Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7318870" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!&nbsp;[MENTION=413]Uller[/MENTION], looking at what both [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] said, they pretty much got it. What you seem to be wanting to do is create a different circumstantial 'absolute' to cover when/if a character can Hide or needs to use Stealth, Perception, etc. What I'm trying to say is...there is no spoon. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Actually, that may be a good way to describe it. In The Matrix, when Neo is talking to the other 'special individuals' and sees that bald kid bending a spoon. Neo is trying to fit a &quot;rule&quot; into how a spoon can bend without touching it. He's looking at it from different angles...&quot;if A, then would it be possible?&quot;, &quot;No. If B, then would it be possible?&quot;, etc etc. Then the bald kid informs him that it's simple because there is no spoon in the first place.Think of the &quot;Hide&quot; 'action' as the spoon. You can come up with all manner of situations where Hide will/won't &quot;work&quot;. But in doing so you are missing the point; there is no &quot;hide&quot; in the first place. The PC's and NPC's in the game world don't &quot;know the special game rules&quot; (e.g, are aware of the matrix), so they have no way of actually &quot;using Hide&quot; in any situation. All they know is that if they are being chased, they can jump into a closet and close the door...and hope the person chasing them just sees a door and not a potential hiding spot.That's what I mean when I say &quot;playing backwards&quot;. The PC's and NPC's in your world will do stuff according to how they see the world. They don't do stuff according to &quot;the rules&quot;, per se. So when a player chases a thief down a street, and the thief darts down an ally...and the PC gets to the ally, I (as DM) wouldn't say &quot;Make a Perception check. ... You did it. He's hiding under an old sheet of canvas&quot;. That would be &quot;using the rules first&quot;. The 'matrix' doesn't just suddenly make itself known to the PC so that he can suddenly 'see that there is no spoon'. I would (as DM) say &quot;You see an ally way filled with junk, wood, barrels, crates, canvas sheets crumpled and draped over trade boxes, and a small path you could travel down, carefully, roughly in the center of everything&quot;. (e.g., &quot;You see a spoon&quot;).Now, what I *think* you are trying to say is that you want some sort of &quot;basic criteria&quot; that would constitute a PC/NPC being granted the &quot;Hidden&quot; moniker in order to deal with other game-rules that specifically say &quot;...unless Hidden&quot;, or &quot;...can not be Hidden from&quot;, in order to be able to adjudicate &quot;game rule stuff&quot;. I get that. But as Satyrn said above, you seem to just be substituting one criteria for another, which won't solve anything (e.g, &quot;You see a spork&quot;).I think your best bet is to find a way to look at the rules for Hidden as they were, IMHO, &quot;intended&quot;; as a base guideline situation so that the DM can make a case by case ruling as to if the Hide/Hidden moniker can or should be used. I don't think Hide or Stealth or any of the frequently touted &quot;mistakes/errors&quot; for them are mistakes or errors (re: I think they are 'vague' by design). I think it is DM's and Players wanting (or being used to) a simple 'check box' to determine if a rule applies. In an RPG, the best thing about them is that, while printed on paper and costing not a few sheckles, they are still just &quot;spoons&quot;. The DM and Players (not PC's) are unplugged from the matrix and can see a supposed 'rule' as something that isn't immutable; rules are easily bent or broken...if you know what you are looking at.Bottom Line: Try and remove as many &quot;absolutes&quot; from your mind and your Players minds when running a session. EVERYTHING can be ignored, modified, or used...on a case by case basis. Once everyone at the table realizes that if they play &quot;by using their imagining of the game world&quot; to make decisions, as opposed to &quot;using the game rules&quot; to make decisions, well, 'the matrix is lifted', and everyone can just enjoy the story, setting, and emotion. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 7318870, member: 45197"] Hiya! [MENTION=413]Uller[/MENTION], looking at what both [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] said, they pretty much got it. What you seem to be wanting to do is create a different circumstantial 'absolute' to cover when/if a character can Hide or needs to use Stealth, Perception, etc. What I'm trying to say is...there is no spoon. ;) Actually, that may be a good way to describe it. In The Matrix, when Neo is talking to the other 'special individuals' and sees that bald kid bending a spoon. Neo is trying to fit a "rule" into how a spoon can bend without touching it. He's looking at it from different angles..."if A, then would it be possible?", "No. If B, then would it be possible?", etc etc. Then the bald kid informs him that it's simple because there [I]is no spoon[/I] in the first place. Think of the "Hide" 'action' as the spoon. You can come up with all manner of situations where Hide will/won't "work". But in doing so you are missing the point; there is no "hide" in the first place. The PC's and NPC's in the game world don't "know the special game rules" (e.g, are aware of the matrix), so they have no way of actually "using Hide" in any situation. All they know is that if they are being chased, they can jump into a closet and close the door...and hope the person chasing them just sees a door and not a potential hiding spot. That's what I mean when I say "playing backwards". The PC's and NPC's in your world will do stuff according to how they see the world. They don't do stuff according to "the rules", per se. So when a player chases a thief down a street, and the thief darts down an ally...and the PC gets to the ally, I (as DM) wouldn't say "Make a Perception check. ... You did it. He's hiding under an old sheet of canvas". That would be "using the rules first". The 'matrix' doesn't just suddenly make itself known to the PC so that he can suddenly 'see that there is no spoon'. I would (as DM) say "You see an ally way filled with junk, wood, barrels, crates, canvas sheets crumpled and draped over trade boxes, and a small path you could travel down, carefully, roughly in the center of everything". (e.g., "You see a spoon"). Now, what I *think* you are trying to say is that you want some sort of "basic criteria" that would constitute a PC/NPC being granted the "Hidden" moniker in order to deal with other game-rules that specifically say "...unless Hidden", or "...can not be Hidden from", in order to be able to adjudicate "game rule stuff". I get that. But as Satyrn said above, you seem to just be substituting one criteria for another, which won't solve anything (e.g, "You see a spork"). I think your best bet is to find a way to look at the rules for Hidden as they were, IMHO, "intended"; as a base guideline situation so that the DM can make [I]a case by case ruling[/I] as to if the Hide/Hidden moniker can or should be used. I don't think Hide or Stealth or any of the frequently touted "mistakes/errors" for them [I]are [/I]mistakes or errors (re: I think they are 'vague' by design). I think it is DM's and Players wanting (or being used to) a simple 'check box' to determine if a rule applies. In an RPG, the best thing about them is that, while printed on paper and costing not a few sheckles, they are still just "spoons". The DM and Players (not PC's) are unplugged from the matrix and can see a supposed 'rule' as something that isn't immutable; rules are easily bent or broken...if you know what you are looking at. Bottom Line: Try and remove as many "absolutes" from your mind and your Players minds when running a session. EVERYTHING can be ignored, modified, or used...on a case by case basis. Once everyone at the table realizes that if they play "by using their imagining of the game world" to make decisions, as opposed to "using the game rules" to make decisions, well, 'the matrix is lifted', and everyone can just enjoy the story, setting, and emotion. :) ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification