Quote from: Bobloblah;676220I've done both, and the chances of someone untrained/unpracticed doing either are virtually nil.

I haven't done tightrope walking, but I've done my fair share of mountain and rock climbing.  Without the training on how to do something like that, most people would just try to muscle it, and all that does is make your arms like jello after about 10 feet of climbing.  Proper technique and training cannot be underestimated.

Examples of recommended values are canonical!

So shall it be written, so shall it be done!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676222I haven't done tightrope walking, but I've done my fair share of mountain and rock climbing.  Without the training on how to do something like that, most people would just try to muscle it, and all that does is make your arms like jello after about 10 feet of climbing.  Proper technique and training cannot be underestimated.

Exactly. While there might be issues with a DC25 for a tightrope, it's not on the side of untrained individuals. I also agree with the earlier points about a Cirque performer's act being very controlled, rehearsed conditions.

I've seen this kind of pedantry in other areas, such as movies, and I've watched even "domain experts" get things wrong (my pilot friend who asserted, while watching Alive, that planes didn't have warning systems that said "Pull up!" when approching terrain. Turns out nothing he'd flown to that point, after years of flying, did, but plenty of other planes do. It ruined his experience of the movie). It still hurts their suspension of disbelief, whether they were right or wrong.

RPG Geeks certainly seem to have this penchant for attempting to pick apart the games they play in spades (the issue of, "That's not realistic!"), as well as a tendency to do so on nothing more than something they read online once. This often, in my experience, stems not from an inability to suspend disbelief based on prior knowledge, so much as from a desire to appear smart.

In truth, very little of what's in RPGs is realistic, but all the things one has no knowledge or experience of are easy to accept, while even a shred of second-hand knowledge apparently makes it impossible to shut up about a particular topic.

There are an awful lot of topics that I feel I've had far more knowledge of than game or module designers, but I've never felt the need to disrupt the game or others enjoyment over that fact. Moreover, I've rarely had issues suspending my disbelief. Some of that is no doubt the fantasy environment, but some of it is also the vagueness of described events and tasks; I can always imagine what I believe to be a realistic scenario over top of the vague descriptions provided. I also feel no need to try and prove I'm smart by ruining the RPG session for everyone else.

Well I think we can all agree that sliding down a staircase while standing on a shield should be a DC 20 check.

Assuming you've done it, I'd buy that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676192Yeah there is.  They hate it.  But I suspect you're a bit biased, but however shall I prove it?

I'm not biased. Ill informed, forgetful, or bad at arguing perhaps (I hope not), but not biased. As for the rest of rpg.net, it's a forum and comes with different opinions as standard.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676192Oh yeah, this is how.  Because you are conviently ignoring the other posts in that thread that point out that

a) how the tightrope walk DC was assigned is the problem, not that the DC mechanic math is off

b) the part where it was pointed out that for these circus guys, 1 out of every 100 attempts results in injury.  No mention on how many times there was a failure that didn't result in injury, but I imagine it's more frequent than those that do.

As I mentioned earlier, IMO this comes down to some people wanting high level character to auto-succeed at everything they do with little or no risk.

There were loads of posts, I don't have a photographic memory (there's nothing convenient about that), my enduring memory was discussion about whether or not circus people should be able to walk a tightrope with falling most of the time (when these guys are doing things much more complicated).

Personally I'm with those who say the DC is too high, but there's only so much you can do when your randomiser is a d20 and you're trying to keep things flat. The best bet would be to lay off getting people to roll all the time. If you've put all the points into your character, I'm going to make sure that character passes unless there's a good reason not to.

It's almost as though the d20 system doesn't accurately model reality and that it doesn't try to do so.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;676240It's almost as though the d20 system doesn't accurately model reality and that it doesn't try to do so.

No, no, no, no! If it doesn't, then we just need to fix the math so it does!
:rolleyes:

Quote from: Bobloblah;676242No, no, no, no! If it doesn't, then we just need to fix the math so it does!
:rolleyes:

That's something that still baffles me.  

"The DC to tightrope walk is too high!  The system is broken!"
"Why not just lower the DC?"
"No!  The math is broken!  The system doesn't work!"
"Wouldn't it be easier to just lower the DC for that task?  The actual math is pretty sound."
"No! No! No!"


I don't get it.

You know why, you are just disheartened by the answer. Like I said, never the twain shall meet. Modeling the impossible is a game unto itself; let them enjoy their fun.

(And let's nip this in the bud before it starts: collecting empirical data from imagination land is fruitless; contorting empirical data into imagination land suffers loss in translation. But have fun persisting anyway.)

Quote from: Bobloblah;676232RPG Geeks certainly seem to have this penchant for attempting to pick apart the games they play in spades (the issue of, "That's not realistic!"), as well as a tendency to do so on nothing more than something they read online once. This often, in my experience, stems not from an inability to suspend disbelief based on prior knowledge, so much as from a desire to appear smart.

In truth, very little of what's in RPGs is realistic, but all the things one has no knowledge or experience of are easy to accept, while even a shred of second-hand knowledge apparently makes it impossible to shut up about a particular topic.

The absolute worst I've come across this (both inside and outside of rpg games), are younger individuals who are in college majoring in something like engineering, physics, chemistry, math, etc ... with a huge chip on their shoulder (for whatever reasons).

It's even annoying watching Star Trek episodes with such individuals.

Quote from: ggroy;676275The absolute worst I've come across this (both inside and outside of rpg games), are younger individuals who are in college majoring in something like engineering, physics, chemistry, math, etc ... with a huge chip on their shoulder (for whatever reasons).

It's even annoying watching Star Trek episodes with such individuals.

Sounds to me like someone wallowing in their ignorance.

There are so many ways to get the science right (or at least, explain away apparent contradictions easily enough) that for a movie or TV show to make a major error in basic Netwonian physics is pretty inexcusable.  It certainly distracts from the plot for those who understand why something like that won't work - and if the plot relies on that element, it can ruin the whole movie.  

I'm not talking about something like Time Travel in Back to the Future - you accept the premise that time travel is possible so you don't have to worry too much about the physics - and they don't try to explain them in a stupid way.  But in a movie version of the Time Machine the moon explodes because they removed too much of the core - I mean, explodes like they dynamited the whole thing with more nuclear bombs that have ever existed on Earth.  I found that difficult to accept.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;676278Sounds to me like someone wallowing in their ignorance.

For somebody at a relatively young age, I usually chalk it up to youthful enthusiasm and naivety.  Many will grow out of it eventually as they get older.

The ones who don't grow out of it, typically become one of those individuals that nobody wants to socialize with.  (Or they join groups like Mensa :rolleyes: ).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;676278There are so many ways to get the science right (or at least, explain away apparent contradictions easily enough) that for a movie or TV show to make a major error in basic Netwonian physics is pretty inexcusable.  It certainly distracts from the plot for those who understand why something like that won't work - and if the plot relies on that element, it can ruin the whole movie.  

Over the years I've come to the realization that most of the scientific ignorance in tv shows and movies (especially sci-fi stuff), is largely an ingrained status quo.  I largely don't care anymore about the writers being complete idiots when it comes to science.  If I'm not enjoying something on the screen for whatever reasons, it's easier to just change the channel on the tv (or walk out of the theater), than constantly griping about the same scientific ignorance that is repeated constantly in numerous tv shows and movies.

If one removes all the scientific inaccuracies from many tv shows or movies, it probably won't be much different than a generic police show and/or a soap opera.


These days I mostly judge tv shows and movies on whether they keep my attention, regardless of how ignorant and lazy the writers are.  If I get bored while watching (for whatever reasons), I'll just change the channel.

For example, I really liked watching the tv show Fringe, largely because it kept my attention for the first four seasons.  This is all in spite of the "science" being completely bogus and crackpot.  (In hindsight, I still don't know why exactly I liked the show).

To go back to the actual Wizards' post, I do like the idea of flattening the math and the ranges so the gulf between high and low is not so fast. That's something the older editions did well, and the 3e and later seemed to deliberately suck at.

Fuck this bullshit about 'level appropriate challenges' both ways. I want the PCs to potentially be able to score a hit on the dragon at level 2, and at the same time, I want that fuckin' Kobold to still have a chance to knife the fighter who's level 12.  

One of the reasons I went to a roll under system in H&H was that it confined the ranges so that this was more possible. The older editions worked this through the to-hit tables and through using roll-under for non-combat challenges. I like it. I like that it lets powerful characters be powerful, but not inhuman gods. It also means that lower level creatures don't become useless at later levels, they can still put up a fight and by a fun challenge without necessarily having to 'roid them up.

Quote from: ggroy;676292If one removes all the scientific inaccuracies from many tv shows or movies, it probably won't be much different than a generic police show and/or a soap opera.

Maybe.

Good science fiction has just enough scientific basis to create a willing suspension of disbelief to allow the story or game to happen. At least that is my opinion.