Just DM'ed for a new group. I think the players must have only had shit or mediocre GMs in the past, because they were all talking about how great the session was, even though I honestly didn't think it was a particularly good session. As far as 1st sessions with strangers go though, it was pretty good.
Only point of conflict in the session was this, and I want /5eg/ to tell me what they think:
When I DM, and a player makes an ability check wherein the outcome is not immediately obvious, I roll for them behind my screen, using their relevant modifiers of course. Something like athletics or acrobatics, they roll because it's them actively doing something that has a clear effect. For something like Insight, I roll.
I do so for a number of reasons, chiefly because i don't like the involuntary meta.
For example, say Dietrich rolls for insight to tell whether the Bandit is telling the truth about the next room being trapped. He rolls, and gets a 2.
If I say, "You can't make anything out by the Bandit's mannerisms", then the roll was pointless and just a waste of our time. He didn't learn anything, and knows that he didn't learn anything because he rolled a 2.
If I say, after Dietrich's 2, that the bandit is totally telling the truth, everyone immediately knows that the bandit's a lying sack of shit.
So instead, I roll for Dietrich. Nobody knows what I rolled. I then tell Dietrich whatever the roll would have gotten him. Because nobody knows what was rolled, they have to take the information I give them at face value, without any meta knowledge.
Dietrich's character doesn't know he rolled a 2. He's just trying to figure the Bandit out, then comes to whatever conclusion the roll gets him.
I do the same for something like Stealth, because too many times I've had "Alright, I'll sneak in there. (Rolls something low). Ahh, nevermind.", happen. Sure, I could force the player to commit, but then he's not happy and there's no drama; he'll be detected.
Is this autistic?