The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[BryonD]

In a game played in this sort of fashion, 3 jump cards might do the job without any need for a mechanic to resolve routine jumps - because these wouldn't be jumps that evoke any "danger or emotional reaction".

Does anyone ever require checks for "routine" jumps which don't present any "danger"?

I think it is more than safe to presume we are talking about events with some degree of dramatic element. Frankly, the text you quoted should simply fall under "minimally adequate DMing 101", and doesn't add to the actual conversation.

Now, how big a jump is required to evoke these feelings? That depends on who is jumping. If it is a normal 10 year old girl, an olympic long jumping gold medalist, or the incredible hulk, the answer will change wildly. A very high quality game can forego absolute numeric systems. And yet just by making the judgment of whether *this* jump is routine or "evokes danger", you have applied a mathematical model to the system. Replacing solid quantitative values (X, Y, Z), with relative qualitative abstracts (girl, long jumper, hulk) does not remove the math model foundation. It just moves its location on the spectrum.

But, more directly in response, saying that cards are ok because you won't use them at the same times any decent DM would not call for a check does not provide a meaningful contribution to understanding if the cards provide value or not.

 

[Diamond Cross]

*sings*

In the morning
In the evening
I shoot my gun

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Identity vanishes.

I'm well aware of the molecular replacement rate.

Still, identity does NOT vanish. As I said, "I" still have the same, immutable past.

I am not trying to generate a syllogism...

Please- lets not kid around: you used the classic syllogistic form of Major premise/Minor premise/conclusion with a patently flawed Major premise and absurd conclusion.

You did it, you KNOW you did it, and I'm through with you on this one.

 

[pawsplay]

Please- lets not kid around: you used the classic syllogistic form of Major premise/Minor premise/conclusion with an absurd conclusion.

Correct. As a demonstration of a fallacy.

You did it, you KNOW you did it, and I'm through with you on this one.

Oh-kay.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Identity vanishes.

Only if you assume that identity follows conservation laws.

All you demonstrate is that identity is not a physical property of an object. Well, that and the limitations of language to express identity.

(Which are ideas I hope most of us are familiar with).


RC

 

[pemerton]

Frankly, the text you quoted should simply fall under "minimally adequate DMing 101", and doesn't add to the actual conversation.

Well, every D&D module I've ever read defines jumping distances in feet and inches, not in terms of difficulty of the scene. So I think a game that was run in the Maelstrom style would be a bit different. (It would be more like 4e scaling skill challenges, actually - with difficulties defined first, and the ingame situation - if needed - retrofitted to it.)

saying that cards are ok because you won't use them at the same times any decent DM would not call for a check does not provide a meaningful contribution to understanding if the cards provide value or not.

Both 3E and 4e require a roll for every jump in combat, however routine it would be out of combat (because of the take 10 rules).

More generally, 3E has no rules (other than take 10 or take 20) for suspending the normal action resolution mechanics.

 

[Hussar]

/me is really, REALLY sorry for bringing up the colors/forests thing. I was trying to make a point, that apparently got completely lost. That a government body can make an aribitrary definition of forest, AND, the fact that that definition changes with every country, pretty much tells me that you cannot actually define a forest. If you could, then every government body everywhere would use the same definition. Arrrrghghghhg!!! I don't want to get into this. /me fails saving throw.

Sigh. *ahem*

Let's move away from jump for a second because that seems to be causing some confusion. Let's use trip instead, because that's actually not a hypothetical.

In 3e, you could attempt to trip someone in combat all the time. Any time you wanted. In 4e, you can't (well, you can, but, it requires you to Page 42 it). So, it seems that 3e is less constrained than 4e right?

But, let's drill down a bit. In 3e, if I attempt to trip, I draw an AOO, which, if it succeeds, blocks my trip attempt. Then, I make a melee touch attack and if that fails, my trip attack fails. Then I make a trip check, and if that fails, not only does my attack fail, but I could be tripped in return.

What this adds up to is a heavy mechanical leaning towards forcing players to take improved trip before even trying to trip anyone. The mechanics allow you to try it without the feat, but, make it such a bad idea, that no one actually does it.

And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself this: How often, as a DM, did you use a trip attack on a PC when the opponent didn't have some sort of tripping power like a wolf? How often did you see a player use the trip mechanics that didn't have Improved Trip?

4e takes a very different approach. It says that you can try to trip all day long, but, you will only succeed a limited number of times. That limit is defined by your character powers. If you don't have a power that knocks people prone, then you are the same as the 3e character without Improved Trip - just more explicit. If you do have a trip power, then you will succeed in that attempt presuming that you hit. But, you won't be able to do it every single round, over and over again, because, well, that's kinda lame and doesn't fit with the genre.

Both games have very hard and fast mechanical limitations on trip. The only real difference in my mind is that 3e puts them at the front and 4e puts them in during play.

 

[Lanefan]

In 3e, you could attempt to trip someone in combat all the time. Any time you wanted. In 4e, you can't (well, you can, but, it requires you to Page 42 it). So, it seems that 3e is less constrained than 4e right?

But, let's drill down a bit. In 3e, if I attempt to trip, I draw an AOO, which, if it succeeds, blocks my trip attempt. Then, I make a melee touch attack and if that fails, my trip attack fails. Then I make a trip check, and if that fails, not only does my attack fail, but I could be tripped in return.

Bleah.

What this adds up to is a heavy mechanical leaning towards ...

... not bothering with trip mechanics at all. 4e's approach as explained by Hussar is better, but still far too mechanical. Why not just let the DM wing it on those infrequent occasions someone actually tries to trip someone (as opposed to just knock 'em flat) during combat?

Lan-"trippy, man"-efan

 

[Lalato]

Bleah.
... not bothering with trip mechanics at all. 4e's approach as explained by Hussar is better, but still far too mechanical. Why not just let the DM wing it on those infrequent occasions someone actually tries to trip someone (as opposed to just knock 'em flat) during combat?

Lan-"trippy, man"-efan

That's certainly an option. There were no trip rules in early versions of D&D. I remember the DM just having us roll for some target number to see if we succeeded on some crazy action we wanted to perform. I think what later versions (3.x/4e) are doing is just quantifying what that target might be so that the player knows the chance of success beforehand.

I don't have a problem with either way of resolving a trip. And I don't think either way is all that different in the long run. Either the DM or the rules set a target for success. The player rolls. Hilarity ensues.

 

[Fifth Element]

Why not just let the DM wing it on those infrequent occasions someone actually tries to trip someone (as opposed to just knock 'em flat) during combat?

Because many people don't like playing "DM May I?" (not intended in a pejorative way, just enjoying a bit more certainty than the DM's whim). Many DMs also enjoy having that certainty so they can spend less energy on adjudicating such things and more on things they find more important.

Completely a matter of taste, and any time you produce an RPG you have to decide which type of taste the "default" will be assumed to be for your game.