Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7716584" data-attributes="member: 42582">Don't agree with whom? Maybe you've misunderstood me.In the post you quoted, I said:The fictional positioning doesn't factor into the resolution except by establishing the framing of the check. The concepts of &quot;feet jumped&quot;, &quot;armour check penalty&quot;, &quot;Jumping skill bonsu&quot;, are all mechanically defined.If the GM were to say, &quot;OK, there's a patch of mud at your launching point, that will impose a -2 to the check&quot; - that would be factoring in fictional positioning. And if the player then responded, &quot;Luckily I've been carrying around a sandbag on my equipment list - I empty out all my sand onto the mud patch, so that I won't lose my footing as I make the jump - that should cancel the -2&quot; - well, that would be factoring in fictional positioning also.One way to think about it is this: someone who didn't know what a chasm was, or how long a foot is as a measure of distance, or what effect armour has on maneouvring, could still adjudicate the 3E action declaration, &quot;I jump across the 5' wide chasm without taking off my armour&quot;. Whereas imposing the penalty for mud, and trying to mitigate that by laying sand, both can be done only by someone who knows what mud is, and why it will interfere with the take off for the jump, and what sand might do to reduce the slipperiness. (And if the GM and player have different views about the effectiveness of sand as a corrrective for mud when jumping - it's not something I personally know much about - then the sort of disupte [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] referred to above might break out.)But not very much more detail about the fiction. For instance, 3E doesn't describe chasms, and jumping surfaces, and armour, in any more detail than does AD&amp;D or Moldvay Basic. When we look at armour, the same is true vis-a-vis AD&amp;D, and compared to Moldvay Basic all it does is add a few more makes of armour.It does have more detail than AD&amp;D or Moldvay Basic about whether or not a character is a good jumper, but even that is very cursory - the rules don't tell us, for instance, whether +10 to jump means &quot;Can jump as well as the strongest athlete in the high school playground&quot; or &quot;Can jump as well as an Olympic-level competitor&quot; - at best we can infer that from the DC chart, although the weirdness of the d20 factors in to that too.The extra detail is mechanical. Which is why it does the work [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has asked it to do - it removes the need for anyone to adjudicate the fictional positioning.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7716584, member: 42582"] Don't agree with whom? Maybe you've misunderstood me. In the post you quoted, I said: [indent][/indent] The fictional positioning doesn't factor into the resolution except by establishing the framing of the check. The concepts of "feet jumped", "armour check penalty", "Jumping skill bonsu", are all mechanically defined. If the GM were to say, "OK, there's a patch of mud at your launching point, that will impose a -2 to the check" - [I]that[/I] would be factoring in fictional positioning. And if the player then responded, "Luckily I've been carrying around a sandbag on my equipment list - I empty out all my sand onto the mud patch, so that I won't lose my footing as I make the jump - that should cancel the -2" - well, that would be factoring in fictional positioning also. One way to think about it is this: someone who didn't know what a chasm was, or how long a foot is as a measure of distance, or what effect armour has on maneouvring, could still adjudicate the 3E action declaration, "I jump across the 5' wide chasm without taking off my armour". Whereas imposing the penalty for mud, and trying to mitigate that by laying sand, both can be done only by someone who knows what mud is, and why it will interfere with the take off for the jump, and what sand might do to reduce the slipperiness. (And if the GM and player have different views about the effectiveness of sand as a corrrective for mud when jumping - it's not something I personally know much about - then the sort of disupte [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] referred to above might break out.) But not very much more detail about the fiction. For instance, 3E doesn't describe chasms, and jumping surfaces, and armour, in any more detail than does AD&D or Moldvay Basic. When we look at armour, the same is true vis-a-vis AD&D, and compared to Moldvay Basic all it does is add a few more makes of armour. It does have more detail than AD&D or Moldvay Basic about whether or not a character is a good jumper, but even that is very cursory - the rules don't tell us, for instance, whether +10 to jump means "Can jump as well as the strongest athlete in the high school playground" or "Can jump as well as an Olympic-level competitor" - at best we can infer that from the DC chart, although the weirdness of the d20 factors in to that too. The extra detail is mechanical. Which is why it does the work [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has asked it to do - it removes the need for anyone to adjudicate the fictional positioning. [/QUOTE]

Verification