Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 4921956" data-attributes="member: 15538">No, I would not use a rule because it is the rule. That is exactly the opposite of my viewpoint. I would like a rule that follows from logic. The question is only, "What is the rule?" A well-designed RPG describes many general cases, from which special cases can be judged. Sometimes the general rule does not agree very well with reality. In other cases, it works fine but certain special cases raise eyebrows.I cannot empirically test whether someone gets sneak attack dice in a dark alley. I have no way of knowing who is a rogue in real life, nor do I have a way of measuring how much damage they do or what level the victim is. I also lack convenient murder victims to perform tests on.Now, I can hazard a guess that 20% is too high a miss chance from melee range if there is any light at all. And I can imagine that with patience, a rogue could find the neck or solar plexus well enough to do their job. So I have performed basically the same reality check you have. The next step, though, is to define this in game terms. You could define it only for this one situation, but that is less useful. Not only does it mean you have to go through the whole thought process another similar situation occurs but it means your players do not know where you stand. For instance, if a player wants his PC to plot an ambush, he might want to know how and under what circumstances you will agree his character can see well enough to ambush.That's a presumputous recommendation, and I am going to tell you why. First of all, that recommendation says the game can be modified as needed. It does not say that hand-waving is more sophisticated than extending the rules. If a simple and useful general case can be be generated, that is what I would prefer. Your advice is misaimed in that adjudicating in order to facillitate roleplaying is exactly my goal. I am not saying, "You cannot sneak attack in dim lighting." I thought it was clear from the OP that I was interested in talking about how the rules do not allow it, and the conversation has turned to some approaches and fixes. Second of all, you are speaking to me as if I were a novice, which I am not. I have been roleplaying for 25 years. I am a former columnist at RPG.net and I have RPG writing credits. To imply that I simply need to wake up and realize that the rules do not cover all situations is pretty condescending. Obviously, you do not know my personal background, but you do not know a lot of people's backgrounds and you are making a big assumption by thinking others need to "see the light."Third, insisting that the presence of a GM makes the rules sufficient and complete is the Oberoni Fallacy. Obviously, you cannot deal with an issue outside the rules if there is not an issue the rules do not address well. It is perverse to criticize someone for looking for ways to fix the problem.</blockquote>

Verification