D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Ovinomancer]

Oh man, I'm an idiot. I didn't realize this was an author stance versus director stance discussion. It's the same concept that underlay the argument about 4e martial daily and encounter powers. It's much harder to justify Int 5 geniuses with debilitating circumstances if your focus is on "inhabiting" the character rather than generating dramatic play.

Well, I don't know about that, as I never had any problems with 4e and daily/encounter powers. I also don't have much issue with the refluffing in general. I do have an issue with the specific choices of example here, and how they're defended, because the main one (LOL) uses her narration to break other game mechanics. I'm fine with a refluff that stays within it's swim lane but when it starts impacting other mechanics in ways that break those mechanics, I do have an issue.

So, I guess I'm in the middle? Like the card using casters, but more of the Kid's, where it's a fiction sub for the casting implement, not the actual source of the magic like ElfCrusher's example. The former is a fun roleplaying change that stays in it's swim lane -- it doesn't change other mechanics. EC's, though, does, and relies solely on players not abusing the loophole they've created. It also has issues, as noted, when interacting with outside mechanics that may remove the player enforced limitation on the mod. That's not good.

I've played mildly insane characters (a conspiracy nut most recently) and used that character background to enhance roleplaying failed rolls. If I didn't know something, for instance, I'd make up a conspiracy story about it. My character would 100% believe this to be truth, but it was wrong. If the mechanics of that game system had a zone of truth, my character could fail the save or make the save, but he'd have the same story, which was both wrong and 100% true in his eyes. That's internally consistent, and doesn't break other mechanics, and has a high fidelity. An example where, on a failed check, you know the real answer (and really do know the real answer), but don't tell anyone because of your delusion, doesn't. It breaks because it relies on the player to not abuse it, and it breaks when subjected to an effect that removes the player's ability to not abuse it, which, in this case, is as simple as a ZoT.

Refluffing can be tons of fun. I do it quite often as a DM and player, and I encourage it at my table. I don't encourage godmodding (great term!), though, and make sure that any refluff has a narrative fidelity so it doesn't break other mechanics and doesn't solely rely on the player not taking advantage of it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's all you had to admit, that it works fine.

ElfCrusher became upset earlier when I suggested it was a house rule....

 

[TwoSix]

Refluffing can be tons of fun. I do it quite often as a DM and player, and I encourage it at my table. I don't encourage godmodding (great term!), though, and make sure that any refluff has a narrative fidelity so it doesn't break other mechanics and doesn't solely rely on the player not taking advantage of it.

I'm not sure what "godmodding" is meant to mean, but from context, it seems somewhat synonymous with director stance play.

 

[Guest 6801328]

To those on our side, words and rules mean something.

Same here. From my point of view you are just insisting on a particular meaning that simply isn't there.

 

[Guest 6801328]

ElfCrusher became upset earlier when I suggested it was a house rule....

I'm not sure I'd describe it as "upset" but, yeah, I'm not willing to cede that what I'm talking about requires a house rule. A house rule changes mechanics. This doesn't.

 

[Maxperson]

That's all you had to admit, that it works fine.

From a response to you on page 3

A house rule is fine. Elfcrusher didn't come here to discuss house rules, though. At least his OP didn't say he was. Without it being a house rule discussion, it's a RAW discussion and by RAW his examples don't work.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not sure what "godmodding" is meant to mean, but from context, it seems somewhat synonymous with director stance play.

I don't know what director stance play is, but, from context, it seems to be something you dismiss out of hand as wrong.

Or, I could ask, and maybe learn what you mean if I don't understand instead of making an inference with negative connotations?

What do you mean by director stance play?

 

[TwoSix]

ElfCrusher became upset earlier when I suggested it was a house rule....

I, personally, don't really care if it's considered a house rule, as the focus on RAW is supposed to take a backseat in 5e to table convention. I'm more interested in debating against the importance of actor stance play within the community, as elevating one stance of play over others reduces the breadth of possible concepts and play opportunities available overall.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not sure I'd describe it as "upset" but, yeah, I'm not willing to cede that what I'm talking about requires a house rule. A house rule changes mechanics. This doesn't.

It does seem to strongly interfere with the mechanics of Zone of Truth in the LOL example, though, so....

 

[Ovinomancer]

I, personally, don't really care if it's considered a house rule, as the focus on RAW is supposed to take a backseat in 5e to table convention. I'm more interested in debating against the importance of actor stance play within the community, as elevating one stance of play over others reduces the breadth of possible concepts and play opportunities available overall.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that your voice wasn't allowed to tell your preferences, here, or that Maxperson regularly attended your session as a Fun Cop to stop you from playing your way.

There is no reduction of possible concepts or play opportunities overall. There's a disagreement between camps, with some not in either and agreeing with points on both sides. Don't mistake the fact that you can't immediately convince those arguing against you to change to your opinion with some malicious intent to stifle your ability to play your way.