No flips for you!
[MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION], below is the exchange. Oofta's original scene has him clearly stating the rogue cannot hide at all, much kess a second time. This was the disagreement, although I grant you Oofta has tried to redefine it recently to the advantage thing, perhaps forgetting that people can just scroll back and re-read?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.
The second exchange is Oofta directly claiming that just rolling a d20 is sufficient in my games. Again, he's done a wonderful job obfuscating this, but, again, we can scroll back up. If his actual argument was really about second time sane place arguing, we'd have a different thread.
But, be my guest, ask [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] yourself if he'd allow the rogue in his scene to hide at the corner.
Scene: fighter goes 20 feet down a well lit 10 foot wide hallway and engages the guard. The rogue is behind the fighter hiding around the corner. There is no way for the rogue to see the fight, or to know when to lean around the corner to fire a shot.
The guard is distracted enough by the fighter that the rogue gets sneak attack damage.
Is the guard so distracted that he won't clearly see someone stepping around the corner to fire at him? Or to run the 20 feet to stab him?
I would say no. Could I change the scene? I guess, but I don't think it makes sense in this case for the rest of the narrative and I don't see a reason to change that narrative to give one PC in the group advantage.
I don't bend over backwards to reward or punish any type of play. Red dragons aren't suddenly going to become vulnerable to fire because the wizard takes all fire based spells any more than a rogue will be able to hide every round in every environment. I set up scenes that make sense to the story and allow a fair amount of creativity when taking advantage of those scenes. But ultimately the scenes (and the narrative ) are set up because they make sense in the world I'm constructing.
By doing something more than rolling a D20? In my campaign, yes. It's perfectly okay to have the bar set that low in your campaign, just don't expect everyone else to agree with you.