Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6875421" data-attributes="member: 16814">And, yet, it appears to not be achieved.The LOL concept requires continued patching of other game mechanics (ZoT, charm, dominate, read thoughts, etc.) and outright fails if another player is involved, which are patched by declaring alternate adjudication methods that completely circumvent game rules on the basis that the patcher dislikes those interactions.  That entire argument about player on player interactions was sidestepped by the declaration that a house rule on player on player interactions are adjudicated entirely outside the rules, and yet there's a continued claim that the LOL concept doesn't require houserules.  Skip NPC ZoTs, how do you rule player ZoT's?No, it doesn't, and [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] thinks the same flawed way.  I've played many games where such things are fine, but if I did in in a system that isn't built on narrative storytelling as a primary mechanics, I've done it with the knowledge that I"m at least bending, if not breaking, some rules to allow it.  D&D does poorly with concepts that narrate success when the mechanics narrate failure because many of it's rules tie the fiction to the mechanics.This fails because I, as a player, quite often don't know the things my characters know.  If LOL the character knows, it violates the rules for her to lie about it under a ZoT.  I get where you're saying 'but there's no effective difference between being allowed to lie and not actually knowing' and you're right, except that it expressly violates the mechanics of ZoT.  That's my entire point -- you're breaking a rule to maintain the narrative fiction.  And that's fine, so long as it's acknowledge as such and not as 'I'm playing exactly as the rules are intended.'I _get_ the argument you're making.  It's not sufficient to say that this argument means you aren't breaking the mechanics of ZoT.No, I disagree that there's a disconnect.  ZoT doesn't check only mechanical things -- it's a mechanic that reaches across into the fiction.  It adjudicates truth according to the fiction, not according to the table.Also, silly attempt to distinguish LOL as only 'fiction' and ZoT as somehow something different that's entirely separated (can't tell if you're calling the mechanics 'real' vs 'fictional' or something different, like a parallel dimension fiction/real hybrid and squats on the side of the table and croaks 'fumble!' on occasion).  You can tell this because ZoT targets LOL.  If LOL only exists in some separate realm, how does this happen?It is a benefit -- it allows the player to narrate a lie under an action declaration restrictions of not lying.That's all swell, and it's great to consider rules as to how they affect gameplay, but that's not the only way they can be considered, nor is it how their presented in the rulebooks.  RAW, you can't lie under a ZoT, regardless of how you think it's useful to tell stories.  You're modifying the tool to meet your needs, and that's fantastic (I actually like your meta on the function of the rules), but it's modifying the rules.  You're not talking ZoT as is, you're changing it to allow new things according to a new concept of how the rule works.  The rule, as written, doesn't do this.  Hence, a houserule.  Also, you don't describe it's use when a PC casts it on another PC.  Regardless of your opinion on how distasteful this may be, the rules of the game certainly don't disallow it.  It needs to be considered, as well.Again, you've altered how ZoT functions.  You're making a change based on the outcomes, not the methods.  However, the rules of D&D describe processes, and do not make mention of altering the processes to achieve outcomes, nor do they present your outcomes at goals.  Hence, houserule.One more time, then:  you're changed the process of ZoT (you can lie, so long as there's no mechanical advantage) to suit an outcome (I want to tell a story where I can lie under ZoTs).  You've justified this by broadening your outcomes (ZoT is just a backstory tool, so as long as it operates fairly in providing backstory, it's working as intended).  However, your outcomes are not part of the rules (no rule recommends considering the outcome of story results and then altering how the rule works to achieve that).  Also, the rules are process driven, not outcome driven (they work the same way regardless of the desired outcome).  ZoT defines a process -- cast, save, can't lie.  You're changing that process to -- cast, save, provide gameplay neutral backstory interaction.  That's a pretty major change to the resolution mechanics of that process, and incorporates an outcome into the process rather than allowing the process to generate an outcome.  And all of that's fine.  Like I've said, I actually like your framing - I've done similar things with other systems before.  Why I haven't with D&D, I dunno, likely because I'm looking for a certain experience with D&D and am not looking to make it into a something that is, bluntly, already done better in other systems.  But, that aside, despite my liking your framing, and heartily encouraging you and ElfCrusher to enjoy it (I wouldn't personally be happy to be at a table with LOL, for reasons I've covered, but if it floats your boat, go for it), it requires that you do change the mechanics in a systematic and repeated way, hence, houserules.Houserules being used by my to represent an intentional change to existing mechanics, and not adjudications of unclear things or extrapolating to fill in holes.  2 gallon jugs aren't houserules, changing ZoT so that you can lie to preserve story so long as backstory is fairly distributed is a houserule.  Not a bad thing, just a thing.</blockquote>

Verification