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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7293728" data-attributes="member: 16814">My experience is exactly opposite:  allowing player declared rolls meant that there was a reward mechanism for interrupting with a roll to gain more knowledge or effect a solution to a problem more quickly.  Not allowing them has meant, for me, fewer interruption when I'm setting the scene or describing a new development -- my players have learned that more information is being provided if they listen, and even more on a clearly stated approach.Further, and this is a point, if my players have to declare an approach and goal instead of just a die roll, there's less interpretation on my part as DM.  For example, let's say there's an altar to an evil god that will explode with necrotic energy if touched by a non-worshiper.  There's a big point of different to a player declaring they're closely inspecting the alter, but not touching it, to see if there's anything special about it vs a "21 Investigate!"  The former nets information without danger, the latter is up to me as DM if I think a "21 Investigate!" means you touched the altar or not.  And, if there's a secret compartment that can be found via physical interaction but not via looking, the "21 Investigate!" player might be upset if I decide they don't touch the altar but also don't find the secret compartment, provided, of course, it's found through other actions later.Telling me die rolls means I, as DM, have to determine the details of your approach.  Having the player state and approach and goal and then the DM asking for a roll if the outcome is uncertain and fraught means there's never any 'but my character wouldn't have touched the alter when he investigated it' going on.ETA: and @iserth said this earlier and more succinctly, and I missed it.</blockquote>

Verification