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: 7583656" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I can only speak for myself here, but in this specific example, I don’t consider it significantly different either. I can tell from context that the player’s goal is to get to the top of the wall and the character’s approach is to climb it. As I said before, the only faux pas here is anticipating an Athletics check when that may not have been called for. Which isn’t a big deal by any means, I would just adjudicate the result and politely add, “next time please just tell me your action and I will tell you if you need to make a check.” That’s why I chose the phrase faux pas - a minor misstep of etiquette.I care because it’s putting the cart before the horse. Instead of telling me what their character does and allowing me to adjudicate the outcome, it’s an announcement of how they think the actuon should be adjudicated that forces me to try to guess what their character might be doing that they want me to adjudicate in that way. It’s a complete reversal of player and DM roles.I don’t really like the terms “Auto success” and “auto failure,” personally. It implies that a check is the default method of task resolution, and that under certain conditions the check can be bypassed. Personally, I don’t view task resolution that way. The default means of task resolution in my games is using a human brain to determine the most logical outcome of the action, and checks are a backup for when the outcome cannot be easily determined.</blockquote>

Verification