Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 2389691" data-attributes="member: 20239">Why do you assume that in C&C the player cannot ask the CK how difficult the jump would be before making the role, or even deciding to act?  Why do you assume that the number picked is "arbitrary", rather than based on the same type of situational modifiers that might apply in a more rules-heavy system?The modifiers for terrain are in the book, but the status of the terrain and the space available for a running start at the point of the jump is completely up to the DM.  You will still have to interact with a real person at some point in order to determine which modifiers apply.  At that point, the person with the authority to make those decisions will inform you of the difficulty of the task (either by simply telling you the net difficulty or enumerating the modifiers that apply to the base difficulty).Again, you're not on the same page until you know what modifiers apply.  If the pit is actually a shaft with a strong updraft and the DM has decided this provides a +5 modifier to Jump checks across the pit, you won't know that until 1 - A description of the updraft comes up in actual play; 2 - You ask the DM about the specific environment of the pit; or 3 - You ask the DM about the difficulty of a Jump check to cross the pit.  All three of which would also be necessary in C&C to get that information.As do the ability scores on a C&C character's sheet.  They determine how good or bad things are on your end.  They don't do anything to inform you about how likely you are to succeed or fail until you have all of the information about the difficulty of a specific task.How is setting a DC or TN railroading?  How is saying "The jump requires a Str check TN=15" any different than saying "The pit is 10ft wide, the roughness of the floor in this area makes a running start impossible, a strong updraft provides a +5 bonus to Jump checks across the pit.  Resulting DC = 15."?In C&C, modifying the TN after the PC rolls based on whether or not you want him to fail or not would also (by most reasonable people I think) be defined as "cheating".  That's not what we're talking about here.  If the player asks the CK, "If I try to jump the pit, how difficult will it be?" and the CK says, "It's a TN=15 Str check" where is the discernable difference between D&D and C&C?The circumstances aren't accounted for until the player communicates to the DM and makes sure he knows all the facts about the situation.  In both systems, the DM sets the difficulty based on certain criteria.  If a player assumes he knows all the criteria before communicating with the DM, he's just as likely to run into unexpected consequences in D&D as he is in C&C.  I agree that consensus leads to a better play experience, but I don't think you automatically reach consensus with preset difficulty modifiers and I don't think consistency is the only way to reach consensus.That's absolutely untrue.  You're either misreading my original post or I wasn't clear enough.  Either way, this has nothing to do with the DM fudging the roll for a specific result.But D&D doesn't provide you with a rule that says a chasm Xft wide = DC Y.  It provides you with a system that sets a base DC according to the width of the jump, then modifies it according to several factors.  Whether those modifiers apply is up to the DM and should (in a fair game with a reasonable and impartial DM) be either available to the player by asking the DM or discoverable by the player through in-game actions.  This is not, from the players perspective, measurably different than how things work in C&C.</blockquote>

Verification