Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8146804" data-attributes="member: 29398">Or didn't realize a check was important and said "yes"; the opposite of calling for a check where none is needed, and a simple enough mistake to make.But here, yes, I am assuming a situation where the GM realizes a check is likely appropriate but intentionally doesn't give one due to the very real possibility of said check producing a result she (and-or the player) doesn't want.  To me this is pretty much the same as fudging a die roll, only instead of fudging a bad result into good after the roll you're preventing the bad result from ever arising by not rolling in the first place.I can see the desire to establish finality but as a player, why risk it if you don't have to?  From all appearances you've got the finality anyway without having to chance the roll, so just be quiet and run with it! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Which brings up another point, I suppose: if the GM says yes (or no) without a check, to me that produces the exact same degree of finality as had dice in fact been rolled.  In your example you say - without a check - that the lie is believed, which in my eyes means I-as-player can proceed just as if I'd rolled a successful check and with the same expectation of finality.Where we differ, I think - correct me if I'm wrong, is that you view a die roll as locking things in while simply saying yes maybe doesn't; where I see the degree of locked-in-ness as being the same either way; and the discussion then becomes one of just what that degree is both at the time and later.</blockquote>

Verification