Why I Hate Skills

[Bill Zebub]

The problem with that of course is that it really stretches setting logic to have a significant consequence every time someone attempts an action and fails.

I think I missed this comment earlier.

It's not that negative consequences have to be defined every time an action is declared. The idea is that if there aren't negative consequences that would naturally follow, don't bother rolling dice.

 

[VHawkwinter]

I think I missed this comment earlier.

It's not that negative consequences have to be defined every time an action is declared. The idea is that if there aren't negative consequences that would naturally follow, don't bother rolling dice.

I've heard this comment a lot. What's the method people who follow this philosophy use to determine how long something takes, if you're not rolling if there's no immediate badstuff? Do you just never roll to determine how long it takes? Do you have an "extra time" rule you add on to convert extra time into bonuses? A simple take20 rule where if there's no immediate consequences for failure you spend 20x the time and get the results of a rolled 20? Something else?

 

[Fenris-77]

Sometimes, the consequence for failure is just time wasted. Which is less important outside combat, but IMO sometimes you're not rolling to see if you can do it ever, but rather are trying to determine how long it takes you

In terms of old school play time wasted is a valuable and measurable resource. Far less so in newer versions of D&D or Pathfinder.