Missing Rules

[pemerton]

The beauty of the goal/approach method is that I don’t need to have a bunch of specific examples memorized for what would or wouldn’t constitute what kind of check at what DC. I can evaluate that at the table, with the full and appropriate context, based on the player’s stated goal and approach. So, I don’t have an example of an approach for you off the top of my head. Give me an example and I’ll tell you how I would rule on it.

I appreciate that you and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] regard this stuff as highly contextual - I think you're right to do so.

But I was still curious about examples. Partly because I'm having a hard time imagining any myself that would fit within the constraints you've established.

In the real world, the way that people use their musculature to jump far is by limbering up their muscles, taking a measured run up and giving it all they've got. Particularly outside the context of a professional athlete on specially prepared surfaces, this can produce variable results depending on placement at the time of launch, vagaries of terrain at the launch point, whether they notice a jaybird sitting on a tree branch as they're about to take off, etc.

But you seem to have ruled that out, on the grounds that the rules on p 64 already take all that into account. Which is why I'm having trouble seeing where you see the scope for the rules on p 59 to do their job - that is, for it to (i) uncertain whether someone can clear a distance by jumping, and (ii) for the resolution of that uncertainty to depend on how well they deployed their muscles and physical training (which in mechanical terms is a STR (Athletics) check).

Likewise iserith seems to have ruled it out in saying that "I jump" is not an approach to solving the task of clearing a chasm. (Or, at least, not an approach that is uncertain in its outcome, because p 64 mandates that the results of such an approach is either certain success or certain failure.)

And for clarity: this curiosity on my part is quite independent of any bigger issue about ways of RPGing and when to engage the mechanics. It's framed entirely within the approach to action declaration and resolution that you and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] are advocating, which - as I've said - I agree is how 5e seems intended to be played. My puzzlement is entirely about your reading of p 59 in light of your reading of p 64.

 

[iserith]

I appreciate that you and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] regard this stuff as highly contextual - I think you're right to do so.

But I was still curious about examples. Partly because I'm having a hard time imagining any myself that would fit within the constraints you've established.

In the real world, the way that people use their musculature to jump far is by limbering up their muscles, taking a measured run up and giving it all they've got. Particularly outside the context of a professional athlete, this can produce variable results depending on placement at the time of launch, vagaries of terrain at the launch point, whether they notice a jaybird sitting on a tree branch as they're about to take off, etc.

But you seem to have ruled that out, on the grounds that the rules on p 64 already take all that into account. Which is why I'm having trouble seeing where you see the scoe for the rules on p 59 to do their job - that is, for it to (i) uncertain whether someone can clear a distance by jumping, and (ii) for the resolution of that uncertainty to depend on how well they deployed their muscles and physical training (which in mechanical terms is a STR (Athletics) check).

Likewise iserith seems to have ruled it out in saying that "I jump" is not an approach to solving the task of clearing a chasm. (Or, at least, not an approach that is uncertain in its outcome, because p 64 mandates that the results of such an approach is either certain success or certain failure.)

And for clarity: this curiosity on my part is quite independent of any bigger issue about ways of RPGing and when to engage the mechanics. It's framed entirely within the approach to action declaration and resolution that you and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] are advocating, which - as I've said - I agree is how 5e seems intended to be played. My puzzlement is entirely about your reading of p 59 in light of your reading of p 64.

I'm not sure how I can be any clearer really. You can jump up to your Strength score to the limits of your speed if you move at least 10 feet first (page 64). You can try to jump an unusually long distance (page 59) and that effort can be resolved by a Strength (Athletics) check. But in order to determine whether a check applies, the DM has to have an approach to the goal and then go to the standard method of adjudication.

The rules on page 59 do not include an approach - it's just a goal. It's therefore an incomplete description of what the character is doing and we cannot begin the adjudication process without it. Or at least without the DM assuming or establishing what the character is doing which is not the DM's role. The player needs to fill in this blank in my view in order for the DM to be able to perform his or her role and adjudicate accordingly. And that blank can't be filled with "I make a Strength (Athletics) check." This isn't D&D 4e. (Though some people play it that way anyway.)

Now, as for the approach the player offers, you may say that "I try harder" or "adrenaline" is good enough. I don't think it is and neither of us are wrong here. The rules can't help us determine who is correct on that ruling.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also a distinction I don't see anyone making. Someone wants to open a gate they can tell me they want to use an athletics check or say "I try to lift it with brute force". Same diff. Also something I don't see anyone I've ever played with making the distinction.

Right, because you play with people who are used to thinking about skills as player interface tools instead of DM resolution tools.

 

[robus]

Now, as for the approach the player offers, you may say that "I try harder" or "adrenaline" is good enough. I don't think it is and neither of us are wrong here. The rules can't help us determine who is correct on that ruling.

i’m happy to leave it there. For a while it seemed like you were arguing that we were misinterpreting the rules rather than simply disagreeing on where to draw the uncertainty line. Probably i was being ungenerous on my own part

 

[Maxperson]

The failure’s value is a variable we are trying to find. If the failure’s value is equal to the situation’s value, then M+X should equal 2M. But it doesn’t. M+X=M, therefore X must equal 0. If the meaning is not altered by the failure, the failure is not where the meaning came from.

There is no +. Failure does not have to be additive. It can be, but it's not a requirement. Your formula is useless for this.

No, I do not. I attribute to you the argument that failure to achieve a goal can have meaning by itself, not it always does. It would take only one example of a failure to achieve a goal having meaning by itself to prove that failure can be meaningful by itself. And still you have not given one.

I have. Just because you choose not to accept it does not mean that I haven't given one, or that it hasn't proven my position.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think this is an ungenerous reading of pemerton and my position. What we’re saying is those distances are what can be jumped with certainty, i.e. no check required. Not that no effort is required, simply that the character is guaranteed to make it (under normal circumstances).

Ok. So what is it that the character does differently to allow them to jump further than they can do with certainty?

With that out of the way we’re now contemplating whether it is possible for a character to jump further than they normally can and, of course, in extraordinary circumstances people can. The player has recognized the extraordinary circumstances and says their character is going to attempt something more.

Great! What more are they attempting?

That is perfectly reasonable, the character is heroically trying to push themselves to escape a tight spot, and the response is “sad trombone” the character automatically fails and falls.

That's not the response. The response is "how are you pushing yourself to escape this tight spot?" "By trying harder" is not, in my personal opinion, sufficient. If it is for you at your table, fine. I've got no beef with that.

Seems awfully rigid and frankly unrealistic.

People in this world can make double-digit foot long jumps with 100% certainty. Realism has never entered the equation.

 

[Charlaquin]

There is no +. Failure does not have to be additive. It can be, but it's not a requirement. Your formula is useless for this.

If the meaning was not added by the failure, then the failure was not the source of meaning. That's what the formula demonstrates.

I have. Just because you choose not to accept it does not mean that I haven't given one, or that it hasn't proven my position.

Don't just lie. The only example you gave was the spear throwing ogre one, and I demonstrated how the failure has a cost in that example.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just a point I would like people to consider.

A STR 15 character can jump from 1 to 15 feet, no fail, over and over, all day long, 365 days a year, no chance of failure*. No roll needed.

Correct.

Nothing says that the upper limit is a strain, or their best effort.

No, that's a conceit of my table. I, as a DM, assume your character is trying the best they can at all times unless you say otherwise. Frankly, I think it would be pretty silly not to. Can you imagine failing a check because you didn't explicitly state that your character was giving it your all? Or having a character fail a roll, then ask to try it again with advantage because they're trying harder this time?

So how do we get the "I'm being chased by zombies, so I'm going to risk it" movie trope scenario? Because it should be a risk, and if the distance is too far, based on the character's estimate...well then they would be foolish indeed to try.

Cause so far, I see no motivation for risking a jump, and that would seem to take away something that should be in the game.*

To try just jumping like normal, when you're aware your best long jump wouldn't clear the distance? Yes, that would indeed be foolish. Now, trying to jump and catch the ledge, trying to climb down and back up, trying to do a parkour wall run and jump the remaining distance, trying to use your spear to vault, these are all ways you might be able to buy yourself a chance of success. Or, as discussed earlier, you might even argue that in this stressful scenario you should be able to go Plus Ultra thanks to the adrenaline or whatever. There are all sorts of ways one might approach this goal, all of them more interesting in my opinion than "the same way I always jump, but better."

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure how I can be any clearer really

The issue isn't your clarity. It's my puzzlement. I'm puzzled as to what you can think of that might be an example of a character using his/her musculature to jump further than the distance permitted by p 64, where the result is uncertain and hence a STR (Athletics) check is called for.

If you don't want to conjecture an answer because it's all contextual, that's fine - I understand the relevance of context - but that doesn't dispel my puzzlement! When I think myself into your approach to the interpretation of pp 59 and 64, I find myself unable to think of something which gives the text on p 59 work to do.

The rules on page 59 do not include an approach

But that's not in issue. I've suggested an approach, namely, "I jump". Or, if one wants to be more colourful, "I jump, giving it all I've got!"

What's in issue is that you regard the rules on p 64 as making it certain that such an approach will fail to allow the character to clear any distance greater than that mentioned on p 64. Whereas I don't regard that as the most natural reading of p 64, particularly once p 59 is considered.

P 64 says "Your Strength determines how far you can jump. . . . When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your Strength score".

I read that - in light of p 59, and in light also of the statement on pp 4 and 58 that a check is made when the outcome is uncertain - as saying that A character's STR determines how far s/he can jump with certainty, namely, a number of feet equal to his/her STR score. In other words, I read it not as stating a maximum but as stating a distance that can be covered with certainty.

Given that the human long jump record is over 29 feet for men, and over 24 feet for women, and that the winning jump at the 1896 Olympics was over 22 feet, I don't think that the outcome of an attempt by a muscled and athletically trained human in the D&D world to jump an 18' chasm is certain failure. Obviously, given the rule on p 64 and assuming less than 18 STR, it is not certainly successful either.

Hence it would be determined by a STR (Athletics) check made against an appropriate difficulty.

My reason for spelling this out is simply to demonstrate the point that what is at issue in this thread, at least as far as the current discussion is concerned, is not the proper way to adjudicate 5e, nor the closely related issue of whose job it is to call for checks, nor the issue of whether or not "I clear the chasm by jumping over it" states an approach to the goal of getting across the chasm - it manifestly does.

What is at issue is what the rule on p 64 makes certain and leaves uncertain. On this issue of jumping the chasm, that's the sole point of difference between me and [MENTION=6801558]robus[/MENTION] and I think [MENTION=7706]SkidAce[/MENTION], [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] and [MENTION=467]Reynard[/MENTION], on the one hand, and you and [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] on the other.

 

[Maxperson]

My response would be:"That's an unusually long distance and is not going to be automatic" and give them a rough idea of how hard I think it's going to be. If they still try it, dice are rolled to resolve an uncertain outcome. Based on their athletics check they may succeed, may be holding on by their fingernails or may fall.

If you give a DC every time they say "Hey, I just want to roll athletics to go farther," they will do so every single time they hit a jump that is longer than their base distance. That means that going farther isn't going to be unusual, it's going to be the norm. There's no reason not to try to jump further at every single distance that's longer than automatic.