Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8377616" data-attributes="member: 16814">First my play is dumb (or requires every creature to be dumb, which isn't actually different).  Then it was that I don't roleplay at all.  Now I'm illogical, and you're demanding for me to show how my approach to hiding could possibly support roleplaying or storytelling.Dude, you're a peach. The funny part is that you're saying I'm illogical because I don't require the player to make the least effort, but then, neither do you.  I let the rogue hide in the same place with no penalty, meaning the rogue could succeed at this or not succeed at this due to their skill check.  You ALSO let the rogue hide in the same place, but apply a penalty, meaning the rogue could succeed at this or not succeed at this due to their skill check.  The only difference here is the range of successful rolls!  In both games, the rogue can make the same effort and still succeed, meaning you're now faced with explaining the same thing I do -- how that happened.  So, if I'm illogical, you're in the same boat, because both ways can end up with the rogue successfully hiding in the same place.As for your demand there, I simply do not believe that roleplaying or storytelling (whatever you mean by this) are actually at all related, in any way, to making the same choice to apply disadvantage to a given roll as you do.  Roleplaying is not defined as "making the same choices [USER=7032025]@Lyxen[/USER] does."  Hmm.  The Middle Path says:"Many DMs find that using a combination of the two approaches works best.  By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world."Man, but those sure sound like advantages. I don't see how their declaration doesn't matter.  It would seem to matter very much, as it's the reason for this argument.  They could have chosen to dance with an owlbear, and that would have had a very different outcome from trying to hide behind that pillar for a second time.No, this is just you insisting that you alone have the one right way to make this call, totally ignoring that you can face the exact same outcome of a PC successfully hiding in the same place repeatedly.  I mean, an 11th level rogue is mostly going to laugh at "disadvantage" because their minimum DEX(Stealth) check is going to be... carry the one... 21 (and that's for a rogue with a DEX of 15/16) with disadvantage.  A 21 beats almost every passive perception in the Monster Manual.  A rogue of any level with an elven cloak ignores your ruling outright -- they don't get disadvantage and the creature can't get advantage.I have a long screed somewhere about how "sandbox" doesn't at all mean "players make their own choices" any more than they do in a choose your own adventure book.  Not terribly relevant now, because I never once questioned how you played your game -- I defended how I play against your baseless and insulting accusations.3e was as well, unless you just ignored things about the game -- honestly a common occurrence.  "[T]hat much" is doing a ton of work in your conjecture, here.  And the actors appear to be having fun?  Really?  Fascinating."I do not care what it is you say, my opinion of the thing I've never seen and only have this one statement of means that I must, unfailingly, be correct in assuming everything about how you play!"Yes, okay, checks out.I have no idea where this comes from, because this hasn't been a topic in my posts at all.   But, and this will be a shock to you, until an invisible creature hides or something special happens, the location of invisible creatures is known in my game.  This doesn't have anything to do with hiding, but with invisibility.  In my games, there's an inherent flaw in invisibility that reveals general location (ie, in a space) unless steps are taken to minimize it (ie, hiding).You seem to be laboring under many misconceptions and should probably stop making assumptions while you're behind.You're in the same boat, friend, as you let the rogue roll dice to hide in the same place a second time and then have to explain it afterwards.  Let's not continue to insist that I don't reward creativity or that I just roll dice whenever.  I generally require players to tell me what the goal of an action is and what their approach is.  I find, "I'm going to hide behind the pillar to get the drop on the monster," to be a sufficient goal and approach that is uncertain and warrants a roll to find out what happens.  You find that, if done more than once, this task gets harder.  Okay.  You can do that.  What you can't do is explain that this make the only logical sense and that failure to do what you do mean no roleplaying, dumb characters, no storytelling, that it's just rolling dice, and that it's illogical.  You're being insulting, demeaning, and saying that you have the only right opinion on this matter.No, my argument is that you're ignoring the complexities of one while insisting on the complexities of the other.  You don't, for a moment, stop to consider that there's any need for the player to declare specific and different actions for their fighter to avoid penalties in melee because the character is assumed to have a deep well of skill to cover this.   And, I agree, it would be silly to do so.  However, you immediately start examining the rogue, totally ignoring that the rogue character is extremely talented at hiding, and demand that the player cover this by declaring new actions.  We're talking about skilled practitioners of their arts doing what they do, but you treat each of these differently because you've already imagined how it works for each, and chosen to do so differently.To me, the rogue is really good at hiding, so unless something is especially difficult, I'm going to let them be good at hiding without disadvantage.  And a creature trying to not be caught off guard really isn't anything out of the ordinary.Good?You have one instance of how I make rulings, and your opinion is that it's highly technical because I don't make the same choice you do, even as you claim to be using the rules bettererest because you use more of them.  I mean... okay.  I don't know why the Champion fighter has to be nasty, though - I think it's a perfectly cromulent class.  But, no, I don't particularly care what the rogue's DPR is, in part because even if I just give the rogue permanent and irrevocable advantage, it doesn't break the game.  So, that lets me not care about supporting or suppressing the rogue, but instead I just adjudicate the game as best as I can.  I don't think that hiding in the same spot is a worthwhile care, so I don't do anything about it.  And the result, game-wise, isn't distorting, so I can not care about it.  What I can do is get the player to tell me interesting ways they hide (or don't) which immerses them in the game and encourages creativity and makes for a memorable game.   Sorry, but I didn't say anything of the kind.  I said I cared about things like this before I realized that they aren't actually about the logic of the world, but about me.  I had an idea, and by George, I was gonna make that idea what happens, and force it into the game.  I thought there should be disadvantage because I had a preconceived notion and I was gonna make that true, no matter what.  But then, I did it, and rogues kept succeeding at hiding despite it.  And that galled, I mean, like, I got mad at the rules for letting this thing that I thought shouldn't happen happen and I had to deal with explaining it.And then, I slowly realized that my preconception wasn't the only way it could happen.  The rogue could be really good at hiding and timing, and the monster actually cannot fully focus on the hiding spot for the slightest tell, ready to react AND be still 100% as engaged with everything else that engaged them the first time.  So, I realized it wasn't the world, or logic, that required this ruling, but me -- it was my choice, based on my single view of how things should be.  I changed, and let the world become more, and let the characters become more, and stopped stepping on everything just because I had some idea.  I let the game work as it does, and moved my ideas from "if you hid there before, the monster suddenly gains extra alertness to you," to, "the monster can be distracted, or you could make a clever move, or something, so let's find out together rather than me just choosing."None of this aligns to your rather ridiculous assumptions.I most certainly haven't.  Advantage and disadvantage are a constant friend in my games -- they show up all the time.  They don't show up here.  You really need to stop making these assumptions, mate.Again, I have no idea how you're getting here, like, at all.  I don't apply disadvantage to a creature hiding in the same place again means this?  Dude, take some chill pills.Here's a funny thing -- you don't need their permission to ignore rules.  You have that as a person. So, this statement is just chaff.  I mean, the disagreement here is how to apply a discretionary rule to a specific situation, right?  Neither of us is professing to ignore the rules.  You've even claimed that your approach is better because you used more rules!  Now, because you just want to dunk on my game which you have some crazy assumptions about, you're bringing out ignoring the rules as somehow a slam against me... using rules?  I don't know, because your argument seems to be that there's only one right way to imagine and apply the game world, and it's your way, so much so that even using the rules is wrong if it conflicts with doing what you do.  Have you considered how this actually sounds?Except my way is dumb, not roleplaying, not storytelling (still not sure what this means), illogical, mechanistic, and against the core conception of D&D which is to ignore the rules.  Gotcha.Time and again, meaning this one topic of whether or not a discretionary penalty is applied in a specific situation.  From this, you can assume the entire rest of my game, and this one point becomes time and time again and full evidence of everything else you imagine.</blockquote>

Verification