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: 7795514" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I wouldn’t call for a roll if there wasn’t anyone to alert. I’d just narrate success.Right, but failing your check had a consequence - specifically, being spotted. That’s consequence enough.Then I think you might be arguing against boogeymen. Cause I’m pretty sure no one here is making that argument.Right, but that’s only a meaningful cost if time is a limited resource. If you’re in combat, or if the time it takes you to attempt to goad the horse into jumping over the pit brings you a step closer to a check for random encounters, then yeah, that’s consequence enough that a roll would be needed to resolve it. But if what happens on a failure is nothing except that you get a little flavor text about your failure to convince the horse to jump and then you try again, repeat until you succeed, I would much rather save everyone the time and skip to narrating the eventual success.When my players announce an action and I determine that it does require a check to resolve, I tell the players the DC and what will happen as a result of failure. If what will happen as a result of failure is “nothing,” I don’t make up some consequence out of my ass to satisfy the requirement that a check must have a consequence. I just narrate success. That’s why I object to my style being presented as “punishing the player for rolling.”Most of these examples are off the top of people’s heads, in response to repeated insistence that we “just give me a straight answer!” so I’m not surprised that they are a little under-cooked.</blockquote>

Verification