It is sort of neccessary to absract. The playstyle involve that there are no euclidean spatial concerns going on. Think of colossal caves' "YOU ARE IN A MAZE OF TWISTY LITTLE PASSAGES"
And that's fine with a cavern complex where you can easily spread out the different caves such that they don't physically overlap. Not so easy when you're trying to dream up the internal floorplan of a castle on the fly; and while I could map it as I go that would really break up any flow the game had as I'd be constantly having to stop talking in order to do so (and even if I mapped it as I went I'd ironclad-guaranteed still screw up by having stairs go down from one floor and not appear on the next, that sort of thing).
This ability assumes that the longuage is, in fact, one which the thief has encountered sometime in the past. . . . Even if able to read a language, the thief should be allowed only to get about that percentage of the meaning of what is written as his or her percentage ability to read the tongue in the first place. The rest they will hove to guess at. Languages which are relatively close to those known by the thief will not incur such a penalty.
Those cunning thieves - they pay attention to all the runes and sigils and scraps of this and that that they encounter on their travels . . .
What's unclear in 1e is whether non-mage characters were automatically assumed to be literate in languages they could speak (an assumption that's clarified in 3e and forward - every PC is literate).
If yes, then this makes sense. If literacy isn't guaranteed, however, then it makes very little sense that an illiterate Thief can sometimes read unknown languages when she can't even read the ones she already knows.
Or to put it another way: why would the character assume things are not possible - unless the player is in author stance, trying to solve the GM's puzzle?
Puzzle-solving isn't author stance unless it gets abstracted into some sort of mechanic.
Abesnt mechanics, the player at the table is going through very much the same thought process as the character in the fiction, and that's actor all the way.
[Players declare that their] Characters try to accomplish tasks --> DM determines how difficult those are --> dice determine success or failure.
A skill check takes into account training (skill rank), natural talent (ability modifier), and luck (the die roll). To make a check, roll 1d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. The higher, the better. A natural 20 isn’t an automatic success, and a natural 1 isn’t an automatic failure. Some checks are made against a Difficulty Class (DC). The DC is a number that you must equal or beat to succeed, usually ranging from 0 to 30 in 5-point increments.
The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. Situation can make a skill easier or harder to use, resulting in a bonus or penalty to the modifier or a change to the DC. Each rank is a +1 modifier and your maximum ranks is level + 3 if the skill is listed for your class, or half that if not. About half the core classes have climb on their skill list.
In general, you can try a check again if you fail, and you can keep trying indefinitely. Some checks, especially with skills, have consequences for failure that must be taken into account.
When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. When you have plenty of time, are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20.
You can help another character by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher, the character you are helping gets a +2 bonus, as per the rule for favorable conditions. (You can’t take 10 to help another.) In many cases, a character’s help won’t be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help.
When failure can cause additional difficulty, a check that fails by 5 or more causes that to occur. Skills that carry an additional risk on a failed check include Climb (fall).
Climbing is part of movement, so it’s generally part of a move actionWith a successful check, you can advance up, down, or across a slope, a wall, or some other steep incline (or even a ceiling with handholds) at one-quarter your normal speed (medium characters usually have speed 30', small have speed 20', you can use your standard action to move twice in a round, armor worn can reduce speed, e.g. full plate makes it 20' and 15' respectively.)
3.5e climb contains numerous associations with diegetic facts, including
DC is associated with specified surfaces and activities
modifiers are associated with rope use, climbers kits, halfling race, lizard familiars, athletics feat
Measuring entrainment entails comparing rolling dice, adding numbers, and comparing total to another number with a highly physical activity, but I think there are some features that encourage the pretence
activities like climbing faster, making your own holds, hauling others upward, catching falling characters, spellcasting and fighting either apply modifiers or trigger special climb checks
separate checks for each move action that includes climbing: a 150' cliff could take ten checks (one quarter of 60' using your move and standard action, assuming your DM doesn't count moving as a standard action as a separate move.)
that often plays out by sending the best climber up the wall and they place ropes for everyone else
I suspect that the shortness of climb times discourages the pretence, e.g. 1 minute for that cliff, and possibly the way the odds work out
multiple checks make the odds of failing exponential
a natural rock wall is DC 25 (but they fall only if they miss DC 20); a 6th-level Fighter could have +9 ranks in climb, in armor they might suffer a check penalty of -5, their Strength could give them a +3 to +4 modifier, a climbers kit gives +2; for various reasons it's unlikely they have Athletics or a skill synergy
they can take-10 if not threatened or distracted (they can't take-20 because climb has a penalty for failure) which makes that climb quite likely automatically successful
under pressure (e.g. pursuers with bows) falling is a near-certainty until much higher level
I have found in my own experience and would predict for others that the entrainment will be volatile... it depends on what features are surfaced as a result of situation and resolution, and whether anyone notices the short climb times. Thus I believe concommitance is available as a result of the associations and entrainment, albeit it will occasionally shatter (a problem all through 3.5e skill mechanics.)
It's been a long time since I read the 3e rules for climbing and they kind of represent why I don't think they really buy much. When I DMed my homebrew campaign? I decided on a DC and then had to double check the chart to see how I had to describe it. If I just said "This is a DC n" someone would inevitably tell me to hold on while they looked up the specific rule.
It added no value to play for me, it was just extra busy-work and leafing through the rules. It's also incomplete because it can't possibly cover all wall conditions. Ultimately it really doesn't mean anything other than having to look up descriptions to say whether or not the wall is easy to climb, very difficult or something in-between. It's not like there's a real rock wall to assess.
If it works for you, great. I just see no advantage to knowing that the "typical" wall in dungeon or ruins is a DC 20 when the wall could be anything from
to
Calling something an "old wall" doesn't really tell me much of anything. What does "natural rock wall" even mean? Things like pitons aren't always a viable option, you need a harder rock with cracks in it to work, on and on. So I always found these rules both too specific and not specific enough (mostly because they can't be).
But if this works for you, great. Just throwing in my 2 coppers on the reason why I never saw much of an advantage to rules like this. For me they were just extra overhead, if I have someone that's more experienced with rock climbing I'd probably have them provide info on how difficult it was to climb, rules like this don't buy much.
The mental state of imagining something is an actual thing. It is inside someone's head. The imagined thing doesn't exist, though: it's purely imaginary.
This is probably where you're losing your audience, because within that person's mind what's being imagined does exist. Otherwise, what would be the point of imagining it?
And because it exists in that person's mind (and, ideally, in a similar fashion in the minds of others at the table as a "shared fiction"), for purposes of game-play discussion it exists.
You weant to talk about how the players think at the table. I want to talk about how the characters think in the fiction, and how we can better get these two things to line up.
Players knowing that their action declarations have the potential to materially affect static elements in the setting such as the meaning of some runes or the presence of a temple does the opposite of lining up player thoughts and character thoughts: the character is thinking "what do I need here?" while the player is thinking "I can use the game system to make this happen".
[Players declare that their] Characters try to accomplish tasks --> DM determines how difficult those are --> dice determine success or failure.
A skill check takes into account training (skill rank), natural talent (ability modifier), and luck (the die roll). To make a check, roll 1d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. The higher, the better. A natural 20 isn’t an automatic success, and a natural 1 isn’t an automatic failure. Some checks are made against a Difficulty Class (DC). The DC is a number that you must equal or beat to succeed, usually ranging from 0 to 30 in 5-point increments.
The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. Situation can make a skill easier or harder to use, resulting in a bonus or penalty to the modifier or a change to the DC. Each rank is a +1 modifier and your maximum ranks is level + 3 if the skill is listed for your class, or half that if not. About half the core classes have climb on their skill list.
In general, you can try a check again if you fail, and you can keep trying indefinitely. Some checks, especially with skills, have consequences for failure that must be taken into account.
When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. When you have plenty of time, are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20.
You can help another character by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher, the character you are helping gets a +2 bonus, as per the rule for favorable conditions. (You can’t take 10 to help another.) In many cases, a character’s help won’t be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help.
When failure can cause additional difficulty, a check that fails by 5 or more causes that to occur. Skills that carry an additional risk on a failed check include Climb (fall).
Climbing is part of movement, so it’s generally part of a move actionWith a successful check, you can advance up, down, or across a slope, a wall, or some other steep incline (or even a ceiling with handholds) at one-quarter your normal speed (medium characters usually have speed 30', small have speed 20', you can use your standard action to move twice in a round, armor worn can reduce speed, e.g. full plate makes it 20' and 15' respectively.)
3.5e climb contains numerous associations with diegetic facts, including
DC is associated with specified surfaces and activities
modifiers are associated with Strength, training (both depth, via ranks, and breadth, via synergies), rope use, climbers kits, halfling race, lizard familiars, athletics feat
Measuring entrainment entails comparing rolling dice and adding and comparing numbers, with a heavily physical activity, but I think there are some features that encourage the pretence
activities like climbing faster, making your own holds, hauling others upward, catching falling characters, spellcasting and fighting either apply modifiers or trigger special climb checks
separate checks for each move action that includes climbing: a 150' cliff could take ten checks (one quarter of 60' using your move and standard action, assuming your DM doesn't count moving as a standard action as a separate move.)
that often plays out by sending the best climber up the wall and they place ropes for everyone else
I suspect that the shortness of climb times discourages the pretence, e.g. 1 minute for that cliff, and possibly the way the odds work out
multiple checks make the odds of failing exponential
a natural rock wall is DC 25 (but they fall only if they miss DC 20); a 6th-level Fighter could have +9 ranks in climb, in armor they might suffer a check penalty of -5, their Strength could give them a +3 to +4 modifier, a climbers kit gives +2; for various reasons it's unlikely they have Athletics or a skill synergy
they can take 10 if not threatened or distracted (but not 20 because climb has a penalty for failure) which makes that climb quite likely automatically successful
under pressure (e.g. pursuers with bows) falling is a near-certainty until much higher level
I have found in my own experience and would predict for others that the entrainment will be volatile... it depends on what features are surfaced as a result of situation and resolution, and whether anyone notices the short climb times. Thus I believe concommitance is available as a result of the associations and entrainment, albeit it will occasionally shatter (a problem all through 3.5e skill mechanics.)
I generally agree, though I would say that magic makes overwhelming the DC without taking 10 much more likely (though climb may be a bad example there, as it's routinely overwhelmed by spider climb).
I'd point out a separate feature of the mechanic (not necessarily relevant to sim), in that it's quite knowable to players. Given a sufficiently complete description of a situation, a player can work out the resolution without consulting the GM. More importantly, several different resolutions referencing different mechanics could be launched from a single description, giving players a meaningful choice of actions.
You weant to talk about how the players think at the table. I want to talk about how the characters think in the fiction, and how we can better get these two things to line up.
If I walk into a tavern and describe, in-character, an NPC in the tavern without waiting for the DM to narrate what the NPC looks like, I am still in actor stance.
Part of being an actor is that someone else sets the stage and you don't have any control over what the other actors look like when made-up and costumed. The same extends here: you have no control over what anyone else on stage - which means the other PCs, the NPCs, etc. - looks like or (absent mind control effects) does.
Part of being an actor is that someone else sets the stage and you don't have any control over what the other actors look like when made-up and costumed. The same extends here: you have no control over what anyone else on stage - which means the other PCs, the NPCs, etc. - looks like or (absent mind control effects) does.
