Missing Rules

[iserith]

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.

I thought we were done discussing, but since you brought me up, let's do this.

As an expert of what happens at my own table, I can remark on a few things going on here that wouldn't fly:

1. The player asked a question instead of declaring a goal and approach.
2. The player asked to make an ability check.
3. The DM described what the character was doing, which is the player's role.

If Bob's player offers up a reasonably specific and plausible approach by which to achieve the goal, then I can determine whether it succeeds, fails, or whether I need to see an ability check at which point I can set a DC and perhaps set the stakes. Bob's player doesn't get to say "I want to make an Athletics check to jump across," then leave it to me to describe how Bob does that. That is a complete reversal of the roles of player and DM as described in the rules. A common approach, to be sure, but better suited to previous editions of the game than this one in my view. In D&D 5e, the player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM calls for checks and narrates the results.

If Bob's player can't come up with an approach to jumping that gap and none is suggested by the other players, then perhaps there isn't one. Bob dies a horrible flesh-tearing death. No big deal. It certainly isn't the first time an adventurer was devoured by undead and it won't be the last. Next time, be more careful, Bob's player!

 

[iserith]

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.

^ Very well said!

 

[iserith]

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.

"I try to clear the chasm (goal) by jumping over it (approach)." DM knows the chasm is 15-feet wide. Character has an 18 Strength. Outcome is certain - no roll. The character succeeds. DM narrates.

"I try to clear the chasm (goal) by jumping over it (approach)." DM knows the chasm is 18-feet wide. Character has a 15 Strength. Outcome is certain - no roll. The character fails. Maybe the DM needs to check with the player on his or her understanding of the environment before narrating the character's fall just to make sure the player isn't under some kind of misapprehension.

"I try to damage the ghost (goal) by casting magic missile (approach)." DM knows the character has that spell as a resource and has spell slots. Outcome is certain - no roll. The character succeeds. Player rolls damage. DM narrates.

"I try to damage the beholder (goal) by casting magic missile (approach)." DM knows the character has that spell as a resource and has spell slots. DM also knows that the beholder is aiming an anti-magic cone at the character. Outcome is certain - no roll. The character fails. DM narrates.

This isn't Mother May I.

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.

One doesn't need to be "skilled with verbal description" or "narrative flourishes" to state a simple goal and approach to achieving said goal. And if one can't, unless there is some sort of disability at play, one can learn. And, in my view, one should for more reasons than just performing the player's role in D&D.

 

[pemerton]

I'm with [MENTION=467]Reynard[/MENTION] - taking a deep breath and giving it all you've got is an approach to jumping across a chasm. Because it takes time to take a deep breath, the GM might reasonably advance any "clocks" that are ticking in the situation.

 

[robus]

To, perhaps foolishly, come to Reynard’s aid, i do feel like Bob’s player offered a bit more than just “i jump the gap”. The player described their character pausing at the gap, contemplating their fate and trying for a desperate leap. To me that’s enough to adjudicate. I would probably put the DC at around 18 as it is hard to push ones self beyond limits but desperate times can produce amazing results.

If Bob’s player had just said “I jump the gap” then sure, they fail, because there was no engagement with the situation.

Edit: and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] pipped me to the post

 

[pemerton]

I would certainly allow a PC to exceed their normal jump distance with a successful Strength (Athletics) check. I just don't consider "I try to jump further than I can normally jump by jumping normally" an action with an uncertain outcome, and therefore wouldn't call for a Strength (Athletics) check to resolve it. If, on the other hand, the player offers a method of jumping further than they can normally, that may or may not require a check to resolve, and as per the rules, I would call for Strength (Athletics) to resolve it.

Can you give an example of a method of jumping further than they can normally? I mean, are you envisaging the player describing the use of a pogo stick, or spring board? Or a ramp to gain extra height? It's not clear to me why those sorts of things would involve STR checks (using acrobatic equipment looks like DEX check territory to me). A STR check smacks to me of trying harder, which is what [MENTION=467]Reynard[/MENTION] described.

If a character tries harder, I also think it's fair game to impose costs eg in this sort of case, hp loss for strained/torn muscles. That works very well in 4e (in my experience), but may be it doesn't translate into 4e where hp are perhaps governed by tighter expectations for their loss and recovery?

 

[Charlaquin]

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

You really haven't, but whatever. If you're not going to bother supporting your assertions, then I don't see any point debating them.

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.

Ok. Let's give the situation's meaning a value, M. Let's give the failure's meaning a value, X.

If M+X=M, then X=...?

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

Yes, but you have yet to give an example of a case where this is true. The only example you've given me was one in which the players are trying to climb to get away from ogres who are throwing spears at them. And as I demonstrated, the failure in this example does have a cost - time and hit points, and that cost is what gives the failure meaning. If you can give an example of a situation where failure to achieve a goal has meaning in and of itself, I will concede your point.

But hey, what does the truth matter, right?

I have not at any point misrepresented your argument, so I don't see where you think I'm distorting the truth.

 

[Charlaquin]

Can you give an example of a method of jumping further than they can normally? I mean, are you envisaging the player describing the use of a pogo stick, or spring board? Or a ramp to gain extra height?

Sure, any of those would be valid.

It's not clear to me why those sorts of things would involve STR checks (using acrobatic equipment looks like DEX check territory to me).

I would certaintly think Dexterity would be appropriate for using a pogo stick. I think running on a ramp or jumping from a springboard would still be fundamentally the same muscle function, just with mechanical assistance, so should still be Strength-based in my opinion. I could see an argument for Acrobatics over Athletics though.

A STR check smacks to me of trying harder, which is what [MENTION=467]Reynard[/MENTION] described.

I generally assume PCs are trying the hardest they can at all times, unless the player specifically state otherwise.

If a character tries harder, I also think it's fair game to impose costs eg in this sort of case, hp loss for strained/torn muscles. That works very well in 4e (in my experience), but may be it doesn't translate into 4e where hp are perhaps governed by tighter expectations for their loss and recovery?

Ok, so this sounds like you're attempting to strain your muscles beyond their normal limit (insert Plus Ultra joke here). That's a method, that's something I can work with. I imagine a scenario maybe something like this:

Player: I try to jump across the gap.
DM: It's 20 feet across, what's your strength?
Player: Damn, only 18.
DM: That's rough.
Player: Can I try to make the jump anyway?
DM: I'm hearing that your goal is to jump further than you normally can. What's your character doing to try to accomplish that goal?
Player: Err... I guess I strain myself beyond my limit?
DM: I assume you're already pushing as hard as you can. Any other plan?
Player: Well, this is a pretty stressful situation, what with the zombies chasing me. You know how people can like... lift cars and stuff, like to save a kid? Something about adrenaline?
DM: Ok, I'll buy that. That takes a toll on the body, though. I'd say you can make a DC 15 Strength check to jump the extra couple feet, but pass or fail you'll take a level of exhaustion.
Player: (Either accepts and rolls, or proposes a different action).

 

[iserith]

To, perhaps foolishly, come to Reynard’s aid, i do feel like Bob’s player offered a bit more than just “i jump the gap”. The player described their character pausing at the gap, contemplating their fate and trying for a desperate leap. To me that’s enough to adjudicate.

It's enough for me to adjudicate too: No ability check. The rules for jumping normally apply. Bob doesn't make it.

It's not about offering up "a bit more." It's about offering up a viable approach to a goal. Thinking about jumping, then taking a deep breath before doing it, just sounds like regular ol' jumping to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm with [MENTION=467]Reynard[/MENTION] - taking a deep breath and giving it all you've got is an approach to jumping across a chasm. Because it takes time to take a deep breath, the GM might reasonably advance any "clocks" that are ticking in the situation.

Do you not assume the PC is already giving it their all? If you do, how do you envision taking a deep breath helping them jump further?