• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Perception stats exist for a reason, and I’d argue they’re usually incompatible with knowing the result of the roll, even with players who try not to meta-game. Even if they behave, they’re subconsciously going to know how they rolled and that will change the experience, unless you start meta-meta-gaming (changing the success window, frequently calling for rolls for nothing, etc.). Personally that seems like a pound of cure vs an ounce of prevention.

    If a semi-spoiler-laden, actively counter-meta-gamed experience is what your group likes, more power to you. But more often than not, I think the GM rolling for checks where success/failure isn’t obvious preserves the experience for all players and prevents meta-gaming, both intentional and subconscious.

    • Kichae@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      My experience is that, in practice, players actually like secret checks more often than they don’t. The feel-bad of “player agency” loss (what agency is there in rolling a die? It’s literally an agency destroying mechanic) occurs at the conceptual level, long before ever experiencing it at the table. Telling a player that just hid that they don’t think the guards can see them really heightens the immersion, and players tend (most of them, most of the time, on average) to get into that.

      You can’t have tension when the player knows they rolled a 19 on the die.