So, yes, it is largely a matter of approach. That said, the guidance from the podcast is strongly that it's the normal condition that invisible creatures are detected. The example of a case where a GM might rule otherwise is pretty extreme, with big explosions, and less a matter of determining invisible creatures can be seen and more one of deciding NPCs stop caring to make the effort. That's some fairly strong guidance, there. Can you do it differently? Absolutely you can, but it would be hard to claim the podcast as support. Hence, my position. Do it differently, that's perfectly fine, but the claim of support is not strong at all.
And sorry for cutting this up, it kinda jumps around a bit, though, so I want my answers to be clearly to each.
I'd say that in the last few pages
@Helldritch has espoused a pretty strong baseline that's similar to
@Crimson Longinus' -- invisible creatures' locations are default unknown.
@Helldritch's distance limit is rather one where the Ranger ability ceases to function rather than a general statement in opposition to his default. Fourteenth level Ranger's lose the ability to automatically locate invisible creatures past 30', but everyone else doesn't get a location without a special circumstance or a successful check.
@Oofta does seem to be sticking hard to ad hoc decisions rather than any baseline assumption.
But, to go to your point, you're still arguing a slippery slope -- that a GM could claim to have a baseline assumption but be inconsistent about applying it and so begin to look like a GM that prefers an ad hoc approach to begin with. Sure, that could happen, but that doesn't describe anyone in this thread, so I'm not sure if it's really a point about the difference in approach or just about inconsistent GMs.
To be clear, I'm not saying that the ad hoc approach isn't consistent -- it very well can be and I assume it is. The issue I stated with ad hoc approaches is that it's always up to the GM and there's already lots of areas that a player has a different view on a situation from the GM, so that can be a sticking point -- the player has to make sure their on the same viewpoint as the GM. That's not about consistency, it's just a basic element of working off an imperfectly shared fiction.
No, you've missed the point, but exposed a viewpoint I hadn't considered. At no point would I ever think that a situation was uncertain or impossible and then rule otherwise because of a default. That's not it at all, but if that's what you got, I can see how you'd be against that, even aggressively so. Instead, the point of the default is to establish the situations that I already think are automatic successes. This puts that information in the player's hands so they don't have to ask, and so that I have a custom of ruling that is obvious and consistent. Here, that's unless there's a special circumstance that is obvious to the table -- either through just being obvious (you won't detect an invisible creature on a different continent, as an extreme but clear example) or because I've announced it ("the heavy downpour makes seeing and hearing difficult past about 30 feet") -- then the default answer is that it's automatically successful. If I think a situation warrants a different look, then I'll see if I've provided clear context for that or not. If not, well, then I might overrule my judgement because I wasn't clear and fair to the players once, doing it again won't help. If I was, though, then I've already telegraphed the special circumstance and I won't use the default.
To wrap this back to my football analogy -- it's clear when it's less than 10 yards, and clear when it's over 10 yards, but close to 10 yards it's clear that a decision needs to be made. That's how my default works -- it never overrides my thinking on a situation being uncertain or a failure, it's just the communication to the players where the area where I'll rule it's automatically successful exists. Part of enabling this is using a more in the middle fortune mechanic, which gives me leeway to map the fiction to the outcomes.
Yes and no. No in that I disagree with you, but yes in that if you thought my approach entailed overriding my own rulings, then I can see that problem.
Look, the benefit of ad hoc rulings is that you can do a good job mapping the fiction to the mechanics. The downside of this is that players don't have an expectation and a difference of view on the current fiction can be magnified. The benefit of my approach is that it's very consistent and player facing. The downside is that I have to adapt the fiction to the mechanics. Honestly, though, I think most people actually do use a baseline, even if informal. We've seen this in
@Helldritch's move from claiming ad hoc to saying that they usually rule invisibility as location unknown.
@Crimson Longinus has directly said this is his baseline. That's not really a difference in approach such as a reversal of what the baseline entails. It's possible others might indeed be entirely ad hoc, but I think that they are more likely to bend towards invisible is location unknown unless special circumstance dictates otherwise. This more closely aligns with the fictional descriptions they've provided in examples, and aligns with a more tail-ended fortune approach such that mechanics are used after the relevant fiction is established. This makes sense, and it a valid way to play. I think it different from what the 5e rules suggest, strongly so, but everyone's entitled to their own interpretation.
EDIT: I fixed botched formatting
