NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8376884" data-attributes="member: 16814">"Purely mechanistic" isn't a thing, it's a made up term you're using to justify your presupposition.  You have no idea what my game is like, only that I allow creatures to hide in the same space repeatedly with no penalty for doing that.  Your guess that my game is "mechanistic" is just faffing around the discussion and trying out new words to justify you dismissing my play as lesser.The opposite is true, by the way.  I stopped caring about this because I embraced a game where more is possible than my previous approach, not less.  The rogue can hide this way because the fiction contains more space for it, not less.  I still call for the mechanics, I'm just more willing to let them decide that something happens than to decide it for myself and tell my players they can't do that because of my failure of imagination.LOL.  Dude, you absolutely cannot be more wrong.  This is a point where you're forcing a very limited set of options on the rogue, not me.  I'm not the one saying that it can only happen one way, and so that one way has to have disadvantage.  I'm saying it can happen how it happens, and the player gets to tell me how it happened if it was successful.  Did they roll out low?  Did the wave a hanky on one side and pop out the other?  Was the monster distracted at the crucial moment because the Paladin hollered, "now" and swiped for the monster's eyes? I mean, which of those can happen in your game without earning disadvantage?  Really, it's you that has the narrow view of what's happening and limits things to force actions you approve of.  The rogue can just run behind that other pillar and be perfectly fine, despite the actual core of the issue -- can the rogue pop out and get advantage for being an unseen attacker -- hasn't changed at all.Yes, this is very clear -- you're playing the same game despite the edition.  Well, thing is, the editions are still different games.  That you can paper over or ignore what makes those differences and force your particular brand of play on it doesn't change this, it just means you ignore it.Nope.  4e wasn't any more restrictive than 3e.  It was more honest about it, though.  System matters.And the character that lets the fighter just swing the sword again at him from the same space is pretty dumb, too, huh?  If the character has nothing else bothering them, why did they stand in the same place instead of walking around the barrel to where they could see behind it?  I mean, you talk about dumb, but then your example is not very good -- a single character facing a single rogue and we call him dumb because he didn't watch the barrel closely enough?  Dude, there's way more wrong with that than the barrel watching.Not applying disadvantage is not refusing to use a rule, man.  That's silly talk.This is also listed as having drawbacks, which seem to directly apply here:"A downside is that no DM is completely neutral.  A DM might come to favor certain players or approaches, or even work against good ideas if the sent the game in a direction he or she doesn't like."Ideas like hiding in the same spot, for example.Okay, but we haven't discussed this, so I don't know why it's come up now as if we have.  If a player tells me this, cool, I'd give advantage as well for that, but disadvantage for noticing anything else due to the focus, and disadvantage on attacks made against other creatures do to the focus spent.Um, was that enough rule usage for your approval?So?  This is cherry picking arguments that support your preferred outcome.  There's only one pillar, but the rogue is really good at stealth and the creatures watching aren't that good at watching.  If they focus on the pillar, that's fine, I'd allow them advantage, but they'd be at disadvantage on other things.  Just because there's one place doesn't mean that everyone in the room isn't dealing with lots of other things and doesn't have extra attention to spare the pillar.  If they did have the time, again, why not walk around to the other side of the pillar and moot the whole thing?Well, two of them are.  The first one is a suggestion.  And, they don't have to be used, so the argument that you using them is bettererest than not using them is not logical.  Nor is my saying I wouldn't use them in the way you are any statement to my ignoring these rules.  This is a very strange line you're taking here.Oh, yeah, totes dumb, just like the monster that doesn't impose disadvantage on the fighter when the fighter swing the same weapon at him a second time!  I mean, how dumb to you have to be to not see that coming and take countermeasures!You've clearly never seen a Riddick movie, or an Avengers movie for that matter.  It's funny that you ascribe a lack of imagination to people that don't imagine just one way this can work but leave it open to having lots of ways it can work.  It's like, well, telling someone they are very picky eaters because they don't order pizza while they're building a salad at the salad bar to go with their steak.  I mean, you're the one arguing for a single imagined vision of how things work, right?Oh, I will very much pretend that, but poorly, because pretending true things isn't really very good pretend.  You're the one that has one story here -- one way it works -- and you're telling me, who's said I'm open to lots of ways for it to work, that if I don't agree with your one story that I'm not doing it right.  Mkay, I'm not doing it right, and I've ecstatic to be wrong here -- my game is very rich and engaging.  If not "roleplaying" means having lots of good roleplay and fun moments of the players describing how their characters are doing things, I'd prefer to not be right and have the GM tell me how it works every time because they have just the one way of looking at it.Thing is, though, that I don't think your way has less roleplay or story at all.  I'm not so petty or insecure as to say that not playing my way is wrong or bad or not even roleplaying.It's not.  More power to you!  The argument that your approach is using the rules bettererest, though, or that not doing it your way is not roleplaying, or that not doing it your way is dumb character time, well... that is bad.It's not to be a neutral arbiter of the rules, then?  It's so hard to tell what the real job of the GM is these days.All I know is that, when I GM, I occasionally let the players tell me how the world is.  Seems peachy fine.  Like, when I ask how they attack from hiding behind a pillar the second time in a row, I get a fun story about how that happened.  YMMV.Uhuh, sure thing.  The monster that just got smited by the paladin, though, he's not dumb to act like nothing happened and not impose disadvantage when the paladin attempts to do it a second time immediately afterwards, though.  It's only hiding.I know, I know, "that's different!"</blockquote>

Verification