Missing Rules

[Reynard]

Um, no. in [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s game the player of Bob looks for a boulder strewn along the edge of the chasm and let's Iserith know that he's using the boulder to jump off of to gain some extra distance. Now Iserith makes a decision about the success probability, and if the outcome is in doubt he assigns a DC. Or perhaps he has some other idea he describes. Iserith has said this to you multiple times, so why the misportrayal of his position?

But Bob's player did describe what he was doing. He said he was taking a deep breath and giving it all Bob's got so he could make the jump. I am not sure why that isn't enough, why Bob's player is forced to guess which precise class of actions are considered acceptable when the rules clearly state this is an intended use of an Athletics check. Simply repeating the assertion that the rules demand some particular granularity of description does not make it true.

Look at it this way: Bob's player really wants to make this jump so as not to let poor Bob get eaten by a ravening hoard of zombies. She says, "Can I use my Athletics skill proficiency to try and make the jump." In this case, the DM says, "Yes." (because the DM saying yes is almost always better than saying no). If the play fails the roll, the DM says, "Bob steels himself, takes a breath and runs for it. When his fingertips scrape on the opposite ledge before Bob plummets into unending darkness..." Alternatively if Bob succeeds on the roll, the DM says, "As Bob goes to make the jump, he finds a boulder jutting out from this edge of the chasm and using it as a launching point Bob is able to get a couple extra feet and land safely on the other side."

What's the difference? The DM said "Yes" to begin with and let the player use the things on the PC's character sheet to engage the game. Some players will automatically do what you are talking about, coming up with ideas and details all the time. Many will not, however. There is nothing wrong with engaging the game by way of the mechanics, and the DM should recognize and facilitate that player's fun just as much as the DM does with the one writing an epic by way of the table.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you are ascribing meaning to the word "describe" in this context. Moreover, you aren't quoting a rule, you are quoting an explanation of how the game works. Further, the following paragraph after "The Player describes what his character is doing," says absolutely nothing about how descriptive a player must be or whether the DM has to consider any factors at all beyond her own judgement. In other words you are telling other people they are running their games wrong based on a pretty narrow interpretation of the text in the book.

Seriously? Something telling you how the game works isn't a rule? There are rules that don't deal with mechanics and these are some of them. They tell you how the game is played.

 

[iserith]

I don't know, I think it's pretty cut and dried. My benchmark is, "can the character just keep trying this until they succeed?" If the answer is yes, then there's no meaningful consequence, and I just narrate their eventual success. If the answer is no, then whatever is preventing them from doing so is the consequence.

Sure. I just know that what is considered to be a meaningful consequence of failure is very much up to specific context (even for the same task) and personal preference, so much so that it's not worth debating. But it is an important step in the adjudication process, however it may be interpreted.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say any more.

I'm saying you can't just make a check because you feel like it. You have to describe an action in terms of what your character is doing in the fiction, and if the outcome of that action is uncertain, the DM will ask for a check to resolve that uncertainty.

All I can say is that if someone has their PC jump further than they normally can, I'll decide on a DC and have them roll a check.

Whereas at my table, if a player says "I want to try to jump further than I normally can," I will ask them "How?" If they can tell me what they are doing that might allow them to jump further than they normally can, I too will decide on a DC and have them roll a check.

Trying to jump farther is a goal, but I can't assess the difficulty of achieving that goal without some idea of the character's method.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure. I just know that what is considered to be a meaningful consequence of failure is very much up to specific context (even for the same task) and personal preference, so much so that it's not worth debating. But it is an important step in the adjudication process, however it may be interpreted.

I don't really see personal preference playing a role. I feel like the presence or absence of consequences is a pretty objective thing. But, you're right that it's probably not worth debating.

 

[Maxperson]

Not in yours. You've stated many times that the situation doesn't need to change for the failure to have meaning, but you have yet to demonstrate how that is possible.

Except that I have, multiple times. Take of the blinders at take a look.

If the failure doesn't add meaning, then any meaning in the scenario didn't come from the failure. Ergo, the failure was not meaningful.

This is simply untrue. Failure can and does often have the same meaning as the position that you were in before making the attempt. There is no requirement for added meaning. Only that there be meaning.


What I said in response to you: It won't always be meaningful, but simple failure can be meaningful.

But hey, what does the truth matter, right?

 

[iserith]

I don't really see personal preference playing a role. I feel like the presence or absence of consequences is a pretty objective thing. But, you're right that it's probably not worth debating.

Yeah. Folks will DIG to come up with a reason to say a consequence of failure is meaningful even though you and I might think it's a complete waste of time. The common example is trying to unlock a door and require a check even though there is no outside pressure (monsters, time, or otherwise). You or I would probably think no check is necessary - the PC just succeeds if he or she has the proficiency and tools, eventually. Others would want the check because reasons.

 

[Maxperson]

But Bob's player did describe what he was doing. He said he was taking a deep breath and giving it all Bob's got so he could make the jump.

As a description, all that gives me is that Bob is taking a deep breath and giving me a goal. It describes nothing about how the jump is being done that is anything other than a normal jump. Unless of course Bob somehow thinks that taking a deep breath will add distance. It won't.

I am not sure why that isn't enough, why Bob's player is forced to guess which precise class of actions are considered acceptable when the rules clearly state this is an intended use of an Athletics check. Simply repeating the assertion that the rules demand some particular granularity of description does not make it true.

It's not enough because it tells me nothing about how Bob is going to get those extra feet. Anyone can "give it all he's got" with every single jump, so there's nothing there that would be unusual in a jump.

Look at it this way: Bob's player really wants to make this jump so as not to let poor Bob get eaten by a ravening hoard of zombies. She says, "Can I use my Athletics skill proficiency to try and make the jump." In this case, the DM says, "Yes." (because the DM saying yes is almost always better than saying no). If the play fails the roll, the DM says, "Bob steels himself, takes a breath and runs for it. When his fingertips scrape on the opposite ledge before Bob plummets into unending darkness..." Alternatively if Bob succeeds on the roll, the DM says, "As Bob goes to make the jump, he finds a boulder jutting out from this edge of the chasm and using it as a launching point Bob is able to get a couple extra feet and land safely on the other side."

There are almost always reasons why a PC's player is trying to make every jump. Jumps rarely happen for fun and without some consequence for failure. Players are going to have their PCs try for extra distance every single time. There will be nothing unusual about going for extra distance.

In my case, I would not say yes, as there is nothing to say yes to. Like @iserith, I would ask HOW the PC is going to gain that extra distance, and taking a deep breath isn't going to cut it.

Some players will automatically do what you are talking about, coming up with ideas and details all the time. Many will not,

That's why I prompt it with a question about how they are going to do it.

 

[Reynard]

.In my case, I would not say yes, as there is nothing to say yes to. Like [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], I would ask HOW the PC is going to gain that extra distance, and taking a deep breath isn't going to cut it.



That's why I prompt it with a question about how they are going to do it.

You're still playing mother-may-I when you already know the player's intent is to make the jump across the chasm. If for whatever reason the player isn't capable of giving you a satisfactory answer, you punish them by denying them access to one of their character's abilities. It is tantamount to not letting the wizard use his Magic Missile spell because the player couldn't adequately describe the somatic components. One has nothing to do with the other.

Is it neat when you have players at the table who are skilled with verbal description and narrative flourishes? Sure, I guess. But it isn't a requirement for playing D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

You're still playing mother-may-I when you already know the player's intent is to make the jump across the chasm. If for whatever reason the player isn't capable of giving you a satisfactory answer, you punish them by denying them access to one of their character's abilities. It is tantamount to not letting the wizard use his Magic Missile spell because the player couldn't adequately describe the somatic components. One has nothing to do with the other.

Is it neat when you have players at the table who are skilled with verbal description and narrative flourishes? Sure, I guess. But it isn't a requirement for playing D&D.

You're pretty free with the insults, aren't you? First false accusations of one-true-wayism, and now false accusations of mother-may-I and punishments. It's not mother may I to ask how someone's PC is going to do something when the player doesn't present anything for the DM to work with, and it's not a punishment to rule an attempt at something an auto failure if it should fail.

How about you stop with the unnecessary insults and just respond to the discussion?