Rolls only the GM can see, until the GM chooses to "reveal"

So in most systems, there are rolls that are made openly in real games, but make no sense for the player to have access to. These include things like Stealth or Sense Motive in Pathfinder. Try as you might to separate character from player, it's almost impossible not to let the roll's numerical value affect your actions in some way. In a VTT, though, these rolls can be hidden - at present, we have /gmroll which shows only the player in question and the GM, or if the GM does it, only the GM. That's great. But you can't "reveal" those rolls to the group at present, and if a player makes the roll he/she still sees it. What I'd like is a new roll, /gmhidden or something like it, that only shows the value to the GM. Additionally, and most importantly, the roll result shown to the GM should include a hotlink that will reveal the result, in the correct spot in the chatlog, to the whole party. Until the reveal, other players see something like "____ has rolled some dice." Edit: Extra points if the new command has an option for the message that is shown to everyone before the reveal (so it could say "____ has rolled a Perception check" or whatever).

You can whisper rolls to yourself as the GM. /w GM just put in an emote to get the result you are looking for: /Em The GM is rolling some dice. You can't "reveal" the result, but honestly I'm not sure why you would ever need to do that.

Tom said: You can't "reveal" the result, but honestly I'm not sure why you would ever need to do that. The reveal is the whole essense of what I'm asking. Here's some examples: Example 1, As is: NPC lies through his teeth to the PC's. Everyone rolls a Sense Motive to try to tell if he's lying. GM describes player's reactions based on the rolls (low rolls buy it, high rolls detect the lie). With the rolls right in front of them, the players will have a really hard time not believing the highest result. End result: one player rolls well, no one role-plays. Example 1, New way: Everyone rolls, but the rolls are hidden. GM tells players what their character senses. Players then have to decide as a group what to believe, with no more data than real people have when they try to see if a saleperson is conning them. Someone thinks he's lying...but is he right or wrong? Role-playing. But after decisions are made, perhaps long after, the GM can reveal the rolls and show them who was right. In some cases, the reveal isn't so important, as other things are likely to have revealed the truth in the meantime. Example 1, summary: It'd be neat if Sense Motive rolls were hidden from each player, and they had to decide as a group whose result to trust. Example 2, As is: Rogue wants to Stealth into a room. Rolls a 2. It is impossible not to have this roll affect your decision on what to do upon entering the room - even if the player says "well, I probably would've tried to go straight for the treasure if I'd rolled well," that's probably not what he would have done if he didn't know the roll's result. Example 2, New way: Rogue rolls stealth, doesn't know he has a 2. Knows, just as his character does, that he's trying as hard as he can to do something really tricky. Makes decisions based on imperfect knowledge, as his character would. After he's caught, the GM can reveal the roll and the player goes "oh, crap, that was a terrible roll" rather than thinking that a) the GM lied about the roll or b) the GM rolled really well on Perception checks. In fact, the GM could roll those Perception checks in the open. Example 2, summary: It'd be neat if Rogues (and their tablemates) couldn't see the result of Stealth checks until after the results are in, but a reveal would help prevent feelings of the GM "cheating". Example 3-19: Forgeries, Disguises, Perception checks, Diplomacy checks where the NPC might decide to "pretend" to accept an argument, Intimidate (same as Diplomacy), Knowledge checks (similar to Sense Motive), Spellcraft (as Sense Motive), and that's just Pathfinder. TL; DR: It's a tool that could change the way games are played. The mechanic - rolls made by the player but then revealed to them after the GM has described the result, so that there is no question of GM dishonesty. It may not be for everyone - sounds like it's not for you. But I'd like it.

Example 1 is probably your best argument. Example 2 seems odd to me. If your rogue gets a 2 on their stealth check, they probably either knocked over a vase, stepped on a creaky floor board, or did something else that they would know is likely to give them away. In example 3 you cite disguises, which are actually called out in pathfinder as something for the gm to roll in secret, but I would always expect people to try to evaluate each others disguises before putting them to the test in a potentially dangerous situation... "tom and jane think your disguise is ok, but bob asks if you have ever even seen the person you are trying to imitate..." is the kind of thing i would expect to happen. A lot of rolls will need to be made in secret by the gm in any game. It really boils down to the fact that If you need to tell your players how a roll went, and they actually think you are cheating, something is wrong with your game, or the group. All that said, i do think it would be interesting to have a way to let the players make the roll but not see the result, if only because it would take a little work off the gm's plate.

Roger A. said: "tom and jane think your disguise is ok, but bob asks if you have ever even seen the person you are trying to imitate..." is the kind of thing i would expect to happen. And I'd be up for that - but if those rolls aren't made in secret...why not just roll the disguise check in the open? Roger A. said: A lot of rolls will need to be made in secret by the gm in any game. It really boils down to the fact that If you need to tell your players how a roll went, and they actually think you are cheating, something is wrong with your game, or the group. All that said, i do think it would be interesting to have a way to let the players make the roll but not see the result, if only because it would take a little work off the gm's plate. I'd agree with the first statement for the most part. But have you never lifted your screen in an in-person game to show a natural 20? Sometimes it's just nice, not necessary but nice, to be able to show people the roll. That's why it's in the suggestion box. In person and online, my group prefers to roll the dice/click a box themselves. I'm down with it because it is less work for me, and I understand wanting to be "in control" of your own character...even if you're just "in control" of a random process. And if you're going to make a shown-only-to-the-GM roll, I'd prefer if the GM could choose to reveal it. That is all.

I second the need for a player-initiated roll that only the GM can see. I came to Roll20 from maptool, and I, as a GM, would often have players make secret rolls. As Roger A. Said, it would take work off the GM's plate- which is very nice. If I'm focusing on telling a story, I don't need to interrupt my flow so that I can find someone's stealth macro or figure out their modifier. It's much easier to simply say, "make a stealth check". Sometimes, as in the case of perception, it's best to be able to make the roll without alerting the players- but other times, a player will say, "I make a sense motive check", and I get derailed from delivering my in-character speech in order to make a roll that the player should be able to make for me. I'm sure you get the idea. I sincerely hope this gets implemented in roll20, as it's pretty much the only thing that I miss about maptool.

Bumping this 'cuz it would be really useful. +1

There have been about 20 API scripts that make GM rolls based on Player input just fyi.