First graph... So you are describing a case where the player did not state a goal of jump to the moon... thats fine but has nothing to do with the stated and responded to case, right?
Nope, I'm responding to your addition of a condition (jumping above the cover that assumedly is hiding the character from being seen, a situation that the character might want to otherwise avoid?) and saying that that addition to the situation changes the adjudication. The character may define his goal as reaching the moon and his approach as jumping, but if there are other consequences to jumping, and the outcome of those consequences are uncertain, then, yes, I'm going to ask for a roll because now a failure on the roll (in this case defined as jumping too high) will have a consequence. So, since you chose to add a new element, the outcome of the approach is now uncertain and has a consequence, even if the goal is an auto-fail.
You see, being a person that doesn't execute a ridiculous set of code against all situations, I can evaluate a goal and approach declaration based on the totality of the circumstances involved. In this case, the character fails to achieve his goal -- automatically without regard to the outcome of the roll -- but there may be a consequence to the character being too good at jumping.
Ruling a goal as automatically unobtainable doesn't mean the approach doesn't have consequences or isn't uncertain.
To give a different example that illustrates this point, if there's a mimic in the middle of a room pretending to be a chest, and a player declares his character goes over to the chest and opens it, well, there's going to be an automatic failure of his goal -- no matter what, that mimic doesn't open -- but the WIS (perception) check I ask for to resolve that goal and approach isn't addressing the goal, that failed, but instead whether or not the character notices it's not a chest before touching it and starting the encounter adhered to the mimic.
Please stop assuming that everyone else but you is a robot unable to adapt to anything. Further, stop adding new things to a situation discussed and then insist that the original answers everyone gave before that addition still hold. They may, they may not, but if you add things you should give the benefit of asking how the new situation would be handled instead of assuming we'd all still do it exactly the same way. Given you offer yourself that ability, you should consider sharing.
Second graph... can you clarify where i said any of that about you or your players? Come on, sure you can because otherwise you would be inventing something "my argument hinges upon" which was just not there. So lets be clear, the post i responded too was about a case defined by others of a stated "jump to the moon" goal and then later where it was stated clearly "There is no roll. Why? Because it's a bloody waste of time. Everyone knows that it's an auto fail, so making the player roll to see whether he gets 2 feet or 3 feet into the air is useless. That's why the DMG says that you roll when the outcome is in doubt. Rolling for every little thing drags the game down like not pulling the anchor up on a boat before sailing off". In that specific case i responded to it was clear the poster was referencing players defining impossible goals, the time it takes to resolve the rolls and the frequency of those rolls and the problems they cause.
It's quite simple: you insist that my players will state obviously impossible things and that I will then adjudicate those obviously impossible things like a robot. Further, you insist that when you add or change the scenario, both my players and I will be unable to change, instead remaining exactly the same. If you continue to insist that the jumping to the moon example is anything other than you inserting what you what to make the answer given irrational and then insisting it's us asking to change the situation, then, yes, I stand by my statement that you're assuming we're all idiots and that we must play with idiots because no one would actually do that at my table, nor would any of us stand for it.
The only way you can continue to so badly misconstrue the responses you've been getting is if you're intentionally painting everyone on my 'side' (another ridiculous claim that by using 'side' you aren't painting with a broad brush) as morons. Or robots. Either way, persons unable to be rational.
So it does not seem that out of line to wonder about how often those things do indeed happen in their game that they need a process to cut down that time.
Well, you've been repeatedly told that they don't happen the way you insist they do, so, yes, it's out of line to keep insisting they happen that way despite being corrected, often and, shockingly, rather politely.
And, again, since you were not that poster, its baffling how you take that response to someone else's post as being something focused on or aimed at your or your players.
Is it? You keep painting with a broad brush and not addressing your remarks to specific posters. In fact, you often reference things said by multiple posters in your responses in defending your assertions that we use an inflexible 'right words' approach to gameplay. You've specifically referred to things I've said both in the post I quoted and in other posts you've made since then. How, exactly, should I not feel included in your remarks when you're doing such a good job of including me?
I'm the one that made the remarks about climbing the tree, and, in that context, it was to help my players achieve their end goal (as in why they wanted to be up the tree to begin with), not in the context of adjudicating the specific act of climbing the tree. I have some players that get grand ideas of cinematic actions, like climbing a tree and then jumping down on top of a mounted villain and knocking them to the ground. In that case, I'd like to know that whole plan instead of getting it piecemeal as separate action resolutions so I can work with it as much as possible. I don't want the player to spend a few actions climbing up a tree only to find out that what they thought the situation was isn't what I think it is. So, I said that not because I need that extra information to adjudicate the climbing of the tree, which is what you implied by your reference, but as a more general tool that I use to make the most of my games with my players.
Are you and the other poster the same person under different IDs? if so that might explain your transference.
Are you?
Do you know why so many posters are leveling accusations of less than honest engagement on your part? This is why. That question is insulting. Further, it has nothing to do with anything at all except your attempt to deflect. However, I'll extend you the courtesy of assuming you're just having an off moment or have some holes in your interpersonal interaction skillset and say, no, I post as myself alone, and own up to every post I've made.
