D&D 5E I for one hope we don't get "clarification" on many things.

[kenmarable]

You've got me now. You have so got me on that page count point!

God! Why didn't I bring up page count in the first place?! If I had, then I would have secured my position that two rule books of comparable size and scope and detail could not possibly be written under different philosophies of rules interpretation--though they certainly could be marketed differently...

Ah! My position would have been secure against all assault, if only I had thought to refer to pages, too, rather than let poundage stand for--ach, it doesn't matter.

I retreat under the weight of resin. Maybe I'll go over to that Beastmaster thread in which somebody posted a Twitter exchange with Mearls, in which Mearls clarified a rule, which exchange proves that, in a rulings over rules system, you don't need to get clarifications from the designers to play D&D right.

The last we'll hear from Mike Mearls on that count!

Of course, all of this is moot, because the DMG remains unreleased (probably because,in good, old fashioned, old school, rulings over rules proportions, it'll run to 650 pages or, roughly, five pounds, depending, of course, on the kind and amount of the resin).

Wow, I don't know where you normally frequent, but the tone of this reply is a wee bit over the top and really pushing the limits of "keep it civil" rule around here (in my opinion). Eric's grandma would not be pleased.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/faq.php?faq=faq_rules#faq_new_faq_irule1

Just to be clear, you did just list off a bunch of book weights and when Mistwell replied to how weight might not mean anything, you throw a bucket load of sarcasm onto the thread. I'm not a mod, but just as one forum member to another, you might want to see what the general tone is of the boards before you try pushing the limits. "Keep it civil, keep it clean, and keep it on topic."

 

[prosfilaes]

And of course other English words can be used instead of agency - wow what a lack of imagination to think just that jargon can be used.

Demonstrate; stop using the word jargon. Rephrase this message without using the word jargon.

What I think happened is some folks have been using this jargon for so long around like-minded people they've forgotten these words and phrases are part of jargon. That sort of thing happens in graduate schools and some professions (like marketing, law, medicine), but I figured it's nice to remind people they're using incomprehensible jargon if they seem to not remember anymore.

Here's a hint; if your lawyer tells you they say you killed a man, and the courts consider that a bad thing, drop him. Go find a lawyer who will tell you are up on Murder 2 charges which are a class B felony. You may need explanation, but it's not incomprehensible, and it's not rephrasable.

Otherwise, you might want to explain your jargon every time you use it...because I suspect you're not communicating with a lot of potential readers of your posts.

You didn't ask for explanation; you complained.

 

[pemerton]

here are some more words and phrases you commonly use which have no clear meaning to I suspect a lot of people here, and certainly to me: mechanical vectors, fiction first, and most references to agency.

I have never used the phrase "mechanical vector". I am guessing, though, that it would refer to the mechanical contribution to action resolution (and its use would generate an implication that there are other relevant factors, so that the mechanical vector is not the only vector).

"Fiction first" is a phrase I first encountered being used by Raven Crowking (who no longer posts on these boards), [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] and [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]. Like many terms in RPGing (eg railroading) it's use is somewhat contested, but it is meant to emphasise the priority of the shared fiction in adjudicating action declarations.

"Agency" is an ordinary word of English. I would have thought you'd be familiar with it, given that you are a lawyrer. The exercise of agency contrasts with passivity, leaving things to others, etc. In the context of RPGing, "player agency" and "player entitlement" are two competing descriptions for the same (or similar) phenomena.

 

[pemerton]

Don't those fall under situation? If not, why don't they?

Well, if that's how you use the word "situation". To me, "fictional situation" suggests a relatively high level description of what is going on, probably focused on what is at stake. "Fictional positioning" is deliberately intended to pick up more fine-grained elements of the situation that need not, in themselves, be contributing to the stakes.

It's just a phrase. If you don't like it, no one's making you use it. But not using it won't make the issues in RPG play that it is used to talk about go away eg if the player of a rogue declares a use of Cunning Action to hide, who gets to decide whether or not there is enough cover? And how is that decision made?

The fact that there are multiple active threads on this board discussing the hiding rules shows that setting these matters in the course of RPG play is not just a theoretical problem.

 

[pemerton]

The rules for hiding and stealth in 5E are not at all ambiguous.

The rules on stealth are crystal clear

From the Basic PDF, p 60: "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you".

Does that mean that you can only hide if you are invisible, or the people you are hiding from are blind? That's the most literal reading.

The rules go on to reinforce this literal reading by mentioning invisibility as one important way to facilitate hiding. The rules also go on to reference the concealment rules in chapter 8. And p 65 tells us that things that are lightly obscured can be seen, but with disadvantage on the Perception check. Which seems to imply that a stealthy rogue can't sneak up on someone through patchy fog or moderate foliage. This implication is reinforced by the rules calling out, as a special ability for wood elves, that they can hide when only lightly obscured by fog or foliage - though this itself is ambiguous (does it mean that elves are invisible even in light mist or moderate foliage? or is it an exception to the "can't hide from someone who can see you" rule?).

None of this seems to involve "rulings not rules". It looks like an attempt to write strict rules which are very punitive for non-elven rogues.

There are sources of confusion, however. For instance, the rules for concealment on p 65 don't mention cover or obstacles at all. They mention lighting, foliage and mist/fog. Which leaves it uncertain how the hiding rules are meant to interact with physical obstacles like walls and furniture. This uncertainy is compounded by the rules for total cover on p 74, which say that "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." How does the use of the word "concealed" on that occasion relate to the rules for concealment on p 65, which could have mentioned, but don't mention, the possibility of physical obstacles providing concealment?

Another source of confusion is the reference in the hiding rules on p 60 to distracted creatures. In terms of the rule that you can't hide from someone who can see you, this barely makes sense, because a distracted but sighted person has the capacity to see a person sneaking up on him or her, but won't and doesn't because s/he is distracted.

Further confusion and ambiguity is introduced if we move beyond the actual rules themselves to procedures of play. For instance, if a distracted creature is someone who can be hidden from, then if my PC is very quiet presumably s/he can sneak past someone who has his/her back to my PC. So who gets to decide whether or not a given NPC has his/her back to my PC? One way to handle this: the GM gets to decide, therefore (in effect) opening up or shutting down the possibility of an attempt to sneak past. Another way to handle this: the player gets to roll the check, and if it fails then one option for the GM to explain that failure is that the NPC turned around and saw my PC trying to sneak past.

It's not just that the hiding rules don't tell us which procedure is to be preferred - they don't even canvass that a given table has to make a decision about such things.

For a point of contrast, look at the hermit rules for the "discovery" background feature, which tell the player "Work with your GM to determine the details of you discovery and its impact on the campaign". Those rules actually talk about the need for the people at the table to make a decision, even if they don't specify the mechanism in much detail. The hiding rules don't. They are poorly written.

WRT the discussion about stealth, I think some people think that excessive clarification ends up as an attempt to take the DM out of the picture. As someone mentioned earlier, there are potentially an almost infinite variety of situations in which someone could try to hide, and it's pointless to try to cover every possibility with explicit rules.

I don't dissent from that. But given that what you say is true, I also woudln't write stealth rules that begin with a blanket statement that you can't hide from someone who can see you. That statement is in direct contradiction to the notion of "infinite variety".

 

[pemerton]

Mistwell, I agree with most of your comments about jargon, but "agency"--as a term for discussing a person's ability to effect change via their own efforts--has been used for both literary and real-life purposes long before it became an RP term. I don't think we can qualify that one as jargon.

Hi, I'm still in the room!

The two of you can't agree on what is jargon. Presumably each of you is a reasonable person, and therefore recognises that the disagreement between you is a reasonable one. Presumably, then, you can recognise that other reasonable posters might draw the boundaries of reasonable vocabulary somewhere else again.

When I don't understand what another poster has said, and I care enough to find out, I just post a request for clarification. I don't think going to the meta-level of prescribing rules for vocabuarly selection (particularly when not a moderator) is especially productive, given what you have yourself just demonstrated - that there is reasonable disagreement over what is appropriate vocabulary for talking about the writing of RPG rules and the playing of RPGs.

 

[Mistwell]

Demonstrate; stop using the word jargon. Rephrase this message without using the word jargon.

"And of course other English words can be used instead of agency - wow what a lack of imagination to think just that specialized game design phraseology can be used"

The word or phrase has a definition. To avoid using specialized game design phraseology, just use the definition. Fictional Positioning and Agency have definitions - just friggen use them. I am sure you can do this - you're smart enough to figure out how to simply say what you mean rather than using the specialty shorthand.

Here's a hint; if your lawyer tells you they say you killed a man, and the courts consider that a bad thing, drop him. Go find a lawyer who will tell you are up on Murder 2 charges which are a class B felony. You may need explanation, but it's not incomprehensible, and it's not rephrasable.

I'm my lawyer. First year of law school Justice Sandra Day O'Conner spoke at my school, and explained in a rather persuasive manner than lawyers have come to depend on a specialized lawyer-language when dealing with the public, in a manner that is severely harming the public they are representing. Of course Murder 2 as a class B felony is rephrasable. That you think it is not tells me you probably should not represent people here in, for example, Los Angeles - where English is a second language for many people and they'd prefer you not use legalese.

In addition, if you think game design patter is the equivalent of "what have you been officially charged with", I think you've taken this sort of thing far too seriously.

You didn't ask for explanation; you complained.

He asked "Am I making sense?"

I answered his question.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, if that's how you use the word "situation". To me, "fictional situation" suggests a relatively high level description of what is going on, probably focused on what is at stake. "Fictional positioning" is deliberately intended to pick up more fine-grained elements of the situation that need not, in themselves, be contributing to the stakes.

It's just a phrase. If you don't like it, no one's making you use it. But not using it won't make the issues in RPG play that it is used to talk about go away eg if the player of a rogue declares a use of Cunning Action to hide, who gets to decide whether or not there is enough cover? And how is that decision made?

The fact that there are multiple active threads on this board discussing the hiding rules shows that setting these matters in the course of RPG play is not just a theoretical problem.

I appreciate you explaining why you use the phrase and why you think it's important. Truth is, I answered your likely rhetorical question because I want to know what you think on this sort of stuff - but the indie game-ese was getting in the way of understanding what you were saying.

 

[prosfilaes]

"And of course other English words can be used instead of agency - wow what a lack of imagination to think just that specialized game design phraseology can be used"

You've replaced a two syllable word with four words and 11 syllables; that makes everything easier to read. Not only that, you replaced a word with another word that is one-fourth as common as the one you started with, so obviously replacing a word with its definition does not always make things clearer. While we're bagging on jargon, even after supplementing Ogden's Basic English with some 8000 words, "friggen", "specialty" and "shorthand" are still not found. (Heck, I can't even find friggen in any dictionary at hand.) I'm pretty sure if we go to Newspeak, we will miss more words, and the fact we have to use the definitions won't make any harder to speak of them.

In any case, according to Daniel Webster's 1828 dictionary, agency means "1. The quality of moving or of exerting power; the state of being in action; action; operation; instrumentality; as, the agency of providence in the natural world." It's not jargon or "specialized game design phraseology". It's a word that's been used in English with this meaning for over 300 years.

The word or phrase has a definition. To avoid using specialized game design phraseology, just use the definition.

I offer you the Up Goer Five, http://xkcd.com/1133/ . I mean, you know exactly what that offers the schematics of without even looking at them, right? Not being able to use the word Saturn in the title didn't at all obfuscate what that meant.

I am sure you can do this - you're smart enough to figure out how to simply say what you mean rather than using the specialty shorthand.

I am saying exactly what I mean. It's non-trivial to dumb down my language, particularly when I'm dealing with a mixed audience that I don't know much about the average or specific education level of, especially without people feeling condescended to, and it never comes as close to what I mean as when I use the full extent of my vocabulary and choose words that have the denotation and connotation that fit what I need.

And it really does seem a bizarre contradiction to refuse to say what "Hugh Howey's reports" are and yet demand that standard specialized game design phraseology that you know where to find the definitions of must not only be defined but not used.

 

[Dimitrios]

I don't dissent from that. But given that what you say is true, I also woudln't write stealth rules that begin with a blanket statement that you can't hide from someone who can see you. That statement is in direct contradiction to the notion of "infinite variety".

I saw that line as mainly just asserting the primacy of common sense. E.g. If you're standing in the middle of a well lit room surrounded by people only a few feet away who are looking right at you, you can't hide simply because there is a "hide" skill written on your character sheet.