NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7292215" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I don’t. A natural 20 is only an automatic success on an Attack roll. However, a natural 20 is the highest possible roll. If the DC of a task is high enough that you fail even with the maximum possible result rolled on the die, then the task doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success. I only call for dice to be rolled to resolve actions with uncertain outcomes, and in this case, the outcome is certain - the task is too difficult given your level of skill, you fail.You say that like rolling dice is a desirable goal in and of itself.It doesn’t take any greater expenditure of effort to “allow” a player to roll dice just because he feels like rolling dice either. That’s not the reason I reserve ability checks for situations where the outcome of the action is uncertain. I do it because different resolution systems create different incentives. If you can just roll checks any time you want for any reason, the incentive is to treat the skill list as an action menu. Just press the “check for secret doors” button, maybe describe what that looks like, and see what happens. When the check is reserved for situations where the results can’t be determined without them, the incentive is to engage with the world through thorough description of your character’s actions.This statement makes me think we have very different ideas of what “playing the game” means. Is describing your action in terms of goal and approach and getting a result consistent with the way you would expect the world to respond to such activity not “playing the game” if there isn’t a die rolled somewhere in the process?And yet, it’s those of us who prefer the DM to call for checks who are being accused of being motivated by lack of trust.</blockquote>

Verification