Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[iserith]

The search function is not turning up the thread for me, but some time in 2018 (I think it was) there was an extensive thread about this very issue in which I believe you participated. Your reading of those rules is not the only one. In particular, some people - including regular 5e players - think that the reference under the Athletics skill entry (Basic PDF p 59) to "try[ing] to jump an unusually long distance" establishes a framework within which attempts to jump further than a PC's STR score might be resolved; and that the statement under the Movement heading (Basic PDF p 64) that "Your Strength determines how far you can jump" should be taken to be qualified with an adverb such as "usually" or "with certainty".

That's not entirely accurate. Strength(Athletics) allows PCs to try and jump an unusually long distance. It doesn't give how far and with what DCs, so one DM might be like for every 5 you get on the check, you go 1 extra foot, and another might be for each number higher than 15 you roll, you go 1 extra foot or a number of other methods.

You get to go your strength distance with no roll(certain). X extra feet possibly, depending on the roll and DM method(uncertain). And no roll if the distance is simply not possible with Strength + max X(certain).

An ability check doesn't allow the character to jump an unusually long distance. An ability check doesn't exist in the fiction. A request to make an ability check is not an action declaration. A task of some kind that is performed by the character (which the rules do not specify and must be described by the player and judged by the DM i.e. the "special circumstance" I mentioned in the post you both quoted) might allow for a character to jump an unusually long distance and a Strength (Athletics) check may be appropriate if the outcome of that task is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure. As with all other actions the players describe, including whether or not a Charisma check resolves an interaction with a baron, the DM still gets to decide what happens.

 

[Maxperson]

An ability check doesn't allow the character to jump an unusually long distance. An ability check doesn't exist in the fiction. A request to make an ability check is not an action declaration. A task of some kind that is performed by the character (which the rules do not specify and must be described by the player and judged by the DM i.e. the "special circumstance" I mentioned in the post you both quoted) might allow for a character to jump an unusually long distance and a Strength (Athletics) check may be appropriate if the outcome of that task is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure. As with all other actions the players describe, including whether or not a Charisma check resolves an interaction with a baron, the DM still gets to decide what happens.

Semantics. Whether you try to jump unusually far and get a roll or no roll, an ability check is called for if the result is uncertain. Given what the Athletics skill says, I doubt a DM is going to say yes to all usual(strength or less in distance) checks, and automatically no to even 1 more foot. Aragorn isn't going to be limited to 20 feet or less with a 20 strength is my point. He will be able to go unusually far(more than 20 feet) at least some of the time.

 

[cmad1977]

“I want to jump an unusually long distance over this gorge foresty gorge”
“How?”
“By running and jumping”
“Ok, roll athletics”


Or

...
“How?”
“By cutting down one of these trees and setting up a kind of ramp to get elevation and then jump.”
“Ok, you do it. It takes a bit but your plan works”

 

[iserith]

Semantics. Whether you try to jump unusually far and get a roll or no roll, an ability check is called for if the result is uncertain. Given what the Athletics skill says, I doubt a DM is going to say yes to all usual(strength or less in distance) checks, and automatically no to even 1 more foot. Aragorn isn't going to be limited to 20 feet or less with a 20 strength is my point. He will be able to go unusually far(more than 20 feet) at least some of the time.

Doubt no more for that's how I rule. Some action declaration meaningfully different than running and jumping (and possible) or running and jumping combined with some special circumstance will be needed to get any further distance. Running at least 10 feet and jumping is just a running long jump which limits the PC to his or her Strength score in feet. Something else needs to be in play for the character to jump a great distance. "I try to jump harder than usual" just isn't going to work. Launching off that springboard might.

Whatever the case, my point was not about the specifics of jumping in D&D 5e, but rather pointing out again that the DM decides and the player is not entitled to make ability checks whether that's jumping or trying to influence the Baron.

 

[Scott Christian]

So - self-censor?

At the least, those who self-censor wil end up frustrated and-or bored.

At the worst, if the change in scene represents a threat to the PCs that those players/PCs have realized while the talkers haven't, their declining to act could leave the PCs - all of 'em - in a world o' hurt.

In neither case is this good.

In the end, I think we can all agree it is about being respectful to other players. Players should allow other players to shine. That is how the entire infrastructure of character building. This guy is good at traps. This guy can take a lot of damage. This gal can deal massive damage. This gal can convince anyone of anything.

The issue is that some of these "shine" moments take longer than another. I always felt like that was one of the reasons for the shift of D&D's thief/rogue. The old rogue's shiny moments, even if plentifully added by the DM, are quick. The social part often takes a long time, as does combat. Sometimes, a player just needs to be patient. That, or find other solutions, such as split the party, involve yourself in the negotiations but as a side player, or add serious or funny commentary out of game. But, to always be the "talk is boring" or "this is taking too long" Leroy Jenkins of the group, is really just not allowing the other players to shine.

I mean, how many of you here have built a character specifically for a skill set? I have a drow arcane trickster/rogue now, who is almost 100% diplomat. All his skills. All his spells. And all his backstory revolve around that. If there was someone constantly ruining my diplomatic moments I would wonder why? It would be the same as if in every fight I tried to get the creature to run away or tried to convince the group not to fight. I am pretty sure the group would wonder why.

In short, it's a give and take style game. Almost all RPG's are.

 

[Maxperson]

Doubt no more for that's how I rule. Some action declaration meaningfully different than running and jumping (and possible) or running and jumping combined with some special circumstance will be needed to get any further distance. Running at least 10 feet and jumping is just a running long jump which limits the PC to his or her Strength score in feet. Something else needs to be in play for the character to jump a great distance. "I try to jump harder than usual" just isn't going to work. Launching off that springboard might.

It's not so much "harder than usual," than it's jump without much effort. Running and jumping as all athletes do to go 30 feet in an Olympics. They use no springboard or any other aid. Just run and jump. They don't have 25-30 strengths.

The jump your strength with no roll is just the number used when the PC is making no unusual effort, such as when using athletic ability to go farther.

 

[Maxperson]

“I want to jump an unusually long distance over this gorge foresty gorge”
“How?”
“By running and jumping”
“Ok, roll athletics”


Or

...
“How?”
“By cutting down one of these trees and setting up a kind of ramp to get elevation and then jump.”
“Ok, you do it. It takes a bit but your plan works”

They could use a ramp. Or they could just try harder and go farther like Olympic athletes who just run and jump. The base number of feet with no roll is just the distance they can go with little effort and no real use of their athletic ability.

 

[jasper]

ok, I am totally lost now. But I own the book. What village and what page is the mayor on?

 

[Fanaelialae]

ok, I am totally lost now. But I own the book. What village and what page is the mayor on?

The town is on pg 95, and the description of the baron is on pg 105.

 

[FrogReaver]

In the end, I think we can all agree it is about being respectful to other players. Players should allow other players to shine. That is how the entire infrastructure of character building. This guy is good at traps. This guy can take a lot of damage. This gal can deal massive damage. This gal can convince anyone of anything.

The issue is that some of these "shine" moments take longer than another. I always felt like that was one of the reasons for the shift of D&D's thief/rogue. The old rogue's shiny moments, even if plentifully added by the DM, are quick. The social part often takes a long time, as does combat. Sometimes, a player just needs to be patient. That, or find other solutions, such as split the party, involve yourself in the negotiations but as a side player, or add serious or funny commentary out of game. But, to always be the "talk is boring" or "this is taking too long" Leroy Jenkins of the group, is really just not allowing the other players to shine.

I mean, how many of you here have built a character specifically for a skill set? I have a drow arcane trickster/rogue now, who is almost 100% diplomat. All his skills. All his spells. And all his backstory revolve around that. If there was someone constantly ruining my diplomatic moments I would wonder why? It would be the same as if in every fight I tried to get the creature to run away or tried to convince the group not to fight. I am pretty sure the group would wonder why.

In short, it's a give and take style game. Almost all RPG's are.

IMO. The problem with Diplomancer players is that they insist that since they are the best at talking that they are the only ones who ever talk. They do this because inevitably social encounters are ran such that PCs not adept in social skills are a detriment when they attempt to do anything. That leads to feelings that anyone else doing anything in a social encounter is sabotaging their time to shine. This is unlike every other pillar of the game.

Combat all characters are better off doing something than nothing.
Exploration, typically every character can find a way to help. Lookout for danger, navigate, scout ahead, look for food, watch for traps, etc.
Social, basically anyone but the character with the highest social skills contributing is detrimental.

So I don't really blame diplomancer players for their sentiments, the entire game tends to get ran in such a way that their feelings are only natural. I think instead maybe we focus on how the game can handle multiple players interacting in a social encounter without being a detriment.