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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7015437" data-attributes="member: 16814">I disagree strongly that players engage in stealth only when they KNOW an observer is present.  They engage in stealth when they THINK an observer MAY be present.  If you do not ask for a check, because, as you note, you know if the action is uncertain or not, then your players can assume that one of two situations occurred because of their sneaking:  no one is present to see them or it doesn't matter how well they roll, they are detected.  You've narrowed the results down to a binary situation, that the player is now choosing further actions toward.I rather think that the way you run is has slightly more going on, as in, the player declares sneaking, you determine the uncertainty and ask for a roll or not, but, either way, you narrate the results conclusively.  As in, "I sneak", you don't ask for a roll, the result is 'You creep across the room and do whatever it is you want to, no one attacks and you see no one," or "you creep across the room, but an Orc sees you and cries out! Roll initiative!"  And, at that point, I'm perfectly fine with the way you run it.  But not everyone does it this way, they include intermediate steps.  I've mostly stopped the intermediate things, preferring to get to a meaningful action with consequences, but I have previously run in other circumstances, where a declaration of sneaking can be done and resolved without immediate consequence.  If your style of running is to not have stakes on a roll, as in sneaking and succeeding doesn't result in a completed action, just an intermediate point, then asking for random rolls is useful as it encourages more player involvement in the scene.</blockquote>

Verification