No. You don't get to say you're not calling my approach dumb by trying to claim that it's not the approach, but the fictional things in the approach that are dumb. This isn't, at all, an argument that flies. If my approach requires the fiction to be dumb in your opinion, I do not see how you can reify the fiction into something independent and separate from my approach. This is still calling my approach dumb.
Believe it or not, I don't call the approach dumb, I call it purely mechanistic, which is not what I'm intestered in about the game, although I understand that you are, as are many other players.
But the result of that approach is that you don't encourage thinking about the situation in the game world, only about thinking it tactically as in a board game. And in the end, the characters end up being as dumb as board game pieces, that's all. It does not mean that the game or the players themselves are dumb, they can be very clever in the application of that mechanistic tactical gaming, it's just not the same game, and see below about this.
What on Earth does this have to do with the price of tea in China. Different editions are different games.
Not at all. I have played almost exactly the same adventures in all editions of the game, and although technically BECMI or AD&D are very different from 5e, the adventures can be transposed almost instantly. This is because I play the game as it was designed, as a roleplaying game where (as per the PH once more): "You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama".
The only edition that I had real problem with was 4e because it was so restrictive that I could not play the same adventures anymore, which, again, is pointed out by the Devs themselves: "An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D."
This is like saying that you remember how to play Monopoly, thank you very much, so Risk should be similar. I'm not exaggerating here -- the editions are actually different games. That they have some similarities, and share tropes, is nice, but it's not carte blanche to drag old game sensibilities into the new game and declare that the ground truth of the new rules.
The rules are not the core of the game. Although they are an important part of the game, they are just there to support it.
Okay. So? The existence of other options has zero bearing on the existence of this one. For instance, my PC's ability to swing a sword has no impact on their ability to poke with a spear. They are separate cases -- I don't get told I shouldn't be able to swing a sword because I can still poke with a spear. This is the same. That a rogue has other options available doesn't invalidate THIS option.
And again, I don't invalidate it, I just make it less effective because, once more, it's a roleplaying game (The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery) not a boardgame, and that an adventurer that just was ambushed and received a devastating attack from a shadowy figure that has retreated just behind the lone barrel that he popped out from 1 second before, and is not specifically watching that barrel again is, yes, terminally dumb, and should expect to die soon.
Huh, you'd think that, if this were intended, the rules would mention something like this, yes? This is your problem, not a general problem. It's that you have a preformed imagining of what happens, and so when the PC tries to hide behind the same pillar, it conflicts with your preformed imaging. And that's fine. The problem is when you then blame the rules for this, and insist they need to be changed to make more sense.
First, I don't blame the rule, and second, I'm not changing anything. If anything, you are the one insisting to play using only some rules, but let me remind you of a few other rules, just as valid:
- Ignoring the dice: "With this approach, the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors... This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you’ve described for an answer, rather than looking to their character sheet or their character’s special abilities."
- Advantage: "Previous actions (whether taken by the character making the attempt or some other creature) improve the chances of success." So if a player is telling me that he is watching that pillar for the rogue that he KNOWS that the rogue is hidden behind because he is an unimaginative idiot, the player will get advantage.
- Disadvantage: "Some aspect of the environment makes success less likely" because there is only one damn pillar in that area and everyone knows that is where the rogue went.
All of these are official rules, and just as valid as anything in the description of the rogue and its technical abilities. I'm not ignoring anything, you are ignoring the open-endedness of the game by restricting yourself to a limited set of technical rules.
Except, the rules work just fine if you imagine something else. And that something else isn't even outlandish or weird, it's just imagining a chaotic battlefield where a creature skilled at being sneaky manages to pull one over on another combatant not engaged directly with the sneaky creature. That they have enough variability in their 5 square feet of space to vary timing and location enough to keep being skilled enough to get the drop on their opponent.
And that opponent is dumb, don't forget it, and not able to take the slightest countermeasure, while at the same time keeping track of all invisible creatures on the battlefield...
sigh.
The claim you're using more mechanics and this is therefore better suggests that you should make sure to have advantage or disadvantage used on every single roll. It's a silly argument. More is not better. And the claim that you have the high ground on better imagination seems contraindicated in that my argument is based on "follow the mechanics, then imagine the outcome." There's no lack of imagining going on in my game, just as the creatures in my game aren't dumb -- instead there are desperate battles of skill and awareness and a dynamic use of space and timing to gain the upper hand. The idea that you have the high horse to lecture me about storytelling and roleplaying is, frankly, insulting to a high degree. Neither of these things are impacted at all by allowing a creature to attempt to hide in the same place in subsequent rounds of combat without penalty.
It's a clear lack of imagination and creativity, and so silly visually that it's never been done in any movie and book of the kind, genre or not, because it looks and feels dumb. The only way it works is for comedy effect on really dumb creatures, and even then whoever is writing the book/movie is clever enough to have the attacks at least pop out from various places.
Now, technically the game allows it, so if you want to play a purely technical game, have fun as much as you want, but don't pretend that it's roleplaying or storytelling at this stage.
How do I know this? Because I used to adamantly hold your position. I used to apply disadvantage to hiding in the same place, for the same arguments you're making. Then, I realized I was making work for myself because I was trying to force the game into my opinions. So, I quit.
And why is it bad to have a game that matches your opinion and your style of playing ? Especially if it's shared with your players, which is certainly the case at our tables.
It's the DM's role anyway to describe the world the way he sees it. Hopefully, it will please the players, who can exercise their cleverness in bringing life to that world.
I also don't think at all about metagaming, nor do I care about it anymore. I just altered how I built challenges so that metagaming is not an issue. This is very easy to do -- don't build encounters where the challenge is entirely based on making the players pretend they don't know the gimmick. And, for the topic at hand, don't imagine creatures with AEGIS.
Then don't imagine creatures that, after receiving a devastating sneak attack and see the rogue retreat behind the exact same pillar, will behave as if nothing happened. Goldfish memory at best.
