D&D 5E Invisible, hidden and within 5 feet of an enemy making a ranged attack

[UngeheuerLich]

A little anectdote:

In 4e I had a very bad experience with a player when I told him, that a skeleton stands in the middle of a 5ft hallway.

I was told by that player, that this is impossibke, because the skeleton has to either stand on the left or right 5ft square.

This is where the discussion about games and rules started...

long story shirt, we never played as that group again.
Maybe I am so allergic to @Hriston 's comments, because he arguments along the same lines as that player.

 

[Hriston]

So how exactly did he misrepresent you if you reiterate it.

@DEFCON 1 said that I said others were not playing a game. That isn't true. I said a particular instance of play didn't sound like a game to me.

So I repeat my question: if you want everything adjucated by hard rules, why play a ROLEPLAYING game with a DM instead of a board or computer game where everything is predetermined?

I don't think I understand your question and missed where you asked this before. It seems like an effort to gatekeep the hobby based on the idea that an RPG can't have what you call "hard" rules, like other types of games. I reject that assumption.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@DEFCON 1 said that I said others were not playing a game. That isn't true. I said a particular instance of play didn't sound like a game to me.

I don't think I understand your question and missed where you asked this before. It seems like an effort to gatekeep the hobby based on the idea that an RPG can't have what you call "hard" rules, like other types of games. I reject that assumption.

Don't accuse me of gate keeping.
You can have hard rules as much as you like. I just don't like it this way and won't play with auch players. I read your post myself and the first thing you said was: if you don't apply rule x, you can as well just tell your story. My question was a direct answer to your first post.
So, please. Look in the mirror.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is a common theme in some recent threads. I don't do this. My preference is to let the rules tell me what happens. Otherwise, why use rules at all? Just tell the story you've already made up.

This is what you wrote.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Right, so why have rules? Why not just write a story and tell it to the players?

And this.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That seems to be somewhat overreacting...
it is probably better to accept that the rules don't cover every corner case and at that point you need to use rule 0: the DM is the final arbiter of the rules. Or why have a DM at all and not just play a computer game.

@Hriston
This was my answer.

This is the correct timeline.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This isn't a corner case. It's just disadvantage on an attack roll. The rules cover this just fine.

This is your answer to my post.
So now you tell me you didn't see that question before?

 

[Hriston]

Don't accuse me of gate keeping.

I didn't. It's just how your question reads to me. It seems like you're implying I shouldn't play D&D or any other GM-adjudicated RPG and should go play a board game or a computer game instead. Now that you've reminded me of the post you wrote two weeks ago, it gave me the same impression then too.

You can have hard rules as much as you like. I just don't like it this way and won't play with auch players. I read your post myself and the first thing you said was: if you don't apply rule x, you can as well just tell your story. My question was a direct answer to your first post.
So, please. Look in the mirror.

Okay, I can see how that could be perceived as gatekeeping, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

This is what you wrote.

And this.

@Hriston
This was my answer.

This is the correct timeline.

This is your answer to my post.
So now you tell me you didn't see that question before?

I said I missed it because I didn't remember having seen it before. Since you don't seem to have liked my previous answer, I'll try to answer in a less dismissive manner, ignoring that I disagree with both the premise that we're discussing a corner case and the premise that I want everything adjudicated according to hard rules, by which I suppose you mean that I think there's no room for the DM to make rulings.

There are of course a range of other reasons to have a DM besides making rulings in corner case scenarios. The DM can be expected to be a referee over the players which is important in a more competitive game. The DM can be expected to provide adversity and opposition to the PCs in such a game as well. The DM might be responsible for providing content, for the setting and NPCs, and for overseeing the internal consistency of the gameworld. And the DM might be an author or co-author with the players of the fiction.

Now perhaps you can answer my question. Why have rules in an RPG if not as a way to determine what happens?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Now perhaps you can answer my question. Why have rules in an RPG if not as a way to determine what happens?

Thanks, I'd love to.

I think rules are important. Otherwise the game aspect of RPG is not there.
It's just that the designers can't anticipate every situation and cover them in the rulebook, or otherwise you have unnecessarily big books and so much rules you can't remember anyway.

Also, as you can see in the example of stealth rules in former editions, no matter how often they are errataed, some corner case is forgotten or worse, when one is covered, a differen one is created.
Or lighting rules and concealment in 5e. Everyone knows how it works in the real world, but writing a rule for that, so it always works correctly is nit that easy.

So what I do is trying to apply rules as rigid as possible, because otherwise players don't have a frame to rely on. But in the described scenario, I would possibly just rule wrong, because I might not remember the exact wording and I rule on the spot, and in most cases noone would object, as long as I am close enough to the actual rule (because I am usually the one who remembers rules most correctly).
Then of course in this case: if the invisible and hidden creature is not trying to annoy the shooter, I can't imagine many situations, why it should close to melee range anyway and not just stay 10ft away.
So If I'd remembere the rule correctly, I'd just inform the player: do you really want to close to melee range, because there is a good chance the archer might accidently bump into you and you are detected. Or at least, he will at least somehow feel air swirling around him by your movement and will be distracted (and gains disadvantage) but might be aware, that something around him is foul and might look for you.
And if the player says: yes, this is exactly what I want: I close to melee range, and if the archer tries to shoot at my friends, I will immidiately attack him (ready action to attack on trigger shooting).
So in most cases, where closing to 5ft of an archer as an invisible hidden creature, there won't be a problem anyway with those rules, so we might have gmfun games together, without ever coming to a situation where we had an argument about rules.

 

[Mannahnin]

In context, I was responding to a statement that the DM having unilateral control over the fiction is "playing Dungeons & Dragons". I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to say that just sounds like the DM telling a story. Why is that controversial?


I don't think that's been demonstrated at all and don't see why it should be counterintuitive to D&D players. The fantastical tradition has its share of invisible characters who interfere with other characters without detection. While invisible, Doctor Faustus, in Christopher Marlowe's play, steals the Pope's meat and wine and even strikes him without his location becoming known. Likewise, in The Secret of Wilhelm Storitz by Jules Verne, the titular character disrupts a wedding party by singing and causing the brides wreath to appear to levitate, all without revealing his location. Surely such fiction is not outside the genre constraints that define what sort of occurrences are acceptable in many games of D&D!

Posting to affirm that I've read your response.