Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5491886" data-attributes="member: 54877">The ruleset doesn't encourage you to skip penalties for confounding common sense. The ruleset encourages you to use imagination to fill in otherwise unexplainable gaps in the narrative, in ways that fit the sense (common or otherwise) of the setting at that table. How willing you are to do this in any particular instance is going to determine how mind-bogging or not it may be. And of course that will vary.&nbsp;For example, in the jumping example, the fighter uses a boost from another party member to get some extra oomph at launch, does a parkour type move off the wall to manage the &quot;turn in mid air,&quot; and then throws his body forward (prone, not even trying to land on his feet) to maximize distance.&nbsp;Make that the norm, and if no such narration is forthcoming, slap on a -5 to the skill check. If it is weak narration, slap on a -2. A +2 is only awarded for the truly inspired stuff.&nbsp;It is true that the 4E text could be a bit more hard-nosed about enforcing this kind of thing. But it isn't 4E lack of simulation issues causing the wimping out here, but rather the, &quot;Say yes all the time, find a way to make the players succeed,&quot; attitude intruding into the DM advice at the expense of explaining the scale of the mechanic. At the very least, they should have half a page in the DMG telling you how to dial this up or down to fit your flavor: &quot;We don't do this parkour stuff at this table. If you want to go get one of those metal bars from the rusted portcullis you guys busted up, and use it to pole vault, we'll talk.&quot;&nbsp;Personally, I often have a lot more trouble reconciling things like the jumping example than the others, because I find it easier to fill in those narrative gaps with the other things. The more vague the gap, the easier it is to fill in. With something like the chasm, you have to accept the chasm is the length it is, and try to work around the parts you control. You could trick a giant into taking a step back. It is somewhat harder to trick a chasm into being a bit shorter. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm&nbsp; &nbsp; :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />&nbsp;Edit: Ninja'd by Nemesis</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5491886, member: 54877"] The ruleset doesn't encourage you to skip penalties for confounding common sense. The ruleset encourages you to use imagination to fill in otherwise unexplainable gaps in the narrative, in ways that fit the sense (common or otherwise) of the setting at that table. How willing you are to do this in any particular instance is going to determine how mind-bogging or not it may be. And of course that will vary. For example, in the jumping example, the fighter uses a boost from another party member to get some extra oomph at launch, does a parkour type move off the wall to manage the "turn in mid air," and then throws his body forward (prone, not even trying to land on his feet) to maximize distance. Make that the norm, and if no such narration is forthcoming, slap on a -5 to the skill check. If it is weak narration, slap on a -2. A +2 is only awarded for the truly inspired stuff. It is true that the 4E text could be a bit more hard-nosed about enforcing this kind of thing. But it isn't 4E lack of simulation issues causing the wimping out here, but rather the, "Say yes all the time, find a way to make the players succeed," attitude intruding into the DM advice at the expense of explaining the scale of the mechanic. At the very least, they should have half a page in the DMG telling you how to dial this up or down to fit your flavor: "We don't do this parkour stuff at this table. If you want to go get one of those metal bars from the rusted portcullis you guys busted up, and use it to pole vault, we'll talk." Personally, I often have a lot more trouble reconciling things like the jumping example than the others, because I find it easier to fill in those narrative gaps with the other things. The more vague the gap, the easier it is to fill in. With something like the chasm, you have to accept the chasm is the length it is, and try to work around the parts you control. You could trick a giant into taking a step back. It is somewhat harder to trick a chasm into being a bit shorter. :hmm: Edit: Ninja'd by Nemesis [/QUOTE]

Verification