D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Then you've slightly misunderstood the argument. It isn't that I think that LOL evaded mechanics when, it's that if you allow her to narrate as if she evaded mechanics in the first place, you've set this situation up and the latter case definitely requires that you evade mechanics. The only real function of the initial INT check is whether or not the DM gives information. LOL fails, so the DM doesn't give the information. LOL then enters into the fiction that she really does know the answer but won't tell. This is weird, and I think very disruptive, but it's not evading mechanics. The evasion comes with ZoT which checks the fiction for the truth, not the INT check. LOL has created a paradox because she entered into the fiction that her knowing is the truth, even if the DM didn't give the information. So the player has no information, but LOL does. LOL cannot lie about this under the ZoT.

Essentially, the initial allowance of narration that contravenes the mechanics sets up the latter paradox and need to actually evade the mechanics. The narration of the INT check doesn't evade mechanics, it's just obnoxious.

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.

I don't have a problem with LOL's player writing fiction in their off time. Why would I?

But I do have issue with it at the table. And the difference is that she's not writing a story, now, she's entering information into the shared fiction. That narration impacts the other players and the DM because it informs them about how LOL is as a character, and modifies how the will interact with her and engage her. The fiction shared at the table is fundamentally different from writing a story in your room because it is shared fiction. Everyone at the table buys in and will use that narration to inform future actions. The DM should be listening to player narrations for story hooks and to understand better what the player wants out of that character. Insisting that the narration is totally divorced from the game a la independant fiction writing is a total non sequitur. It literally doesn't follow from the basic premise of a roleplaying game.

Now, some systems exist that do totally separate narrative from mechanics, and they're fine games. But D&D, and 5e in particular, weaves far too much of the fiction into it's mechanics. Charm person, dominate, ZoT, and other spells all interact at the fiction level to a greater or lesser degree. In D&D as written, you just can't separate the two completely without modifications. Which has been my singular point all along -- you can do it, and I'm sure you have a blast playing, but you're changing some rules to do it.

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.

True, but a concept that hinges on gainsaying mechanical outcomes is one that needs a lot to make not annoying.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

So you're answer is something that has nothing to do with the question? I didn't ask if you wrote fiction that has nothing to do with the game. I asked why you'd write a story representing the game and then not have it represent the game.

You going to ask the question, or are you going to make a poor attempt to dodge it again?

 

[Maxperson]

It boils down to this.

If you're writing fiction that's not based on the game, there's no issue at all. Have at it and I'm sure it will be cool. If you're writing for your blog and say it's about the game and it really isn't, then you are lying to those who read your blog. That's wrong and I have an issue with that. If you're writing for your blog about the game and it's accurate, you aren't lying to your readers and I have no problem with that. If you aren't writing a blog, but rather in a diary and you want to alter the way the game happened in your story, have at it. I don't have an issue with that.

However, as has been pointed out to you, what Eloelle is doing is not at all the same as you writing in your blog. It's altering how the game plays out and the mechanics of Zone of Truth.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Oh, Max.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Then you've slightly misunderstood the argument. It isn't that I think that LOL evaded mechanics when, it's that if you allow her to narrate as if she evaded mechanics in the first place, you've set this situation up and the latter case definitely requires that you evade mechanics. The only real function of the initial INT check is whether or not the DM gives information. LOL fails, so the DM doesn't give the information. LOL then enters into the fiction that she really does know the answer but won't tell. This is weird, and I think very disruptive, but it's not evading mechanics. The evasion comes with ZoT which checks the fiction for the truth, not the INT check. LOL has created a paradox because she entered into the fiction that her knowing is the truth, even if the DM didn't give the information. So the player has no information, but LOL does. LOL cannot lie about this under the ZoT.

Essentially, the initial allowance of narration that contravenes the mechanics sets up the latter paradox and need to actually evade the mechanics. The narration of the INT check doesn't evade mechanics, it's just obnoxious.




I don't have a problem with LOL's player writing fiction in their off time. Why would I?

But I do have issue with it at the table. And the difference is that she's not writing a story, now, she's entering information into the shared fiction. That narration impacts the other players and the DM because it informs them about how LOL is as a character, and modifies how the will interact with her and engage her. The fiction shared at the table is fundamentally different from writing a story in your room because it is shared fiction. Everyone at the table buys in and will use that narration to inform future actions. The DM should be listening to player narrations for story hooks and to understand better what the player wants out of that character. Insisting that the narration is totally divorced from the game a la independant fiction writing is a total non sequitur. It literally doesn't follow from the basic premise of a roleplaying game.

Now, some systems exist that do totally separate narrative from mechanics, and they're fine games. But D&D, and 5e in particular, weaves far too much of the fiction into it's mechanics. Charm person, dominate, ZoT, and other spells all interact at the fiction level to a greater or lesser degree. In D&D as written, you just can't separate the two completely without modifications. Which has been my singular point all along -- you can do it, and I'm sure you have a blast playing, but you're changing some rules to do it.


True, but a concept that hinges on gainsaying mechanical outcomes is one that needs a lot to make not annoying.

Oh, that's a much more intelligent/observant response than Max's. Which means I'll need more than 45 seconds to answer it. After kids are asleep I'll be back.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Where do the rules state that a timber structure, or a ship, is an object?

 

[pemerton]

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.

Well, unlike the soldier I can pull out at any time!

But I think some matters have actually become clearer (see below).

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.

<snip>

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 agree with this example, and it reminds me of this passage from Luke Crane's Adventure Burner (roughly = GM's guide) for Burning Wheel (pp 248-49):

In a recent campaign our characters were crossing a narrow span over a chasm. The GM, Pete, described the bridge in vivid detail. One of the players, Rich, described his character hopping up to the railing and capering along. Should Pete have called for a Speed test for Rich's character to keep his balance? No. Never. Why? Certainly "in real life" there's a chance of falling, but in the story, it didn't matter. Rich was roleplaying. He was embellishing, interacting with Pete's description. Rich made the scene better. . . .

If a player . . . describes something simple and cool for his character, don't call for punitive tests.​

The question of what's cool, or what's embellishment, is - like you say - a social question, not a rules/mechanics question.

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.

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.

This is where some things become clearer.

The idea of benefit brings with it a counterfactual evaluation: better of than which other alternative?

If Eloelle (secretly) know X, and doesn't have to disclose it to some evil cleric, Eloelle is better off than she would have been.

But at the table no such possibility was open.

Either Eloelle's player narrates Eloelle as thick as two planks, in which case Eloelle knows nothing (or, at least, nothing useful) and so the evil cleric learns nothing useful from her.

Or else, Eloelle's player adopts the narration of secret revelations from her patron, and narrates her patron as having protected her from the ZoT, and so the evil cleric learns nothing useful from her.

Hence my comment that there is no gameplay benefit, because Eloelle's player is in the same situation either way, and the GM's NPC is in the same situation either way.

It's true that Eloelle's player, if the "secrets and patrons" narration is allowed, gets the benefit of having his/her favoured narration. But that's not a problem - that's part of the point of playing a RPG!

 

[Maxperson]

Where do the rules state that a timber structure, or a ship, is an object?

Good point. They leave it up to the DM to rule on what a object is. My guess is that most of us will rule the same way, but it's not required. Maybe in your game a ship is not an object. Maybe in your game someone lying down on a deck counts as carrying the ship on his back, so it doesn't catch fire. What rules you enact are up to you and have no bearing on the rest of us or what is WRITTEN.

 

[Maxperson]

The idea of benefit brings with it a counterfactual evaluation: better of than which other alternative?

If Eloelle (secretly) know X, and doesn't have to disclose it to some evil cleric, Eloelle is better off than she would have been.

That applies to virtually every spell cast upon a PC. I know my PCs are better off if that fireball didn't do damage to me. Perhaps I should narrate on a failed save how I dodged the fireball and took no damage. That's the same as Eloelle is doing by lying under the effects of a Zone of Truth.

What's more, you have no basis for saying she's better off for being able to lie. Big evil guys in my game kill PCs/NPCs for lying to them, where if she told the truth perhaps they wouldn't. She could end up much worse off due to her narration and breaking of the mechanics.

Either Eloelle's player narrates Eloelle as thick as two planks, in which case Eloelle knows nothing (or, at least, nothing useful) and so the evil cleric learns nothing useful from her.

Or else, Eloelle's player adopts the narration of secret revelations from her patron, and narrates her patron as having protected her from the ZoT, and so the evil cleric learns nothing useful from her.

That's a wonderful False Dichotomy. Especially since we've been telling you over and over (at least a dozen times) in the last few pages about another option.

Narrate her as having known the answer and then truthfully say the wrong thing that she "knows." That doesn't qualify as being thick as two planks or involve her breaking the mechanics. It just makes her mistaken.

Hence my comment that there is no gameplay benefit, because Eloelle's player is in the same situation either way, and the GM's NPC is in the same situation either way.

It's very, very unlikely that she will be in the same situation either way. NPCs react differently to the truth, a lie, or a mistake. Her lie will garner a different reaction than her telling the truth or making a mistake.

 

[pemerton]

Narrate her as having known the answer and then truthfully say the wrong thing that she "knows." That doesn't qualify as being thick as two planks or involve her breaking the mechanics. It just makes her mistaken.

I don't understand what you have in mind.

In [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s Eloelle narrative, Eloelle knows the truth - her patron has revealed it to her, and/or she has worked it out in virtue of her genius - but she feigns ignorance and/or error, also at the behest of her patron.

There is no mistake that she can sincerely reveal. If, in the fiction, she is affected by ZoT then she has to reveal the truth - which would break (or, at least, disrupt) gameplay for two reasons: first, her player doesn't actually know what that truth is, and so the GM would have to play Eloelle and speak for her; second, it would make her secret knowledge a relevant consideration in the game, which - given she has 5 INT - it shouldn't be.

Hence the notion of preserving the gameplay status quo by having the player sincerely reveal all the information s/he has access to (namely, the ignorance/error) while narrating, in the fiction, that Eloelle's patron has interceded to protect her from the burden of truthfulness.