Extreme self-preservation

[Ancalagon]

My experience is that players who cleave narrowly to the rules when determining what they will do often have bad experiences with DMs who say "No" to a lot of their ideas and plans. So they just start trying to rely on the mechanics more often in response. A DM might rarely say no to something defined by the rules, but suddenly get very defensive when the player proposes something that might subvert some outcome the DM had in mind or otherwise negate his or her prep work.

In a one-shot I ran a couple weeks ago, one of the players (someone I didn't know since it was a pickup group) proposed a plan for luring ravenous troglodytes out of a hole so that they could be picked off one by one outside of the range of their stench. The plan she and the others proposed sounded reasonable, so it worked for clearing out half the trogs in the manner they intended. (The other half stayed behind because now they had their fellow trogs to eat.) She said, "I can't believe this is working - my plans never work!" How sad. I bet she has a lot of DMs who say "No,"

That is sad - and I suspect you are correct

or who backdoor a "No" by asking for too many ability checks which inevitably fail.

I once called out a GM on that and she got rather mad...

 

[Ovinomancer]

Huh? I am confused. I don't mean that sarcastically or offensively. I am honestly confused. Everything you've written before this led me to believe you think the rogue should get advantage from hiding almost every round. I gave an example of the rogue at the end of a well lit 10 foot wide corridor. I said he wouldn't be able to attack from hidden and you gave an alternate narrative that said they get advantage by waiting for the right moment.

There's nothing wrong with that. It's not meant as an insult, a put-down. I never said your games were boring. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Different people have different styles than I do.

But now you say you don't do that and it's like somebody repeatedly singing the praises of Rocky Road ice cream above all other ice creams and then when i mention that you like Rock Road you get upset.

Maybe you meant something else. Forums aren't always good at this kind of thing. Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding what you've said.

I'm simply trying to explain how I run games and why. That's it. See my standard disclaimer.

As far as rogue damage I'm just relaying my experience which may be different than yours which I stated. I don't see why that bothers you.

This is clever. You've spun my charges as if I'm the one with the issues here, despite your previous replies acknowledging you were being sarcastic and your attempt to revise the argument here by eliminating the corner from your scene. The reference to your "standard disclaimer" is clever as well, because it might lead people to think the disclaimer is relevant to my charges when instead it's just you repeating a pretty standard statement against one-true-wayism. How that relates to mischaracterizing my posts, I'm really unable to fathom. All-in-all it's a pretty good spin, possibly in an attempt to get me angry enough to violate board rules.

I'll instead just say that if you honestly misunderstood my multiple and layered references to hiding behind the corner of that hallway in the scene where you clearly said the rogue was trying hide behind the corner as a statement that rogues can just roll to hide in the middle of brightly lit hallways... well, I'm not sure how you could do so. If you insist, I'll take your word for it, though, and expect an apology for the mistake now that it's been corrected. I anticipate waiting a long time, though.

 

[Oofta]

This is clever. You've spun my charges as if I'm the one with the issues here, despite your previous replies acknowledging you were being sarcastic and your attempt to revise the argument here by eliminating the corner from your scene. The reference to your "standard disclaimer" is clever as well, because it might lead people to think the disclaimer is relevant to my charges when instead it's just you repeating a pretty standard statement against one-true-wayism. How that relates to mischaracterizing my posts, I'm really unable to fathom. All-in-all it's a pretty good spin, possibly in an attempt to get me angry enough to violate board rules.

I'll instead just say that if you honestly misunderstood my multiple and layered references to hiding behind the corner of that hallway in the scene where you clearly said the rogue was trying hide behind the corner as a statement that rogues can just roll to hide in the middle of brightly lit hallways... well, I'm not sure how you could do so. If you insist, I'll take your word for it, though, and expect an apology for the mistake now that it's been corrected. I anticipate waiting a long time, though.

It sometimes feels like people look for reasons to take offense, because I've meant none. I will be the first to admit I'm overly sarcastic at times, but I'm being honest. I also don't understand what you mean by "eliminating the corner". Seriously, I have no clue what you're talking about. If the rogue is hiding behind a corner they are behind full cover. Unless they have magic teleporting arrows and X-Ray vision (which in an epic level campaign might be kind of awesome) they have to step out into the hallway to attack. Once they step out, they can be clearly seen. No more hidden in my games. I suppose they could lean out, but they'd have to expose at least half their body to fire an arrow so I don't see that it would matter.

Anyway, I went back through all your posts and there was one spot starting in the middle of a paragraph where you said you give disadvantage under some circumstances back in post #61. I admit, I missed it. Sorry. But you didn't make a big deal out of it until post #89. Instead you kept asking me why I limited hiding. After I had explained multiple times that hiding is possible quite frequently, I just don't allow it from the same spot more than once.

I feel like this is another tempest in a teacup. A mountain out of a molehill. We run stealth slightly differently. Big whoop. It's a tangent to the thread to begin with and ruling differently on stuff like this is trivial.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It sometimes feels like people look for reasons to take offense, because I've meant none. I will be the first to admit I'm overly sarcastic at times, but I'm being honest.

I'm not sure that you fully understand the concept of sarcasm if you're surprised someone could take offense.

I also don't understand what you mean by "eliminating the corner". Seriously, I have no clue what you're talking about. If the rogue is hiding behind a corner they are behind full cover. Unless they have magic teleporting arrows and X-Ray vision (which in an epic level campaign might be kind of awesome) they have to step out into the hallway to attack. Once they step out, they can be clearly seen. No more hidden in my games. I suppose they could lean out, but they'd have to expose at least half their body to fire an arrow so I don't see that it would matter.

Nicely done! You've switched back to arguing the case when the complaint was about how you modified the case for your last response. Regardless of the response, you can always shift to the other argument! I address the scene you provided and you misrepresent my post. I complain about that and you misrepresent what the argument is about. I complain about that and you go back to your initial argument about the scene. It's a revolving door of arguments where you never have to defend any of them, just swap for the next and act surprised there's confusion! Bravo.

Anyway, I went back through all your posts and there was one spot starting in the middle of a paragraph where you said you give disadvantage under some circumstances back in post #61. I admit, I missed it. Sorry. But you didn't make a big deal out of it until post #89. Instead you kept asking me why I limited hiding. After I had explained multiple times that hiding is possible quite frequently, I just don't allow it from the same spot more than once.

Or corners of hallways, apparently. Regardless, that point wasn't actually part of your misrepresentation the last few posts, so let's not pretend that your core issue was that I might allow a rogue to hide behind the corner of the 10' hallway more than once. You're clearly on record that once is too many times.

And, yes, I was interested in why you limited hiding, a clear response to which has yet to be given past 'verisimilitude', which was also asked about in that context. And then you sarcastically misrepresented my responses after asking to leave that conversation, a request I was honoring at that time. Let's not pretend you've been a gracious partner in this conversation.

I feel like this is another tempest in a teacup. A mountain out of a molehill. We run stealth slightly differently. Big whoop. It's a tangent to the thread to begin with and ruling differently on stuff like this is trivial.

I was quite happy with the conversation until you began misrepresenting my posts to make sarcastic remarks at my expense. I'm little surprised at this response.

 

[Harzel]

This is clever. You've spun my charges as if I'm the one with the issues here, despite your previous replies acknowledging you were being sarcastic and your attempt to revise the argument here by eliminating the corner from your scene. The reference to your "standard disclaimer" is clever as well, because it might lead people to think the disclaimer is relevant to my charges when instead it's just you repeating a pretty standard statement against one-true-wayism. How that relates to mischaracterizing my posts, I'm really unable to fathom. All-in-all it's a pretty good spin, possibly in an attempt to get me angry enough to violate board rules.

I'll instead just say that if you honestly misunderstood my multiple and layered references to hiding behind the corner of that hallway in the scene where you clearly said the rogue was trying hide behind the corner as a statement that rogues can just roll to hide in the middle of brightly lit hallways... well, I'm not sure how you could do so. If you insist, I'll take your word for it, though, and expect an apology for the mistake now that it's been corrected. I anticipate waiting a long time, though.

Ok, I'll just chime in and say that my impression of your position was much the same as [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]'s. I think your claims of mischaracterization are misplaced. And your move to insinuate that [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] is being disingenuous is unpleasant, unproductive, and from all I can see, unsupported.

Also, 'expecting' an apology, as if you have been injured somehow, is just a bit over the top, especially considering that [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] already apologized to you once. Everyone's writing precision and reading comprehension are going to be flawed; cutting people some slack will make the world a better place.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not sure that you fully understand the concept of sarcasm if you're surprised someone could take offense.


Nicely done! You've switched back to arguing the case when the complaint was about how you modified the case for your last response. Regardless of the response, you can always shift to the other argument! I address the scene you provided and you misrepresent my post. I complain about that and you misrepresent what the argument is about. I complain about that and you go back to your initial argument about the scene. It's a revolving door of arguments where you never have to defend any of them, just swap for the next and act surprised there's confusion! Bravo.


Or corners of hallways, apparently. Regardless, that point wasn't actually part of your misrepresentation the last few posts, so let's not pretend that your core issue was that I might allow a rogue to hide behind the corner of the 10' hallway more than once. You're clearly on record that once is too many times.

And, yes, I was interested in why you limited hiding, a clear response to which has yet to be given past 'verisimilitude', which was also asked about in that context. And then you sarcastically misrepresented my responses after asking to leave that conversation, a request I was honoring at that time. Let's not pretend you've been a gracious partner in this conversation.


I was quite happy with the conversation until you began misrepresenting my posts to make sarcastic remarks at my expense. I'm little surprised at this response.

Again, I don't understand why you are so upset.

We run stealth slightly different. My scenario was simple: a rogue can be hidden around a corner. If the rogue comes out from behind the cover he was hiding behind he may be clearly seen. If he is clearly seen he is no longer hidden. Depending on circumstances I may allow it once but I assume they will be clearly seen after the first time. The reason I do this is simple: after the first time they know someone is there. They can go back around the corner and hide again, that doesn't mean the enemy forgets they exist.

I don't know how you think I "modified the case" or why we can't just have different ideas on how to run stealth.

That's pretty much all I can think to add to the topic. It's too bad you can't accept an honest explanation and apology but I'm tired of saying I'm sorry when I don't even know what I'm apologizing for any more.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok, I'll just chime in and say that my impression of your position was much the same as [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]'s. I think your claims of mischaracterization are misplaced. And your move to insinuate that [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] is being disingenuous is unpleasant, unproductive, and from all I can see, unsupported.

Also, 'expecting' an apology, as if you have been injured somehow, is just a bit over the top, especially considering that [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] already apologized to you once. Everyone's writing precision and reading comprehension are going to be flawed; cutting people some slack will make the world a better place.

Your understanding was that a rogue player could just roll a d20 and hide? Yeah, okay.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Again, I don't understand why you are so upset. [/quote[
Hint: it's not because we run stealth differently.

Protip: it's because you sarcastically mischaracterized my post and have refused to take ownership or apologize for it. Seriously, how many times do I have to say exactly this for you to grasp it? At least once more, it seems.

 

[Oofta]

Again, I don't understand why you are so upset. [/quote[
Hint: it's not because we run stealth differently.

Protip: it's because you sarcastically mischaracterized my post and have refused to take ownership or apologize for it. Seriously, how many times do I have to say exactly this for you to grasp it? At least once more, it seems.

Linda? Is that you? The ex-girlfriend who used to get mad at me and demand I apologize? Then when I would ask "apologize for what" she'd say "you know!" There's a reason she's an ex.

Anyhoo. I don't know what you're talking about. I missed a statement buried halfway down a paragraph in a post back on page 6 about how you'd impose disadvantage in some situations. I apologized.

Give it a rest or give me a clue.

 

[Harzel]

Your understanding was that a rogue player could just roll a d20 and hide? Yeah, okay.

Yes*, until you revealed that you imposed disadvantage if the rogue popped out of the same place twice, in which case they have to roll 2d20. But more importantly, this means you differentiate the same case that @Oofta does, which makes me wonder why you think what he does is so vastly different than what you do that you must inquire repeatedly about his motivation.

By the way, I thought your initial point about looking closely at what one is trying to accomplish with certain kinds of rulings was generally a good one. It just seemed odd that no answer from @Oofta seemed to satisfy you.

For myself, although neither of the rogue PCs my players have ever tried hiding very often (they seem to prefer running up and stabbing things), I would be strongly inclined to not grant repeated hiding in the same place maximum efficacy in most situations. I think it's a close call between imposing disadvantage and just saying it doesn't work. As to why, it is partly a matter of verisimilitude and partly a matter of it seeming like button-mashing if the rogue does the same thing every. single. round.

That said, it does occur to me that I would probably just let it work if the player were a young kid or very new. So not strictly neutral arbitration I guess. Oh, well.

* By the way, I hope you do not think that anyone meant to imply that you did not require reasonable environmental conditions and using them to hide. (That is, literally, just roll a d20.) That would be a serious misunderstanding of the conversation.