Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7583239" data-attributes="member: 6919838">"As a player, how would you feel about this practice? What would be your concerns if it were implemented at your table?"I would simply tell the GM "just choose the outcome you want, saves time and hassle." if this were suggested. It seems very much designed to move more power to the GM blind-to-player-side and so let's stop pretending and just hand it over, accepting that on occasion the GM will let us make rolls that matter but the rest of the time it's the GM choosing. "As a DM, what do you think of the idea?"As a GM, not bringing value to my table. I see zero value in telling a player their experienced thief has no idea if they are being quiet or noisy or an investigator  if they got a clear and thorough read of a scene or an experienced tracker if they are confident that a gang of orcs trekked thru here or not or an experienced guide if they are aware that they are definitely in track or if its iffy, signs unclear, landmarks vague.In my games, I have the d20 roll itself reflected and described narratively in terms of the bits and fluff of a scene that tells you how well it seems to go. We have seen it done for ages right? Player rolls a two the attack may be described as wildly off, or slip on floor or something else which shows how it wasnt close. But a roll that misses by one we describe as glancing off Shield, clipping some fur.I do the same for every roll for ability checks too.A high roll gives you a narrative that sets up a hood effort and good circumstances. A low roll gets a description that shows poor circumstances unclear signs, inconclusive tests. So you roll low on your stealth check, you hear a twig snap as you move in, or you realize the ground clutter or loose creaking floorboards are not very promising. That moment of realization of course does not have to wait for a guard to be right there before it occurs. It's likely over much of the house or the dry ground clutter is fairly widespread - unless they swept it all up and stacked it in piles around the guards - lol.So, having that poor result happen during the times even whrn guards are not there to hear provides info, intel description that the character can use. Sure they can decide to press on, maybe thinking their roll of 5 plus their skill is enough. Maybe they decide instead to setup a series of fake creaks to draw the guard away from his position at a key moment. Maybe they just use fake after fake yo get the guard bored so much he starts ignoring them. Maybe they decide to switch to magic to get around the circumstance. In other words - maybe they make informed decisions based on experience and early results rather than blind guesses only made at the risk/crisis momdens.. Simply put - I find the more info the *characters have by dint of their aptitudes* the more engaged and considered and interactive and active the players become in the scenes and challenges. The more I drive mechanics to blind uninformed mystery resolutions, the less they are because I have mechanically cast  them in the passive participant in the scene.All that said, knowing I rolled a 3 or 1 rolled a 17 or 1 rolled a 12 does not tell them the result... there is the matter of the DC plus all the non-DC issues. Maybe the guard has a passive 15, maybe a 7. Maybe there is an invisible imp familiar sitting guard duty with clear view - no stealth check matters. Maybe there is a spell or alarm. Maybe the orc shaman used Pass Without Trace. Maybe Hallucinatory Terrain is creating false landmarks across the valley. I get a lot more dramatic fkavor and engagement since I removed any GM rolls and allow (require) the players to make every die roll and I describe the d20 roll narratively  (and allow it to be used in decision making as a degree of confidence if they wish.)But that's me and my group. Likely not gonna be everyone's cup of grog.</blockquote>

Verification