D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Guest 6801328]

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

No, it only effects the narration. On a failed saving throw she still tells the truth. Because the 'truth', mechanically, is that she doesn't have the information. THAT was a narrative not a mechanical change as well.

As long as you acknowledge that the narration in both cases is just fluff, and doesn't actually change the underlying facts of the game, everything stays consistent with RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The common usage of words is also supposed to be a 5e focus, but Elfcrusher is not using intelligence as it is commonly used, either.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I house rule also changes a rule. It doesn't have to only be mechanical in nature. Elfcrusher can't admit to that, though. It would destroy his argument.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it only effects the narration. On a failed saving throw she still tells the truth. Because the 'truth', mechanically, is that she doesn't have the information. THAT was a narrative not a mechanical change as well.

As long as you acknowledge that the narration in both cases is just fluff, and doesn't actually change the underlying facts of the game, everything stays consistent with RAW.

Your narration involved you acting like you succeeded in the save. A mechanical change since acting like that is a lie. You failed and the caster knows it. Your narration involved you not admitting that you don't know, which is the truth, and instead lying. A mechanical change since you can't lie.

Your narration altered mechanics. It was a house rule even by your standards.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The common usage of words is also supposed to be a 5e focus, but Elfcrusher is not using intelligence as it is commonly used, either.

I'll happily admit to the second part....where do you get the first part? "The common usage of words is also supposed to be a focus of 5e". Was that one of the design goals? (Not that the answer is relevant; there were many design goals that people feel strongly were not delivered upon.)

 

[TwoSix]

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?

I'm partially misspeaking, as I should be lumping in director stance and author stance together, standing in as other modes of play available beyond actor stance. I focused on director stance because I was defining the issue in terms of bringing external forces to play in terms of framing the narrative, but author stance is probably a better descriptor for most of the use cases that have been outlined.

Very informally, actor stance is when you decide what happens to your character based on your (the player's) priorities (such as generating drama, focusing on character goals), and then retroactively justify your decision to make sense in your character's mindset. Director stance is when you frame the environmental situation around the character in the interest of generating new story. Director stance doesn't come up very much in D&D, it's more of a focus of more explicitly narrative games.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Your narration involved you acting like you succeeded in the save. A mechanical change since acting like that is a lie. You failed and the caster knows it. Your narration involved you not admitting that you don't know, which is the truth, and instead lying. A mechanical change since you can't lie.

Your narration altered mechanics. It was a house rule even by your standards.

You are conflating narration ("fluff") and mechanical change. It's as simple as that.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Of course there is. If I show up to the game, and Maxperson was the DM, he wouldn't let me play a concept like Eloelle. I'm just arguing for keeping options open. I'm a firm believer in trying to discard your inherent preferences and open yourself to trying to play as many ways as possible. Ideally, you should be able to play OD&D, Dungeon World, FATE, and Fiasco with equal facility, because you understand the different playstyles and approaches necessary to play each game. And if you can enliven your game by playing D&D in a more Dungeon World style, so much the better!

And is the snarky rejoinder strictly necessary? You're more of a formal argument posing grind it out poster.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, it only effects the narration. On a failed saving throw she still tells the truth. Because the 'truth', mechanically, is that she doesn't have the information. THAT was a narrative not a mechanical change as well.

As long as you acknowledge that the narration in both cases is just fluff, and doesn't actually change the underlying facts of the game, everything stays consistent with RAW.

This requires a house rule on reality and the definition of truth, though. The play is that the character DOES know the real truth, but is not revealing/acting on it because of a narrative choice in dealing with a failed save. The character believes they know the truth, and so an answer of 'I don't know' is a lie from the point of view of the character.

Zone of Truth doesn't check to see if statement made are consistent with previous mechanics rolls, it checks to see if the truth, as understood by the characters, is told. If LOL believes she knows the answer, then any answer of 'I don't know' rings as false. To patch this, you grant the ability to resist the spell after a failed save and lie because the patron extends magical protection to protect this information. In other words, you institute a house rule that allows a player to ignore the mechanics of zone of truth to protect their narration. And that's fine, but you're bending and breaking the rules as written, and not just soft ones like how INT is defined* but hard ones like how ZoT functions.


* On which I agree with Max: it is a rule because it's a definition of a class of thing in the game, even if it doesn't have a number attached to the definition. You're welcome to change that definition, but, in doing so, you're instituting a house rule. This is easily checked by considering a new player reading the rules -- they will normally think that INT being defined as it is means that's the rule for what INT is. It's only us experienced guys that have a few systems under our belt and an idea of how we like to play that would ever look at that and think 'oh, that's just a suggestion, I can change that and it's not a houserule.' But, it is still a houserule, even if it's one that you don't think is a very big one.

 

[TwoSix]

I'll happily admit to the second part....where do you get the first part? "The common usage of words is also supposed to be a focus of 5e". Was that one of the design goals? (Not that the answer is relevant; there were many design goals that people feel strongly were not delivered upon.)

He's extrapolating from some the "plain language" discussions, I think, since the RAW of 5e is less formal and legalistic than either 4e or 3e.