Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7802980" data-attributes="member: 6779196">This is the kind of logic that leads to DMs asking for the players to pre-roll a certain number of d20s and record the results to be used during the session. I mostly see this done with Initiative, but I have read online of people doing it for all checks. I’m not a fan. Rolling dice has its own dramatic tension  curve, and I want that happening when there’s actual dramatic tension in the narrative, not before.This is a good point, and one of the reasons I prefer to call for checks when there will be immediate consequences rather than before. Rolling Stealth when you first decide to sneak down the hall or whatever opens the possibility of the player knowing they got a bad result and either asking to try again or changing tactics. And if they’re not allowed to do either of those things, it can lead to resentment.They only know their action didn’t need a roll to be resolved. That could mean there was no attempt at deception, but it could also mean that their action didn’t have a reasonable chance of detecting it.I agree with the core of what you’re saying here, that a DM’s adjudication style has an impact on the player experience, and the player experience should be taken into consideration when deciding how to adjudicate actions. But I disagree with your conclusions about what player experience G&A with the Middle Path produces.</blockquote>