can lead to metagaming.
The hidden roll ensures that they actually don't know.
This doesn't work when people have feats like Lucky or features like Bend Luck.
Which is also why I HATE THOSE FEATS LOL
Thats a whole different rant video there
@@TheDungeonCoach You realize as much as you HATE those feats as a DM the players LOVE those feats because the feeling of "getting screwed by RNG" is the worst. The more rolls are called for in a given session the more likely it is for the players to be screwed over at least once. There is also the Divination Wizard whose main schtick is bypass RNG completely in critical moments.
If you want player to do the roll just make a roll on d4 to determine if low or high roll is the good one. 1 and 2 needs low and 3 and 4 need high.
You roller 1 player has +4 modifier on that skill and rolled 10
10 -4 is 6 so low and thats good. Easy and they never know ehat is good or bad
Wrong from the word "go". Perception. persuasion, insight and several other skills are very important. Two members of a party should be proficient in these. A check should be resolved as the player with the highest skill value rolling with Help (Advantage roll) from the second player with proficiency and probably with the cantrip Guidance (+1d4), too. So no more, "Everyone roll for perception.", etc. That's how an experienced team beats a bunch of individual players.
I don't like Insight checks and the alternative (secret rolls for my players) feels even worse, like taking away their opportunities. So I don't ever ask for insight checks now.
Hear me out: the same the DM doesn't roll Deception or Persuasion for the NPC's, Insight should be always treated as a passive skill. We see in a Monster block a +7 in deception and we never ever use it, we just go "this dude is really good at lying" and roleplay them as such.
Mechanically, I compare the insight bonus from the PC and the Deception bonus of the NPC and give the info depending on the result (which is mostly a scale from 1 to 10).
💜💜💜
Totally a 5e problem. OD&D created this problem with their original "detect traps". If the players don't "know" how the check went there's no point in rolling in the first place. The dice should only roll when there's an element of chance with physical actions, like combat. Intellectual activities don't work with dice because of the meta-aspect. I'm just an old grognard but I'd remove all perception checks. The game gets way better just like you're seeing with your method.
What’s your second channel?
How to make rangers more useful and powerful?
Ahh the secret check system from pf2e?
So DMs seem to love this idea... But wouldn't a specific subset of players want to, you know, roll their own dice? I mean, I even see some people in the comments saying that they make Death Saving Throws for their players. What? Don't do that. No! Bad DM! Never make a Death Saving Throw for a player. That's terrible, destroys the player's sense of tension, and possibly causes out-of-game drama if the PC quickly dies due to someone else's rolls. Showing a system to scramble results is better, and would be fitting for a campaign centered on intrigue. But I think it's a bad habit in general to simply 'roll for the player'. If players get the sense that the DM is messing with them then engagement might plummet.
That's why I like the list method he explained in a previous video.
You have a list of of d100 rolls, with each result correponding with a random d20 roll. Since each d20 has five different results, the statistical probability of each side of the die remains the same.
This way, you ask the players to roll a d100 instead of a d20, and only you, the DM, knows the result.
This works wonders for checks like Stealth, Perception, Insight, Investigation, Deception, Persuasion, and so on.
It can even work with Death Saving Throws, since realistically, your companions wouldn't know how close you're to death, thus cutting down on that BS "Oh, he has two successes, we can take our time in this fight." Now, since they don't know, a downed player is a lot more urgent. If you don't like the player in question not knowing how they are, you can also have them stand up and roll behind the screen with you, so only you two know the result.
This, whisper rolls and passive insight already exist. This comment section just feels like dms admitting to railroading their players with secret rolls because they wanna be lazy
I wholeheartedly and respecfully disagree with alot of this video.
I don't think Insight checks should ever give opposite information. A low Insight check should simply result in "they are hard to read." The check is to see if you can intuit anything, so the scale should be from, you learn nothing, to you learn everything, not, you learn the opposite of the truth, to you learn everything. It's not like when you roll a bad Perception check, you start seeing things that aren't there, you just don't see the things that are there, and Insight should be the same.
If I suspect an npc of something and ask the DM if I can intuit anything from them, and the DM rolls a dice in secret and tells me something completely different to what I suspect, I suddenly feel like my agency as a character and player has been taken away because now I have to believe this thing you've told me because otherwise I'm metagaming, which isn't fun and honestly doesn't even make sense. At that stage, all choices we make as players might as well be left up to a secret dice rolled by the DM who then tells us what our characters believe is the best choice and then we have to do it because anything else would be metagaming.
I didn't ask to make an Insight check because I want to know what my character now believes is true, I asked to make an Insight check to see if I could gain any new information.
Nice! That seems like a really good way to handle it, just saying, "you don't notice anything" on an insufficient roll. 5E has several resources that you can expend to reroll or improve a roll, after rolling but before you know if you succeeded, and rolling in secret would sort of take away the player's ability to decide if he wants to use one of those.
@@biffwellington6144 Yeah, its a reason I don't like any of the hidden rolls a lot of dms recommend. Ability checks are used to supplement my own roleplaying, not to do all the roleplaying for me.
P. S. I liked the video.
I love the concept of getting the player rolling 10 d20 and I roll a d 10 to decide
For insight, if they roll low, I usually still tell them the truth but less useful info
Or even vague answer where you cannot really have a definite conclusion
That way the player has to rely on their own instincts
I dont understand
I may be to stupid or my english isnt enough, but I have no idea how your system work, I really dont understand. For a moment you talk about a table with the wis modf of your players and I think you never refer ir again and just never says if a npc is lying or not, instead describe what the player feel or think. I really feel like a miss a part of the video or simple dont understand any thing.
He keeps player stat information behind his screen. Stuff like, "Perception: +7". So if he rolls for the players he can glance at the info and add that number to the result. It's a very DM-centered approach, as it takes direct agency away from players: they are no longer rolling their own dice but being spoon-fed information as the DM sees fit.
Come on, vogue.