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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8718859" data-attributes="member: 4937">I don't think you described any differences in our thought processes.At my table, tying your shoes would just be an action declaration.At my table, as I said, it is an action declaration that rarely or if ever has meaningful stakes, and therefore I would only require the check on the rare occasions that it did have meaningful stakes (time pressure, risk of danger if your shoes are untied, etc.).  If I did call for a check, the DC would be in D&D terms 0.  Only players with penalties on the underlying attribute would risk failure, and even then only a small percentage of the time.Finally, players at my table do not ask for skill checks normally.  They do things and then if a skill check is necessary in my opinion to succeed at it, I ask for a skill check.  So players that said things like, "I use my use rope skill to tie my shoes" or "I use my climb skill to climb the wall" would be told that at best that is redundant and at worst they are offering adjudication in the form of a proposition which is hostile/dysfunctional play IMO.   About the only time a player should ever at my table request a skill is in the form of, "Can I use Y skill instead?", when we are dealing with some rules edge case where it is not clear what skill should actually apply.  Sometimes there is more than one way of doing things, and I'm open to that.That all said, years ago when my kids were young I ran SIPS campaigns, and in SIPS, "You need to make a Hands check to tie your shoes correctly." is totally a thing, where a roll of 1 could lead to a Consequence and a challenging scene.</blockquote>

Verification