D&D 5E I for one hope we don't get "clarification" on many things.

[Ebony Dragon]

It would be easier if you used clearer, simpler wording.

Any time you use the phrase, "fictional positioning" (and you used it three times in one paragraph), you are losing a chunk of your audience. It's unhelpful jargon.

I'm starting to feel like the majority of this thread has just been people fictionally positioning themselves.


Rules should be clear and include as much as possible. Of course, as a DM you have the power to analyze specific situations in detail that the rules are probably only covering generally, so you always have the ability to rule zero. There should be a good reason for it though, as characters are created and played assuming certain rules work in certain ways.

Whenever you rule zero something like "diplomacy doesn't work on this guard, I don't care how high you rolled. Sorry" you are in a small way invalidating this players character concept and his belief in how the game system is supposed to function. Do it too much and you have the potential to lose that players trust.

 

[Steely Dan]

Yeah, I can see not wanting sphinc-circumference rules.

 

[giggles]

2.7 pounds, according to Amazon.

Huh.

 

[pemerton]

If the intent is for me individual DMs/GMs/STs to make a judgement call say that. Don't make me parse out your intent. Tell me what you actually mean.

Not really. "Clear wording is better than unclear wording, and both can let the DM decide, and therefore Mearls is wrong when he says unclear wording lets the DM decide" isn't a cohesive argument, as I'm sure you can appreciate. If you aren't 100% behind the restatement I offered upthread, then I'm still confused.

What Campbell said.

Mearls has said "The Stealth rules are about letting the GM decide." I think that's not a very good description of what they do. A better description would be "The Stealth rules are vague and ambiguous and so oblige a table to come to some sort of working arrangement."

If the idea is for the GM to decide, just say so. It's not as if Mearls is constitutionally incapable of doing so - look at the Hermit rules, for example.

It would be easier if you used clearer, simpler wording.

Any time you use the phrase, "fictional positioning" (and you used it three times in one paragraph), you are losing a chunk of your audience. It's unhelpful jargon.

Whatever.

What's your preferred term for referring to the in-game, fictional situation in which the PCs find themselves? "Fictional positioning" is the only one I'm familiar with.

 

[Mistwell]

Whatever.

Why did you ask, if you didn't want any honest answer?

What's your preferred term for referring to the in-game, fictional situation in which the PCs find themselves? "Fictional positioning" is the only one I'm familiar with.

The encounter. The situation. The challenge they're facing. Whatever the D&D game rules usually use to refer to those things. You know, words everyone here understands, as opposed to jargon only indie game analysts use.

If you look around the board, you will find the only people who use that phrase are guys who are fans of game design jargon from indie games and storygames and such, or the people talking to those guys and trying to address someone who is already using the phrase. You don't see just everyday D&D posters who are not into indie games and game design ever using that phrase.

Now, if general communication isn't your goal and you only want to discuss this topic with people who already come from your same background and therefore know the jargon you're using, well have at it. But if you're trying to talk to a broader audience here about these issues, then using that jargon isn't helpful in making sense to them. Which is what you asked - are you making sense. And the answer is no - not me, and probably not to a lot of other people here who also never use that phrase.

 

[pemerton]

The encounter. The situation. The challenge they're facing.

I don't find these very helpful to label the imagined "fact" of whether or not a given PC is visible to a given NPC. They're not precise enough in that respect. For instance, as far as "encounters", "situations" or "challenges" are concerned, there is no difference between an episode in G2 where a giant is close enough to the ledge to be pushed off, and an episode where no giant is close enough. But those episodes differ in respect of the giant's fictional positioning.

 

[Imaro]

I don't find these very helpful to label the imagined "fact" of whether or not a given PC is visible to a given NPC. They're not precise enough in that respect. For instance, as far as "encounters", "situations" or "challenges" are concerned, there is no difference between an episode in G2 where a giant is close enough to the ledge to be pushed off, and an episode where no giant is close enough. But those episodes differ in respect of the giant's fictional positioning.

Don't those fall under situation? If not, why don't they?

 

[dd.stevenson]

Mearls has said "The Stealth rules are about letting the GM decide." I think that's not a very good description of what they do. A better description would be "The Stealth rules are vague and ambiguous and so oblige a table to come to some sort of working arrangement."

I suppose that answers my question. Thanks!

 

[Mistwell]

I don't find these very helpful to label the imagined "fact" of whether or not a given PC is visible to a given NPC. They're not precise enough in that respect. For instance, as far as "encounters", "situations" or "challenges" are concerned, there is no difference between an episode in G2 where a giant is close enough to the ledge to be pushed off, and an episode where no giant is close enough. But those episodes differ in respect of the giant's fictional positioning.

Oh you're telling us how to talk to you so you understand better, and not asking if you're making sense to others?

Because it sure seemed like you were asking the later. And if it's the later, the fact that you find a different term more helpful isn't really...helpful. You already understand what you're trying to say. It's most of the rest of us who have no idea.

And while on the topic, here are some more words and phrases you commonly use which have no clear meaning to I suspect a lot of people here, and certainly to me: mechanical vectors, fiction first, and most references to agency. All of these ideas could be communicated better in plane English language.

 

[prosfilaes]

All of these ideas could be communicated better in plane English language.

Actually, I think ICAO English is probably wholly insufficient for talking about RPGs.

If you don't understand, then you can't say they could be communicated better in plain English. "Fictional positioning" is not exactly fancy English. Agency is more specialized, but it's a word that is commonly used in RPG discussion because it specifically specifies something that no other English words do.