Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8099508" data-attributes="member: 16814">The analogy used the 10 yards to first down in football to represent an understood baseline with room for adjudication.  It wasn't meant to be any reference to a specific distance at which invisibility functions differently.I disagree.  There's a large difference between saying there's a general case that holds unless something everyone can see alters it leading to a GM ruling and saying there is no general case, it's always the GM's ruling.  The former is much more player facing -- the players can easily understand the working of the world and make choices without having to ask questions about the situation.  The latter is more GM facing -- the GM understands the world but has to relate the understanding to the players or have the players ask questions about the GM's understanding so the players can make choices.  This is a fundamental difference in approach in general, and in this specific case it's still a fundamental difference in approach.With regard to what the podcast is saying, it's approaching it from the former position -- it's normal for invisible creatures to be located unless there's a special circumstance.  I cannot agree with an argument that says that since there's room for GM arbitration here, that means that it also means there's no normal -- it's all GM determining every situation independently.  That's not the approach discussed, even if that approach is a perfectly fine approach.Since I took some time to say things that could be viewed as dismissive of an approach, let me point out where I think my approach can have problems.  For one, it requires fortune in the middle -- after the broad strokes are determined, the decision is made, and then the rest of the scene is narrated in.  This looks like the my example earlier of the monk running off (initially established fiction), I then decide that there's no special circumstance so he's located, and then the narration comes back in and a trail of kicked up dust is added to the fiction as to why the monk is detected.  This, fundamentally, strikes some as not good.  That's cool, I get it, I was in that group not that long ago.  Secondly, I think it strikes some as gameable -- any time you have a fixed or largely fixed baseline, players might game it.  I don't have that concern, but I understand it, and my approach definitely opens itself up to that.</blockquote>

Verification