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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7798394" data-attributes="member: 6779196">That would be a correct assumption.Wasn't me, although I do think it's better to assume good faith from one's fellow gamers whenever possible.I see what you mean. So, my comment about a player asking to try again was more referring to games in which players can ask for checks whenever they like. In such a game, if the player got a low result on a stealth check and asked to make another and the DM said no... I would find that pretty dissatisfying as a player. But "goal and approach" sidesteps this particular problem, which is one of the reasons I like that style. It sounds like at your table, like at mine, the players are not asking for checks, but rather are describing actions, and you as DM are calling for checks when you deem them necessary to resolve the actions the players describe. So, yeah, this would prevent the player from seeing the low result of a stealth check and saying "I roll again."Assuming we are using goal and approach framework, and the question is just one of when to call for a Stealth check, there's the potential for the player to gain access to out of character information either way. If you call for the check "in advance," the player might see that they've rolled low, realize that they are unlikely to go unnoticed if there is something that might detect them, and decide to change tactics. If instead you call for the check only when it is relevant, this is no longer a problem. It does, theoretically, introduce a new problem where, if you later call for a stealth check, the player will know that there's something nearby that might spot them.So, if you are concerned with "metagame thinking," either approach presents a problem, and it's a question of which you find more problematic. I would argue that the latter is less of a problem because the result of metagame thinking in that scenario is that the character either starts looking for creatures that might be looking for them, or shores up their efforts at hiding. Both things I don't think it is unreasonable for the character to do, whether they are aware of the presence of other creatures or not. The result of metagame thinking in the former scenario is that the character starts trying to hide, and then changes their mind for no clear in-fiction reason.</blockquote>

Verification