D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

BoldItalic said:

See, this is why my character never bothers to carry a tinderbox. We rely on the party wizard to cast a fireball to ignite our torches when we need them.

Since tinderboxes are part of standard equipment packages, though, not carrying them requires a house rule. But we're cool with that.

Click to expand...

Player decisions aren't generally 'table rulings', deciding not to carry a tinderbox is just your choice. A 'table ruling' would be if the GM decided that the standard equipment pack didn't come with a tinderbox.

pemerton said:

You said "I also expect such narration to be long term coherent and not a series of increasingly outlandish patches to save a bad concept." I asked "Who do you think takes a different view from the one you expressed?" The question was mostly rhetorical, because I think the answer is obvious: everyone expects narration to be long term coherent and not a series of increasingly outlandish patches to save a bad concept. Everyone likes coherence.

Click to expand...

And, yet, it appears to not be achieved.

Hence, appealing to these values (coherence, avoidance of bad concepts, etc) doesn't tell us anything about Eloelle, ZoT or house ruling. The fact that you don't like Eloelle doesn't tell us anything about the degree of your love for coherence compared to (say) me or [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION].

Click to expand...

The LOL concept requires continued patching of other game mechanics (ZoT, charm, dominate, read thoughts, etc.) and outright fails if another player is involved, which are patched by declaring alternate adjudication methods that completely circumvent game rules on the basis that the patcher dislikes those interactions. That entire argument about player on player interactions was sidestepped by the declaration that a house rule on player on player interactions are adjudicated entirely outside the rules, and yet there's a continued claim that the LOL concept doesn't require houserules. Skip NPC ZoTs, how do you rule player ZoT's?

But I think it does tell us something about differing views as to the nature and purpose of RPG mechanics.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, and [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] thinks the same flawed way. I've played many games where such things are fine, but if I did in in a system that isn't built on narrative storytelling as a primary mechanics, I've done it with the knowledge that I"m at least bending, if not breaking, some rules to allow it. D&D does poorly with concepts that narrate success when the mechanics narrate failure because many of it's rules tie the fiction to the mechanics.

This is not a gameplay benefit conferred upon Eloelle's player (or upon anyone else). It's not even a gameplay change.

The NPC does not have access to any less information than s/he would if Eloelle was narrated as being thick as two planks. The player does not have access to any more information than s/he would if s/he narrated the 5 INT character as being thick as two planks. (So it's not true that Eloelle's player continue to know the correct answer while denying the NPC that information. Eloelle's player has never know the correct answer, and has no access to that answer for gameplay purposes. This is a consequence of the character having 5 INT.)

All the changes are in the narration alone. I think that [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] has used the word "fluff". Following Ron Edwards, I would describe it as mere colour. It is colour/flavour that is being very deliberately quarantined from having gameplay consequences. (I've pointed to a scenario in which this might change - namely, the use of a Tome of Clear Thought or of a Gem of Insight. But that change would be quite acceptable in mechanical terms, because those items change the INT of the character.)

Click to expand...

This fails because I, as a player, quite often don't know the things my characters know. If LOL the character knows, it violates the rules for her to lie about it under a ZoT. I get where you're saying 'but there's no effective difference between being allowed to lie and not actually knowing' and you're right, except that it expressly violates the mechanics of ZoT. That's my entire point -- you're breaking a rule to maintain the narrative fiction. And that's fine, so long as it's acknowledge as such and not as 'I'm playing exactly as the rules are intended.'

I _get_ the argument you're making. It's not sufficient to say that this argument means you aren't breaking the mechanics of ZoT.

There seem to be category errors here. Eloelle "exists" only in the fiction. The mechanics of ZoT exist only at the table. At the table, the question is how to narrate the outcome of ZoT, given that Eloelle is not to be permitted to hand over any information, because as a result of the 5 INT on her character sheet s/he is not permitted to have access to information in such a way as would inform the play of the game.

Click to expand...

No, I disagree that there's a disconnect. ZoT doesn't check only mechanical things -- it's a mechanic that reaches across into the fiction. It adjudicates truth according to the fiction, not according to the table.

Also, silly attempt to distinguish LOL as only 'fiction' and ZoT as somehow something different that's entirely separated (can't tell if you're calling the mechanics 'real' vs 'fictional' or something different, like a parallel dimension fiction/real hybrid and squats on the side of the table and croaks 'fumble!' on occasion). You can tell this because ZoT targets LOL. If LOL only exists in some separate realm, how does this happen?

Coming up with the idea that, in the fiction, her patron shields her from the enchantment is an ad hoc narration to preserve the gameplay status quo. It is not a conferral of a benefit on any player. (That there are, relative to the fiction, counterfactual possibilities where Eloelle is worse off is neither here nor there. Eloelle is not a participant in the game who has interests that need to be respected, balanced, etc. The point of the mechanics is to adjudicate the play of the game, not ensure some imaginary "balance" between imaginary people, such as Eloelle and the GM's ZoT-casting NPC.)

Click to expand...

It is a benefit -- it allows the player to narrate a lie under an action declaration restrictions of not lying.

I think we have different views as to what the mechanics of the game are for. Hence - in virtue of applying this different general conception to a particular situation - I think we have different view of what the mechanical workings of ZoT are.

I see ZoT as serving two purposes. When cast by PCs on NPCs, it is a device (like scrying magic, detection spells, etc) that obliges the GM to hand over some bits of backstory. (In this case, backstory concerned with the beliefs of NPCs.)

When cast by a NPC on a PC, it is a device that enables the GM to permissibly declare actions for his/her NPCs which have regard to the beliefs of the PCs without being accused of cheating, or abusively metagaming, by imputing knowledge to the NPCs about the beliefs/motivations etc of the PCs which they couldn't reasonably enjoy.

These functions are mediated via a notion that the spell exerts a compulsion on the character (hence it is an Enchantment spell, it grants a CHA save, etc).

Click to expand...

That's all swell, and it's great to consider rules as to how they affect gameplay, but that's not the only way they can be considered, nor is it how their presented in the rulebooks. RAW, you can't lie under a ZoT, regardless of how you think it's useful to tell stories. You're modifying the tool to meet your needs, and that's fantastic (I actually like your meta on the function of the rules), but it's modifying the rules. You're not talking ZoT as is, you're changing it to allow new things according to a new concept of how the rule works. The rule, as written, doesn't do this. Hence, a houserule.

Also, you don't describe it's use when a PC casts it on another PC. Regardless of your opinion on how distasteful this may be, the rules of the game certainly don't disallow it. It needs to be considered, as well.

These are the functions that generate its interaction with INT, which - via knowledge checks - is another device for regulating access to backstory (in the case of players) and for constraining GM action declaration for his/her NPCs (eg the GM is expected to play giant ants differently from liches and gold dragons, in virtue of their differing INTs).

If a character has 5 INT, the player of that character gets less access to backstory (because knowledge checks will fail more often). A flipside of this is that NPCs who case ZoT on that character get less access to information, and hence - at the level of gameplay - have fewer GM action declaration options opened up for them.

This is the salient mechanical operation of ZoT. When Eloelle is being played at the table, this is the operation that needs to be preserved. That the narration is adjusted in an ad hoc way to ensure this (namely, Eloelle's failure to hand over much useful information is narrated in terms of patron intercession rather than being thick as two planks) is not, in my view, any sort of fundamental change to the mechanics of ZoT. Rather, it is upholding a mechanical status quo.

Click to expand...

Again, you've altered how ZoT functions. You're making a change based on the outcomes, not the methods. However, the rules of D&D describe processes, and do not make mention of altering the processes to achieve outcomes, nor do they present your outcomes at goals. Hence, houserule.

As I've said, it's no skin off my nose if someone wants to call that a house ruling, but that's not really how I see it: no new resolution device, no new game element, no new option, no new constraint, has been introduced into the game. Rather, the status quo of how a 5 INT should interact with ZoT has been preserved.

I suspect that [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] sees the matter in broadly similar terms to me.

Click to expand...

One more time, then: you're changed the process of ZoT (you can lie, so long as there's no mechanical advantage) to suit an outcome (I want to tell a story where I can lie under ZoTs). You've justified this by broadening your outcomes (ZoT is just a backstory tool, so as long as it operates fairly in providing backstory, it's working as intended). However, your outcomes are not part of the rules (no rule recommends considering the outcome of story results and then altering how the rule works to achieve that). Also, the rules are process driven, not outcome driven (they work the same way regardless of the desired outcome). ZoT defines a process -- cast, save, can't lie. You're changing that process to -- cast, save, provide gameplay neutral backstory interaction. That's a pretty major change to the resolution mechanics of that process, and incorporates an outcome into the process rather than allowing the process to generate an outcome. And all of that's fine. Like I've said, I actually like your framing - I've done similar things with other systems before. Why I haven't with D&D, I dunno, likely because I'm looking for a certain experience with D&D and am not looking to make it into a something that is, bluntly, already done better in other systems. But, that aside, despite my liking your framing, and heartily encouraging you and ElfCrusher to enjoy it (I wouldn't personally be happy to be at a table with LOL, for reasons I've covered, but if it floats your boat, go for it), it requires that you do change the mechanics in a systematic and repeated way, hence, houserules.

Houserules being used by my to represent an intentional change to existing mechanics, and not adjudications of unclear things or extrapolating to fill in holes. 2 gallon jugs aren't houserules, changing ZoT so that you can lie to preserve story so long as backstory is fairly distributed is a houserule. Not a bad thing, just a thing.

Yardiff said:

Player decisions aren't generally 'table rulings', deciding not to carry a tinderbox is just your choice. A 'table ruling' would be if the GM decided that the standard equipment pack didn't come with a tinderbox.

Click to expand...

No No No. Players can't decide not to carry tinderboxes, the RAW says they have them and players can't just ignore the RAW. The DM has to make a house rule that overrides RAW and allows them to not carry them.

BoldItalic said:

No No No. Players can't decide not to carry tinderboxes, the RAW says they have them and players can't just ignore the RAW. The DM has to make a house rule that overrides RAW and allows them to not carry them.

Click to expand...

Does does attempting to mock people with ridiculous strawmen ever actually work for you?

Ovinomancer said:

pemerton said:

It is not a conferral of a benefit on any player.

Click to expand...

It is a benefit -- it allows the player to narrate a lie under an action declaration restrictions of not lying.

Click to expand...

That is not a benefit. The player is no better off than s/he would other wise have been: s/he knows nothing s/he otherwise wouldn't have if s/he had narrated the PC as being thick as two planks; nor does the GM's NPC no anything s/he otherwise wouldn't have.

Having the fiction be flavoured as "I know but don't tell because my patron protects me" and "I'm ignorant and so don't have anything to tell" is a difference, but not a benefit.

Ovinomancer said:

That's all swell, and it's great to consider rules as to how they affect gameplay, but that's not the only way they can be considered, nor is it how their presented in the rulebooks. RAW, you can't lie under a ZoT, regardless of how you think it's useful to tell stories.

<snip>

you've altered how ZoT functions. You're making a change based on the outcomes, not the methods. However, the rules of D&D describe processes, and do not make mention of altering the processes to achieve outcomes, nor do they present your outcomes at goals.

Click to expand...

I asserted that "I think we have different views as to what the mechanics of the game are for." I think the passages I've just quoted are evidence for this.

lowkey13 said:

Of course it makes sense to you that a fireball that hits someone will put them (and their objects) on fire. But, as I stated previously, it also makes perfect sense that an acid splash will damage objects; that a fall from height will damage objects; that many things will damage objects. The question becomes - what does a table want to do? And, contra your assertions, it is not spelled out in the RAW that a fireball causes the target to catch fire.

Click to expand...

I have not asserted that a fireball causes the target to catch fire.

I've have asserted that a fireball, or other effect that inflicts fire damage, may cause combustible material to catch fire.

I have explicitly stated that the RAW don't tell us what the chance is. (Even when they say things like "objects that are not worn or carried ignite" they don't tell us whether a timber structure will definitely catch alight, because it's not clear whether a building or ship is an object.) There is also the question of what, in the fiction is a flammable/combustible object/material?

I am going to start another thread about torches.

pemerton said:

That is not a benefit. The player is no better off than s/he would other wise have been: s/he knows nothing s/he otherwise wouldn't have if s/he had narrated the PC as being thick as two planks; nor does the GM's NPC no anything s/he otherwise wouldn't have.

Having the fiction be flavoured as "I know but don't tell because my patron protects me" and "I'm ignorant and so don't have anything to tell" is a difference, but not a benefit.

Click to expand...

It's clearly a benefit in the fiction, else why would the player want to do it? You're redefining 'benefit' as a narrow subset of things that pre-agree with your argument.

I asserted that "I think we have different views as to what the mechanics of the game are for." I think the passages I've just quoted are evidence for this.

Click to expand...

Yes, you've clearly said that you think the mechanics are for things not found anywhere in the rulebooks. There is ample evidence in your posts to this effect. I'm not saying that you're wrong in the way you play, just that you've modified the existing rules to meet with your concepts. The 'purpose of the rules' really has no bearing on my argument. ZoT has a mechanical effect, you've modified that effect to do the opposite of it's intent, and that's a houserule.

I'm perfectly fine with the other examples Elfcrusher put forward and with Six's 8 strength strong hob. Both work to sell the outcomes of the mechanics as part of their narrative. LOL, however, works to subvert the mechanics with her narrative, and narrates failures as successes. It's that one aspect that causes many knock-on effects like with ZoT that require ad hoc rulings or, as you postulate, systemic changes to the rules to accommodate. You invoke houserules to allow the concept. End of point.

pemerton said:

I am saying that if an effect causes fire damage, it is not a house rule to say that it may set things alight because it has the capacity to do so - because that's what fire does.

Click to expand...

And that is nowhere in the rules AND it's a mechanical effect. It's very logical. It may be the common usage, but it's still a mechanical effect that is not in the rules. That makes it a house rule.

A torch burns for 1 hour, providing bright light in a 20 foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage.​

Click to expand...

Not one word on destroying things, so you have to add that rule to the torch.

The torch burns. And it does fire damage. Yet, by the above logic, it seems that it would be a house rule for a GM to allow the following action declaration: "I use my burning torch to set the book alight!"

Click to expand...

Yes.

Here is another oddity. Page 68 of the SRD, in the entry for tinderboxes, describes torches as having "abundant, exposed fuel" (which permits them to be lit with an action rather than taking a minute). But on the above logic a torch can't set another torch alight, despite the fact that the currently-lit torch is burning more fiercely than a tinderbox (whose fire is not described as doing any damage, and takes a minute to set typical combustible objects alight) and the one that is not yet lit has "abundant, exposed fuel" of exactly the same sort as is currently burning in the lit torch.

Unless the GM institutes a house rule, that is!

Click to expand...

The game assumes that the DM will allow it. The DM does not have to, though. There is no rule that says it works the way the vast majority of DMs would rule it. A rule or ruling that the DM adds to the rules is a house rule. It can be silly at times, as you are noting, but that doesn't change what is happening.

lowkey13 said:

Again, look back to either RAW or the fireball. Of course it makes sense to you that a fireball that hits someone will put them (and their objects) on fire. But, as I stated previously, it also makes perfect sense that an acid splash will damage objects; that a fall from height will damage objects; that many things will damage objects. The question becomes - what does a table want to do? And, contra your assertions, it is not spelled out in the RAW that a fireball causes the target to catch fire.

Click to expand...

Actually, despite it being real world common sense that a fireball would ignite the target's clothing, books and such, the fireball rules explicitly say otherwise. The rules say explicitly that it ignites flammable items that are NOT worn. By spelling out unworn, it is saying that worn items don't catch fire, despite being flammable.

BoldItalic said:

No No No. Players can't decide not to carry tinderboxes, the RAW says they have them and players can't just ignore the RAW. The DM has to make a house rule that overrides RAW and allows them to not carry them.

Click to expand...

You joke is a bad one. There are rules for dropping objects, and for selling objects.