Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7794814" data-attributes="member: 6880599">That's a very solid point. I think players wanting to call for checks largely comes from GMs who auto fail based on description. Example:Player: My character searches the room.GM: How do you search it?Player: Uh, I don't know, I look behind things open drawers...mover anything reasonable to move around.GM: You find nothing.Player: !?!? <wonders why he got no check>Sometimes a GM auto fails them because they didn't say they check the bottom of draws for the letter stuck to the bottom or that they checked each drawer for false bottom. Alternatively their could be nothing in that room to find the GM just wanted them to be more descriptive. The player doesn't know the difference.No matter which it was the player is left feeling like they as a player was tested and the skills of the character were not accounted for with no idea what they did wrong. If they are allowed to call for a roll and they don't need it the player can use the passive of the ability and still let them succeed on the role. If there is nothing there they find nothing even if they role a natural 20 with expertise and maxed attubute the player will be satisfied there is nothing there. I personally prefer roles to auto fails or success because I have played under GMs who auto failed because how well as a player I described a skill my D&D character has that I don't have in real life. Perception and charisma roles are the worst offenders for this. But I also prefer rolls to auto success because I feel more involved with what I am doing even if the out come of the role is not important. If I want to use a tool proficiency "fishing pole" to catch a fish and the GM says you catch 5 fish and moves on... I feel let down. If I get to roll and get a 1 and catch 5 fish or if I roll a 20 and catch 5 fish and add those to my rations.... I still feel like I am more involved and enjoy the anticipation of the role. As a player ... I still don't know the difference, but sill prefer a roll even knowing counting the roll leans then chance against me, regardless of if the role counts or not.As a GM if a player wants call for a roll, I let them. It might not change the out come, or If they roll well I add some flare / bragging rights to it, while if they roll low I describe how they barely manage to hold on but because they are proficient they save themselves but they it took longer than it should have and they are a little embarrassed. If there would be consequence meaning the DC is higher than their passive proficiency, then the role is "real" and so is the consequences. Just personal preference.</blockquote>

Verification