Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8338871" data-attributes="member: 16814">I don't think there's anywhere near the data necessary to state this.  It's certainly fallen out of favor for me, but that's the best I can say.  One of my group is currently running 5e as I take a break due to a break, and they prefer rolling some things "behind the screen" (we play online).  So, even in my own group, I couldn't claim this as true, just for myself.I do neither -- I don't ask for a roll if there's no consequence for failure.  To me, this wastes time either trying to confirm the roll or in pointless theatrics assuming I, the GM, am trying to pull something.  On the other side, if a roll is made and failed, there's always a consequence -- I don't ever just say "there doesn't seem to be a trap."  If you search for a trap and fail, then I might deploy any number of options:  the trap goes off (rare); the trap is triggered, but hasn't gone off, so you're in danger and what do you do; you find the trap, but it's worse -- it can't be disarmed from the outside or it's effects are magnified, etc; you spend time searching, and I'm going to make an encounter check now (depends on the game structure, I vary this).Point is, a failure changes the fiction in a concrete way -- something gets worse.  I don't bother with "you don't know."Depending on how you look at it, everything is finding reality (in the fiction).</blockquote>