Why I Hate Skills

[TwoSix]

Yes, in other games (e.g. Shadowdark) I don't call for checks unless there's a consequence.

But sometimes it's just hard to think of one. Do they notice the footprints? Can they read the inscription?

Also, when the adventure is designed such that these sorts of rolls are meant to be passive, even if I could think of a consequence I'm not sure I would impose one for a roll the player didn't initiate with the knowledge that there would be consequences if they fail.

I mean, I have a lot more sympathy for the argument of “passive noticing skills are bad” than “all skills are bad”.

 

[kigmatzomat]

...which is why I prefer to not require rolls if there are no consequences. Auto-success (and occasionally auto-failure) FTW.

The middle-ground I use for what should be passive rolls in d20 games are to have every player give me 20x d20 rolls as well as all the "passive" skill modifiers. And to avoid NPC die rolls for stealth or whatever alerting players to events (and to avoid anyone being incentivized to fudge dice, which admittedly hasn't happened since college), I also use their d20 rolls for NPCs. (PC rolls are left to right down their "lane", NPCs go top to bottom across lanes and then diagonal to the next vertical)

So any d20 roll could be for a PC or an NPC. And since I have never needed every PC to make 20 passive checks in a session, it carries over 2-4 sessions.

It means I don't pre-roll events, so they are as much a surprise to me as them, and the events just flow as I describe events and what the PCs notice and recall.

For a game like this, though, where die rolls trigger advancement, it means you have to name drop the skills that earn a success and list everyone who met the advancement threshold, which is more work for the DM.