Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7734000" data-attributes="member: 5142">I know that some of this is addressed towards [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], but as there is a similar discussion transpiring, I hope you don't mind me including some of your reply to them in my response to you. Let us take the given example here regarding PCs sneaking down the hall. In your example, the PCs "in character" have no knowledge of what dangers are in store down the passage in a hostile castle. (A scenario that seems to presume that they are not looking out for danger while traversing the passage.) If I am understanding your position correctly, either the player says they want to roll for Stealth (when there is nothing) and you let them do so or you call for them to make a Stealth roll despite knowing there is nothing. If there are no actual dangers or stakes, then the player is essentially, as you say, going through the motions of rolling. This strikes me as handwaving success and adjudicating wind. This sort of action also comes across, to me at least, as the equivalent of tensionless subpar cinematic filler that just provides padding for stories. It makes the tone of the roll preemptive rather than active. And I also think that it is precisely these sort of "fake rolls" that train PCs to "roll if you like Jesus." That is to say, they are being subconsciously trained to constantly roll for every thing, which is definitely a problem that I have experienced when it comes to some checks in D&D, such as Perception and Stealth. It's almost Pavlovian. There may be nothing, but the players salivate to roll for the vain hope of something. IME, that sort of conditioning does foster rollplaying more than resolution mechanics in social situations. In contrast, I would prefer that players know (or at least have foreshadowed) what's at stake when they roll. It's about rolling when necessary, and it places dramatic tension on the die roll. They are not making a Stealth check just to go down a passage in a hostile castle. As they are competent adventurers, I assume that they aren't being blasé about it and reserve die rolls for interesting Stealth actions with actual consequences for failure. They are making a Stealth check once there is something particular at stake. They are making a Stealth check to sneak past the guards on the ramparts. They are making a Stealth check to slip past the sleeping ogres. It's about tying the roll to a particular action rather than a general one. It's the dramatic difference between, (1) "I roll to Stealth down the hall" and (2) "I roll Stealth to sneak past the two guards who are between me and my exit." There is a greater narrative sense of the challenge and stakes with the latter than the former. From the perspective of player-outcome satisfaction, the player gains a greater sense of accomplishment from something when the stakes are known. These particular moments of success or failure are also more memorable for the player than "I sneak down the hall." I don't think that it shortchanges anything when GMing to refrain from asking players for a Stealth check or refrain from acquiesing to a Stealth check from the player when there is nothing at stake. Spending time rolling dice on a fake sense of doing something for nothing is time wasted at the table. There is no tension created in an artificial roll that provides no actual player payoff for "success."</blockquote>

Verification