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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 2390605" data-attributes="member: 22882">I'd prefer to frame this in terms of C&C and D&D, since, honestly, I dislike the former and find the latter, at best, decent.  But, I'll do it for this specific example.1) C&C: The pit exists independent of anything BUT the GM's assessment of my character's ability to cross it.  Its defining feature is that it is, in fact, DC x to cross.  You could even call it DC x wide.2) D&D: The pit is a defined width in squares, possibly more clearly defined in feet (although as a GM, I would try to avoid that).  It exists independent of my ability to cross it.  The GM can create it without knowing my ability to cross it.  Its traits include being DC x to Jump across.However, being DC x has automatic consequences, such as being either small enough that reach weapons can cross it or too large for them to do so, how far one would have to throw a weapon to strike a target on the other side, how far one would have to throw a grappling hook to bridge it, whether or not it has enough room in it for me to bull rush an ogre into it, whether it's wide enough for a gelatinous cube to fall into it.This has two consequences:The GM may have made the pit in 2) "DC x" to account for any one of those reasons, without ever considering whether or not my character can jump it.  He might have even made the pit based on some other, external factor, such as the passage of a delver.The GM drawing the pit in 2) immediately tells me all of the information above (and a great deal more besides), and I may be able to make creative use of that information in a way that him simply telling me "you see a pit" doesn't begin to describe.In short, it goes back to Mearls' point about interface: 2) is a much more efficient way of conveying information about the pit to me.</blockquote>

Verification