Missing Rules

[ad_hoc]

I feel like that might have a negative effect on player agency. That is, there is a mechanic that seems to be in the purview of the player -- a rule regarding Strength (Athletics), for example -- but the player has to play "mother may I?" with the DM in order to act. I'm not sure that produces a positive play space.

The player acts. The character jumps. The DM adjudicates. The player isn't asking if they can perform an action, they do the thing. It's just the DM chooses how it is adjudicated.

That adjudication may very well be: "Okay, you've leapt over the chasm, what do you do now?"

The idea of activating your athletics button is very 3e.

If you are talking to an NPC you don't say: "I use persuasion on him"
When you are trying to be sneaky you don't say: "I roll stealth, 18"
When you are investigating a room you don't say: "I use investigation on the room"

Instead it should go something like this:

"I tell him that we are not working for the magistrate, indeed we know why you have quarrel with him as we have uncovered his secret dungeon!" DM: "He is grateful for the news and implores you to continue"
"I sneak around to the other side of the camp" DM: (sees there is no one nearby) "Okay you spend some time moving over there"
"I find it strange for the paintings to be in such good shape, I remove them to look behind" DM: "Upon removing a painting you find a locked door behind it"

In none of those cases do I see a lack of player agency. What they say could also earn them an automatic failure which is also fine. Failing at something because of a choice is not a lack of agency. It is also possible that the outcome is in doubt and then the DM needs to decide how to resolve it based on the circumstances that only they know about.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Are you suggesting that you make Athletics checks to jump in secret?


Granted, and I use them outside of continuous activities and secret checks too, but you seemed to be suggesting that using passive checks for jumping was an obvious thing the rest of us were missing, rather than a personal call you make at your table.

No, it was a reminder in general for the missing rules and DC comments, rather than specifically the jumping discussion.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

The player acts. The character jumps. The DM adjudicates. The player isn't asking if they can perform an action, they do the thing. It's just the DM chooses how it is adjudicated.

That adjudication may very well be: "Okay, you've leapt over the chasm, what do you do now?"

The idea of activating your athletics button is very 3e.

If you are talking to an NPC you don't say: "I use persuasion on him"
When you are trying to be sneaky you don't say: "I roll stealth, 18"
When you are investigating a room you don't say: "I use investigation on the room"

Why? Don't force your way of playing on people who do not want to or are not able to think about playing it your way.

I have had just as much fun gaming with people who never talk in-character as I have with people who go all acting school with their characters.

 

[ad_hoc]

Why? Don't force your way of playing on people who do not want to or are not able to think about playing it your way.

I have had just as much fun gaming with people who never talk in-character as I have with people who go all acting school with their characters.

I'm describing the rules of the game.

People are free to play it however they want.

That said, I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say anything regarding talking in character.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I'm describing the rules of the game.

People are free to play it however they want.

That said, I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say anything regarding talking in character.

Really? That whole part after you said "Instead it should go something like this" really sounds like in-character talk to me.

 

[ad_hoc]

Really? That whole part after you said "Instead it should go something like this" really sounds like in-character talk to me.

The part that you didn't quote? Did you read my post? Whether or not in-character talk was used in an example, it wasn't the point and I used a variety of examples to get that across. Should I have used 10 examples? Besides, people talking in character is a valid example that is within the rules of the game.

The point was to describe what the character is doing rather than say "I use X skill on Y." Most of the time at our table we don't talk in character either. Instead we describe how the character talks and what they talk about.

We don't say "I use Persuasion." Obviously, the police won't come to your house if you do play that way. It's just not the way the game is designed.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

The part that you didn't quote? Did you read my post? Whether or not in-character talk was used in an example, it wasn't the point and I used a variety of examples to get that across. Should I have used 10 examples? Besides, people talking in character is a valid example that is within the rules of the game.

The point was to describe what the character is doing rather than say "I use X skill on Y." Most of the time at our table we don't talk in character either. Instead we describe how the character talks and what they talk about.

We don't say "I use Persuasion." Obviously, the police won't come to your house if you do play that way. It's just not the way the game is designed.

The game is designed to play it in whatever way your group has fun doing it. "We don't say" Whatever. Why don't you stop looking down on people who do not do it your way.

 

[ad_hoc]

The game is designed to play it in whatever way your group has fun doing it. "We don't say" Whatever. Why don't you stop looking down on people who do not do it your way.

You can play Candyland and say you're playing 5e but that doesn't make it 5e. And if you come on here and say that Candyland is broken expect people to tell you that it isn't how the game is written. You don't get to then say that you're being judged for playing Candyland.

 

[smbakeresq]

Well...this may seem inconsequential but I think it is very important.

Players don't declare that they are using skills.

Players say what their character is doing and if the DM judges that the outcome of what they are doing is both in doubt and interesting/has consequences then they call for an ability check and may call for a skill to go along with that.

So in this case the player would say "I jump across the chasm" then the DM adjudicates from there.

Now this clearly SHOULD be true but at table it really isn’t, players often insert a question on what would happen if the PC did this i.e. “what is the DC if I try this.”

Now I am of the thought the jump rules and others are in the Players Handbook so they are PC knowledge therefore that’s ok - a player would know they can make it or know if it’s impossible so should be told in advance.

Remember Gimli asked to Aragon to throw him because he knew he could not make the jump.

That’s why I want PC to know in this case and many others the DC ahead of time so they can plan accordingly and then he DM can add or subtract from that.


My general idea is skills are on your sheet for a reason and rolling dice is fun so let them fly.

 

[AlViking]

The thing to remember is that there can be no Strength (Athletics) check without the character attempting an action that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. The existence of a rule that includes an ability check and DC is implying an approach to a goal that precedes it which has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure.

So, when we look at a character jumping a distance that is appropriate for his or her Strength and speed, the outcome is not uncertain. He or she just succeeds, if there's nothing stopping him or her. No roll. That action to jump has a goal (clear a certain distance) and an approach (jumping). To jump further than that, it stands to reason that some other approach is needed, one that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful chance of failure. (Hence, the mention of "in some circumstances" in the Jump rules). Otherwise, the standard goal and approach is adjudicated as normal.

I guess I just don't understand your previous posts where you are saying something to the effect that you can only jump as far as your strength allows. Did I not understand what you were saying? I agree that if I have a 15 strength, I can just jump 15 feet with no check. The way I run it, someone trying to exceed the normally allowed 15 feet could make a check. Based on how much they exceed my target depends on how successful they are.

I don't want to argue about it, that's just my interpretation of "an unusually long distance". The 15 foot would not be unusually long, a 20 foot jump would be for a character with a 15 strength. When they make the jump they may land on the other side, they may grab on to the ledge and be holding on by their fingertips, or fall to their doom. A lot of things may affect that including environment, relative height of ledges, are they holding a weapon or a shield and so on.