New private /gmroll command for players making rolls only the gm (not the players) can see

It would be nice if there were another command similar to /gmroll that would allow a player to make a blind roll that only the gm would then see. This seems like a small feature that would benefit many groups out there (I realize not everyone is a fan of private rolls). Maybe /gmonlyroll, /blindroll or something?

Apologies to any staff, I just noticed the dice rolling suggestion thread. I would have included this there had I seen it first.

What's wrong with just having the GM make the roll?

Yeah, the GM can use the /gmroll function themselves and will only show for the GM. Granted you need any modifiers from the player....

Its useful since it means the GM has to do fewer things, and GM attention is usually a stretched resource.

huh...what are you saving if you type /gmroll as a GM or what Thad suggested? The result is the same.. a roll only the GM can see and its already in the game? Again the ONLY reason i could see for this is if you didnt want the player to know at all you were rolling in secret for them. Hence why the GM should have knowledge of the players stats or access to the their character sheet (in some form) for the info.

I don't object to this concept, but I've never seen a GM ask for a roll that was secret to only the player and the GM. It's never mattered that the other players see the result. Nor have I requested this as a GM. I'm curious under what context someone has used this on a RL table?

An example would be if one player wanted to roll something like a Sleight of Hand check against another player to steal their stuff. That's something the player would initiate, and which he'd want to be secret from the other player but not the GM. Another example would be if a player didn't want the rest of the group to know the size of their die pools. I've had this come up a lot in campaigns I've played in, where one of the players has done a lot of stuff behind the scenes and doesn't want the party to know how strong they really are, in case it comes down to a conflict (or because they're worried that it'd make the other players get into an arms race). A third example, where the GM is running something for that PC that the other PCs cannot perceive, and does not want the context of the rolls to reveal what's going on (e.g., if the PC is making attack rolls it tells the others that he's in trouble), but where it'd be annoying for the GM to have to make every single roll for them. I mean, its the difference between: GM: What's your attack modifier Player: +11 GM: /gmroll 1d20+11 GM: You hit. and Player: /gmroll 1d20+11 GM: You hit.

Edit: I think I misunderstood this feature request. The idea is specifically for the player to not perceive the result, even though they're rolling? Then I only really have three examples: - Will saves versus illusions and the like - Sense Motive checks - 2ed 'Find Traps' checks and 3ed 'Search' checks Whether the roll is high or low gives the player information about whether they succeeded or failed, where not knowing is important.

The other thing is that knowing your check (e.g. AB, in D&D), your roll, and whether you succeeded or failed can sometimes give away the existence of a secret modifier (e.g. the AC of a disguised monster). Not that I want the feature myself, just pointing out a reason some groups might want it.

To add to Nicholas's examples: Knowledge checks. I've seen many rule books ask that the GM only sees a roll, so that if the player rolls low he doesn't have that meta-game information when the GM tells him what he knows. It doesn't just have to be Knowledge skills, but any sort of knowledge; the gm rolls the perception checks so the players aren't sure if their perceptions are good or not... Basically, a GM only roll would be a way to help remove meta-gaming. Plus it adds to the air of paranoia: you aren't sure how well you roll on that Appraise check, and, as far as you know, this gauntlet of +3 doesn't have any curses on it. But every time your wizard looks at you in that gauntlet, he cringes and turns away shaking his head... Sure, it's a strain on the GM, but it's also a way to play the game. I, personally, would only use this tactic in certain situations, where the element of surprise to the players is key to the story-telling.

Mind you, we can already do this perfectly well by having the GM make the roll. The whole point is that information is not shared.