Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9229389" data-attributes="member: 29398">When in the real world you're standing in front of a steep bank or cliff that you might or might not be able to climb, how closely do you know your odds of being able to climb it?I'd bet it would come down to estimates along the lines of &quot;piece of cake&quot;, &quot;shouldn't be a problem&quot;, &quot;could be tricky&quot;, &quot;yeah, that's a bit risky&quot;, &quot;I'm only trying that if it's life or death&quot;, and &quot;not a hope&quot;.&nbsp; Usually the first and last of those - &quot;piece of cake&quot; and &quot;not a hope&quot; - are pretty obvious, but the rest aren't so clear.&nbsp; Further, those perceptions might not always be accurate - &quot;this looked easy, but now I'm stuck&quot;, or &quot;I thought this would be tough but now I'm up here there's way more handholds than I could see from the bottom.&quot; - and giving a hard number denies these misperceptions.That's how I want the players-as-characters thinking (and as a player, that's how I want to be thinking).&nbsp; The DM, be it me or someone else, can worry about the actual mechanics behind the scenes.Hard numbers ruin that for two reasons: one, they break immersion; but (and IMO more importantly) two, they don't allow me to make a mistake in perception or interpretation.&nbsp; If for whatever reason I've talked myself into thinking this cliff will be easy to climb and the DM then throws out that its DC is 19, that meta-information is going to make me rethink in a hurry.&nbsp; Flip side - if I've talked myself into thinking I can't climb it but then the DM says the DC is only 10, up I go.Some numbers are unavoidable.&nbsp; Others (such as task DCs) have a choice as to whether they can be replaced with description, and my stance is that it's better to do it that way and leave some uncertainty (as would be the case in reality) before even getting to the roll.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 9229389, member: 29398"] When in the real world you're standing in front of a steep bank or cliff that you might or might not be able to climb, how closely do you know your odds of being able to climb it? I'd bet it would come down to estimates along the lines of "piece of cake", "shouldn't be a problem", "could be tricky", "yeah, that's a bit risky", "I'm only trying that if it's life or death", and "not a hope". Usually the first and last of those - "piece of cake" and "not a hope" - are pretty obvious, but the rest aren't so clear. Further, those perceptions might not always be accurate - "this looked easy, but now I'm stuck", or "I thought this would be tough but now I'm up here there's way more handholds than I could see from the bottom." - and giving a hard number denies these misperceptions. That's how I want the players-as-characters thinking (and as a player, that's how I want to be thinking). The DM, be it me or someone else, can worry about the actual mechanics behind the scenes. Hard numbers ruin that for two reasons: one, they break immersion; but (and IMO more importantly) two, they don't allow me to make a mistake in perception or interpretation. If for whatever reason I've talked myself into thinking this cliff will be easy to climb and the DM then throws out that its DC is 19, that meta-information is going to make me rethink in a hurry. Flip side - if I've talked myself into thinking I can't climb it but then the DM says the DC is only 10, up I go. Some numbers are unavoidable. Others (such as task DCs) have a choice as to whether they can be replaced with description, and my stance is that it's better to do it that way and leave some uncertainty (as would be the case in reality) before even getting to the roll. [/QUOTE]

Verification