D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Maxperson]

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

The lie impacts the game world. The big bad will have a different reaction to one answer than he would to the other. That can drive the story in very, VERY different directions. This difference could be the difference between life and death for Eloelle. If she gives the truthful wrong answer, he might kill her in a fury when he tries the answer and fails, where her lie would likely cause him to continue to keep her alive in hopes of getting the answer out of her another way.

You can't really say that Eloelle is no better off than she otherwise would have been. And make no mistake, this is about what Eloelle knows, not about what the player knows. Eloelle is the one under the Zone of Truth, not the player. Eloelle has to make or fail the saving thrown, not the player who only rolls to see if that save is failed or not. Eloelle is the one who has to answer with the truth, not the player who is just the one narrating the giving of that truth.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I am going to start another thread about torches.

Fire fireball, that chance is 0. It only by RAW causes non-worn combustible items to catch fire.

(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.)

By RAW it's 100%. It says, "It ignites...", not "It might ignite..", not "I could ignite...", and not any other language that gives an option of failure. Once again the language is absolute. There is no chance of failure as written.

There is also the question of what, in the fiction is a flammable/combustible object/material

This is the only thing the DM has to rule on.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Wow, this is still going on. I wish I could stay away but I feel like I've abandoned pemerton, who is like that Navy SEAL sniper in Mogadishu holding out against hundreds of (fortunately) poorly trained militiamen.

Seems like this conversation has forked into two separate debates:

The first is the definition of "house rule", which seems like a pointless debate because it's an argument about opinion regarding a non-technical term. But there seem to be two separate points of contention within this debate:
1) Whether or not a "ruling" is distinct from a "rule" (and thus also distinct from a "house rule".)
2) A philosophical difference that ultimately reduces to "anything not prohibited is allowed" or "anything not allowed is prohibited." (With the understanding all around that the DM overruling the rules is ok and even expected; it's just a question of what counts as overruling the rules).

In both cases the language can be taken to an ad absurdum extreme as a way of discrediting it, of course ("Well the rules don't say you can't have a nuclear weapon, so does that mean you can?" sort of moronic arguments.) But the distinction is valid nonetheless.

On question #1 my view...my opinion...is that the difference between a "ruling" and a "rule" is that the former is subject to the whim of the DM, and the latter is objective and can be counted on by the players. So to have a fireball ignite the curtains this time is merely a ruling. To say that "combustible objects always burst into flame" would be a rule, and thus a house rule (of the sort that is in addition to rather than in contradiction of RAW.)

On #2 I'm firmly in the "anything not prohibited is allowed" camp. I think some on the other side of the debate may contest that their viewpoint is "anything not allowed is prohibited" but that's essentially what is being argued.

The second debate is about this hypothetical case of Eloelle. Pemerton has been perfectly reiterating my argument on this, and honestly I'm struggling to see how others are disagreeing without contradicting themselves.

It seems the core difference is that pemerton and I are distinguishing narration from mechanics, as opposed to letting narration determine mechanics and/or set a precedent for mechanics. If a player says "I do a triple flip and then stab the ogre in the head" to narrate a critical hit I'm fine with it, as long as he doesn't expect that he can also do a triple flip to change the outcome of a roll in the future. The only reason to not "allow" the player to say that out loud is that it would somehow grants the player a new Triple Flip ability. Which it doesn't.

But doing so dictates what players are allowed to say at the table, which for me is beyond the purview of the "rules", and is purely a matter of basic social skills: if one player's version of the fiction doesn't fit with the collaborative fiction of the table, sort it out. If it really bugs you that Eloelle's player narrates this way, sort it out. This scenario is no different from playing alignments in a way that disrupts the fun for others at the table: it's not against the rules to do so, it's just...immature and antisocial.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The second debate is about this hypothetical case of Eloelle. Pemerton has been perfectly reiterating my argument on this, and honestly I'm struggling to see how others are disagreeing without contradicting themselves.

That's a new and interesting claim. I'd like to hear how you think I'm contradicting myself. Like, seriously, not being snarky.

I know I've said that I don't understand how you and pemerton don't see that you're contradicting your stance on 'this is exactly by the rules' when it changes a rule to work, but I'm not sure how I've contradicted myself. I'm curious if this is a blind spot I have.

It seems the core difference is that pemerton and I are distinguishing narration from mechanics, as opposed to letting narration determine mechanics and/or set a precedent for mechanics. If a player says "I do a triple flip and then stab the ogre in the head" to narrate a critical hit I'm fine with it, as long as he doesn't expect that he can also do a triple flip to change the outcome of a roll in the future. The only reason to not "allow" the player to say that out loud is that it would somehow grants the player a new Triple Flip ability. Which it doesn't.

I agree with this. The concept here is that the narration is supporting the mechanical outcome -- the mechanics indicate a crit, so you narrate a triple flip and a head stab to support that mechanical outcome. The mechanics and the fiction are working in the same direction -- both result in success. I further support that, just because you narrated that mechanical success, you can't then just use the same narration to ensure the same mechanical success. All good, totally agree, like it!

But LOL is narrating success on a mechanical failure. That causes long term issues where either the narration must give to the mechanics or the mechanics must give to the narration because they are in opposition. Any situation that pits a mechanical outcome against the narration will require that one or the other bends. In the LOL case, with ZoT, you and pemerton bend the mechanics of ZoT, and justify it as not having an overall difference mechanically. But to do that, you must bend the mechanics of ZoT. You're judging on the outcome, not the process. So long as the outcome is the same to you (and I argue it's not necessarily the same), the change doesn't matter and you haven't changed a rule. But that rule is a process, not an outcome, and you have changed that process to allow the narration, so you have, in fact, changed the rule.

And that's fine, my point isn't that you can't, or even shouldn't do that. pemerton had a nice way of conceptualizing rules as outcomes instead of processes, and that works. My issue is just the assertion that your way doesn't actually change anything when it really does.

But doing so dictates what players are allowed to say at the table, which for me is beyond the purview of the "rules", and is purely a matter of basic social skills: if one player's version of the fiction doesn't fit with the collaborative fiction of the table, sort it out. If it really bugs you that Eloelle's player narrates this way, sort it out. This scenario is no different from playing alignments in a way that disrupts the fun for others at the table: it's not against the rules to do so, it's just...immature and antisocial.

I think there's a difference between a player saying whatever they want and narration of their character in a space partially controlled by the rules. ZoT, for instance, does constrain player character declarations -- you can't lie. Narrating a lie under a ZoT breaks the rule. Charm and dominate work in similar ways -- they restrict allowable narration. Charm means you must view the charmer as a friend -- you can't narrate a plan to stab him in the back unless that's exactly what you do for all of your besties. Dominate pretty much removes your ability to declare completely. So there are lots of mechanics that restrict player action declarations. It seems strange to say that you run a game that has no such allowable restrictions, yet you're playing entirely within the rules. The rules themselves place restrictions, on occasion.

But, yes, I do find LOL's narration to be immature and antisocial, so I would work that out at the table. LOL's concept wouldn't be allowed except as a form of delusion, which, honestly, I still find disruptive.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That's a new and interesting claim. I'd like to hear how you think I'm contradicting myself. Like, seriously, not being snarky.

I know I've said that I don't understand how you and pemerton don't see that you're contradicting your stance on 'this is exactly by the rules' when it changes a rule to work, but I'm not sure how I've contradicted myself. I'm curious if this is a blind spot I have.

Gah! Bunch of typing lost to an accidental browser back. Anyway...

The contradiction is that:
1) The assertion is that it breaks the mechanics of ZoT to allow Eloelle to answer "I don't know" to ZoT and that it is breaking the rules to allow her to do so just because she narrates something about her Patron.
2) That assertion depends on Eloelle either knowing or believing she knows the answer to the Riddle, because otherwise her truthful answer would have been "I don't know."
3) But for either of those cases to be true, her earlier narration ("I solved the Riddle but am keeping it a secret") would have had to override the mechanics, exactly the thing that is being asserted is against the rules.

Pemerton and I are claiming that in neither case does the narration override mechanics, that it's just fluff, just narration, and thus the final outcome is the same: Eloelle answers "I don't know" to ZoT.

But LOL is narrating success on a mechanical failure. That causes long term issues where either the narration must give to the mechanics or the mechanics must give to the narration because they are in opposition. Any situation that pits a mechanical outcome against the narration will require that one or the other bends. In the LOL case, with ZoT, you and pemerton bend the mechanics of ZoT, and justify it as not having an overall difference mechanically. But to do that, you must bend the mechanics of ZoT. You're judging on the outcome, not the process. So long as the outcome is the same to you (and I argue it's not necessarily the same), the change doesn't matter and you haven't changed a rule. But that rule is a process, not an outcome, and you have changed that process to allow the narration, so you have, in fact, changed the rule.

And that's fine, my point isn't that you can't, or even shouldn't do that. pemerton had a nice way of conceptualizing rules as outcomes instead of processes, and that works. My issue is just the assertion that your way doesn't actually change anything when it really does.


I think there's a difference between a player saying whatever they want and narration of their character in a space partially controlled by the rules. ZoT, for instance, does constrain player character declarations -- you can't lie. Narrating a lie under a ZoT breaks the rule. Charm and dominate work in similar ways -- they restrict allowable narration. Charm means you must view the charmer as a friend -- you can't narrate a plan to stab him in the back unless that's exactly what you do for all of your besties. Dominate pretty much removes your ability to declare completely. So there are lots of mechanics that restrict player action declarations. It seems strange to say that you run a game that has no such allowable restrictions, yet you're playing entirely within the rules. The rules themselves place restrictions, on occasion.

Ok, imagine this:

Instead of Eloelle doing any of the narration I've been describing, she just keeps it terse:
DM: "What did you roll on your Int check?"
Eloelle: "I failed with an 8."
DM: "Ok, you don't solve the Riddle."

then later...
DM: "What did you roll on your Cha save?"
Eloelle: "I failed with a 5."
DM: "Ok, the evil Cleric asks if you know the answer to the Riddle."
Eloelle: "Nope."

All this time, Eloelle has been writing down the previous narrative about her Patron, and after the session is over she posts it to her blog as a short story.

I suspect you don't have a problem with any of that.

So why does it change the mechanics if she narrates verbally?

She's not declaring actions or otherwise interacting with any objects or people in the game. She's just narrating what's going on in her head.

The answer can only be that somehow you and a few others think the narration alters the mechanics. Pemerton and I are saying it does not, unless the DM allows it to, in which case he has stepped outside of RAW.

But, yes, I do find LOL's narration to be immature and antisocial, so I would work that out at the table. LOL's concept wouldn't be allowed except as a form of delusion, which, honestly, I still find disruptive.

That's cool. You have every right to think/do that. There are lots of character concepts that, while within the rules, I also find annoying/antisocial/immature. Usually, though, it's the player who makes the concept annoying, not the concept itself.

 

[Maxperson]

Wow, this is still going on. I wish I could stay away but I feel like I've abandoned pemerton, who is like that Navy SEAL sniper in Mogadishu holding out against hundreds of (fortunately) poorly trained militiamen.

Seems like this conversation has forked into two separate debates:

The first is the definition of "house rule", which seems like a pointless debate because it's an argument about opinion regarding a non-technical term. But there seem to be two separate points of contention within this debate:
1) Whether or not a "ruling" is distinct from a "rule" (and thus also distinct from a "house rule".)
2) A philosophical difference that ultimately reduces to "anything not prohibited is allowed" or "anything not allowed is prohibited." (With the understanding all around that the DM overruling the rules is ok and even expected; it's just a question of what counts as overruling the rules).

In both cases the language can be taken to an ad absurdum extreme as a way of discrediting it, of course ("Well the rules don't say you can't have a nuclear weapon, so does that mean you can?" sort of moronic arguments.) But the distinction is valid nonetheless.

Agreed

On question #1 my view...my opinion...is that the difference between a "ruling" and a "rule" is that the former is subject to the whim of the DM, and the latter is objective and can be counted on by the players. So to have a fireball ignite the curtains this time is merely a ruling. To say that "combustible objects always burst into flame" would be a rule, and thus a house rule (of the sort that is in addition to rather than in contradiction of RAW.)

I disagree that a ruling is any more at the whim of the DM than a rule is. If a DM has ruled on an issue, he will be consistent about making the same ruling when the circumstances are the same, otherwise he's a DM that cannot be trusted. That gives the ruling the same force as a rule.

On #2 I'm firmly in the "anything not prohibited is allowed" camp. I think some on the other side of the debate may contest that their viewpoint is "anything not allowed is prohibited" but that's essentially what is being argued.

And this is just blatantly wrong. I'm not arguing either position in the slightest. What I am arguing is that if it isn't written, it isn't written. RAW is ONLY what is written. Whether something not written is allowed or prohibited is up to the DM, not RAW.

The second debate is about this hypothetical case of Eloelle. Pemerton has been perfectly reiterating my argument on this, and honestly I'm struggling to see how others are disagreeing without contradicting themselves.

No need to struggle. Just read my posts and you'll see how I disagree without contradicting myself. Easy peasy.

It seems the core difference is that pemerton and I are distinguishing narration from mechanics, as opposed to letting narration determine mechanics and/or set a precedent for mechanics. If a player says "I do a triple flip and then stab the ogre in the head" to narrate a critical hit I'm fine with it, as long as he doesn't expect that he can also do a triple flip to change the outcome of a roll in the future. The only reason to not "allow" the player to say that out loud is that it would somehow grants the player a new Triple Flip ability. Which it doesn't.

The problem is that being able to do a triple flip should be consistent.

Player: I do a triple flip and stab the orc in the eye.

DM: Okay. You do this amazing triple flip and stab the orc dead.

Player: Now I do a triple flip through the trap, since that's what is required to get past it safely.

DM: Oh, you can't do the triple flip without a roll.

Player: But I just did one easily.

DM: Sorry, there are mechanics involved, so suddenly it's not easy any more. You can fail it without a good roll. Look on the bright side, though. Once you are through the trap, it will be easy again and you can triple flip kill the ogre on the other side. You can even flip 10 times, doing 8 360 degree twists, while clapping both your hands and your feet if you want. No mechanics are involved that that will all be easy, too.

If it really bugs you that Eloelle's player narrates this way, sort it out. This scenario is no different from playing alignments in a way that disrupts the fun for others at the table: it's not against the rules to do so, it's just...immature and antisocial.

What bugs me is that you are changing mechanics and altering the course of the game with your narration, and then saying that the result is the same and no house rule has happened.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, imagine this:

Instead of Eloelle doing any of the narration I've been describing, she just keeps it terse:
DM: "What did you roll on your Int check?"
Eloelle: "I failed with an 8."
DM: "Ok, you don't solve the Riddle."

then later...
DM: "What did you roll on your Cha save?"
Eloelle: "I failed with a 5."
DM: "Ok, the evil Cleric asks if you know the answer to the Riddle."
Eloelle: "Nope."

All this time, Eloelle has been writing down the previous narrative about her Patron, and after the session is over she posts it to her blog as a short story.

I suspect you don't have a problem with any of that.

If the narrative doesn't match those mechanics, I would have an issue with it.

So why does it change the mechanics if she narrates verbally?

Because the instant you narrate that she knows the answer, even if it's a wrong answer, the "Nope" is a lie and you just violated the mechanics of Zone of Truth. So either you cheated, or you house ruled that the mechanics change to fit your narrative.

She's not declaring actions or otherwise interacting with any objects or people in the game. She's just narrating what's going on in her head.

What's in her head is exactly what the cleric was asking about. If she knows an answer, she must give it if she fails her save, even if it's a wrong answer.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If the narrative doesn't match those mechanics, I would have an issue with it.

Wait...so not only do you not want Eloelle's player to narrate this story at the table, you don't even want him/her to write a short story about it and share it with other people?

Your particular brand of crazy is even further out there than I realized.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait...so not only do you not want Eloelle's player to narrate this story at the table, you don't even want him/her to write a short story about it and share it with other people?

Your particular brand of crazy is even further out there than I realized.

So I have to ask. What's the point of going home and writing a story about the game you just played, only to write something that isn't the game you just played. Seems..........silly.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So I have to ask. What's the point of going home and writing a story about the game you just played, only to write something that isn't the game you just played. Seems..........silly.

I know, right? All 800 pages of The Lord of the Rings and not a single line of it accurately represented a single moment of quality RPG time with CS Lewis. What a waste of paper.