Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8377713" data-attributes="member: 16814">You said all those things, what words did I put in your mouth.  You said I was illogical.  You said my approach requires all creatures to be dumb.  You said I don't have roleplaying or storytelling in my games.  I quoted you, we can all scroll back up and see it.It doesn't matter if it has influence -- my job isn't to guide the players at all.  The results, though, do matter to me, because that's what I adjudicate.This is specious.  The devs saying that one approach may discourage roleplaying (and nothing at all about encouraging it) doesn't address the fact that you're defining "not roleplaying" as "not making the same choice I do in this one circumstance."  You're still defining what constitutes roleplaying, only now you're trying to hide behind the devs -- who aren't supporting you in this argument at all.Huh.  Really.  I don't let the rogue hide in the open. They have to get behind something that allows hiding, so already your asserting is false.  And I don't disregard circumstantial modifiers -- I don't apply the discretionary modifier in this one case.  You're making up strawmen to beat on.I do so love how you berate me for ignoring circumstantial modifiers, which are a technical rule, while telling me I just go straight to the technical things.  It's like you can have both sides of the argument at the same time -- it's not technical when you do it, but it's technical when I do.  The only difference is, of course, that you think disadvantage applies and I don't.  And then, in a moment of supreme irony, you actually use quod erat demonstrandum to sum up the point.Yes, they can hide normally as often as they like, and now you have to explain, like I do, how success looks.  You've avoided this point, by the way.  I've noticed.  It's a thorny one.  You've berated me for just taking the result of the dice and explaining it and how that sucks the roleplaying and storytelling out of my game, but, you have the same problem if your rogue makes the check even with disadvantage.  You haven't said that you require ANY special explanation for this action, you just apply disad and then skip over what happens if the rogue still succeeds (which is pretty likely, honestly).Oh please, of course they are accusations. You've demanded I defend them, as well, directly, just in the last post in the first few lines!  And it's the height of irony that you, of all people, are suggesting that questions should have been asked.  You've jumped to lots of conclusions and not asked questions for them.No, because I disagree that 3e was open at all in character design.  It just hid how closed it was behind trap options, absurd prereqs, and generally understanding of how the game worked (martials sucked, for instance).  3e wasn't at all open, it just wasn't as obvious about the walls as 4e was.  4e dispensed with the obfuscations and trap options and just put it out there.  The same archetypes and concept space was there, and I'd argue it was more open in 4e than in 3e due to it being very easy to see how to effectively build an archtype.Dude, those guys are also random people on the internet.  And actors with a profit motive, to boot.I'm sorry, I'm supposed to give you an example of roleplaying in my games so that you can stop telling me there's no roleplaying in my games?Okay, I had a barbarian PC in one of my games that chose to get into pit fighting and would take every opportunity to self-promote his pit-fighting career during social interactions.  This lead to him building quite a nice following, which he leveraged when he orchestrated a championship bout as a cover for a caper, fighting in the ring and stalling the fight as long as possible (which was tough because his opponent was serious) and managed to leverage his fanbase to cause a commotion and get the fight stopped for a bit as they stormed the pit and had to be cleared. Or, did you want moments of play where I apply technical modifiers to rolls to indicate roleplaying?  Because, so far, you're arguing I don't roleplay because I don't apply disadvantage to a roll -- a technical concern -- for a specific set of actions and you do.  No, why would I?  This is a very odd argument.  You start by all caps telling me I don't use invisibility the way the rules indicate, and then, when I correct your error, tell me that following this rule means that a different rule has to work the way you say.  Not connected.  A rogue hiding is not invisibility, it's hiding.  The rogue has particular skill at hiding, so I allow that they may know more about it than I do, and so let the skill speak for itself.  You, on the other hand, assume that you know more, and so you restrict the skill.  Okay, but invisibility doesn't really enter into this.  As I said, in my games there's a flaw with invisibility that allows tracking unless steps are taken to counter it.  No more attention is needed than to notice a non-invisible person.   The benefit is that the invisible person can take those steps at any time and attempt to hide, the non-invisible person cannot.So, it was the use of a space (which exists in TotM, as well-- creatures have a space they occupy, being small, large, huge, etc.) that trips you up here?The devs don't tell me any such thing.  What the rules say is that invisible creatures are unseen.  That they can attempt to hide at any time.  So, that means they are unseen, but not hidden, by invisibility.  Adding a touch of fiction to explain this in world and create a consistent fictional basis for the rule is bizarre?  More bizarre than having infinite additional attention to use, but only after someone hides?I mean, your argument is that the alert monster doesn't get any special ability to notice the rogue hiding the first time, despite all of the same concerns being there -- the monster doesn't want to get hit or sneak attack damage applied, etc.  Once the rogue hides, then the monster gets extra attention to devote to looking for that rogue, but only if the rogue hides in the same place again.  If the rogue moves 10' to the next pillar down the line of pillars, the monster is plumb out of luck -- no extra attention for you, monster!  It's only if the rogue hides in the same spot does the monster discover extra attention.  What's more, is that if there are 5 rogues behind 5 pillars, the monster gets 5 extra allotments of attention, one for each rogue, to watch for them hiding in the same place!  Further, if there's someone invisible, the monster gets extra attention for that, as well, because there's nothing other than extra attention that can possibly explain how they track the invisible creature to an area specific enough for targeting that area.This argument.  You've had to delve into one-true-wayism and resort to insults about my game based on sheer misinformed conjecture.  To me, that's not a place you want to be.  YMMV.I don't have that issue, because tables I play at establish a social contract where this isn't allowed unless the player invites it.  Friendly questions are fine, if it's to establish understanding about something confusing, but if you don't get to tell others how they should play their character.  I don't play at tables where this isn't part of the social contract.  It's rude, in my opinion, and I'm not going to alter how I play to correct for rudeness.  I'm going to deal with that out of game, at the table, and not in game.  YMMV.The point of having the player tell me the goal of the action is so that I don't accidentally nix it when we resolve it.  Without the goal, I might very well narrate a success on the action that negates the intent of the action, and that's bad juju for me.  So, goal and approach.  Goal so that both the player and I understand the stakes of the action and there's clear communication, and approach so that I can judge how difficult the action is.Nowhere do the devs tell you that you should apply disadvantage to a creature attempting to hide in the same space as they just did.  Nowhere.  They offer you the option, as a GM, to make a judgement call on circumstances, but this isn't justification for the call, it's permission to make one.  The actual call is up to you and the devs are silent on this specific issue.  You can't claim top cover for your ruling, here, just cover for your ability to make a ruling.How is it that I've said multiple times I use plenty of ad/disad that you keep saying this?  Do not do it again, as you're calling me a liar now.Yes, I understand that you have a preconceived notion of what should happen, and so use the rules to enforce that.  But, an actual really skilled practitioner of stealth in 5e can largely ignore your ruling because their stealth score will still be above that of almost all creatures' passive perceptions.  So, at some point, your argument fails because it's ignorable by the skilled.  The difference between us is that I don't bother creating a situation where I'm indicating this is not going to work and then be faced with it working.  I don't bother with the preconception about hiding.If the adversaries are really good, then they will have passive perceptions that support this.  See, I don't assume that adversaries are as competent as the characters in all things, so that it's an even field.  I take them as they are, and that's based on their stats.  Most monsters are actually NOT nearly as skilled at noticing things as the rogue is at hiding.  They're more than sufficient to detect most paladins and wizards, though.  Surely you're not suggesting that the passive perception listed in the stat block isn't reflective of the fiction for that creature?No, you don't have any, because I've never said that.  I've said the opposite.  You have one instance of me saying I used to apply a modifier to this specific thing, but have changed my mind and no longer do, and the reasons I made that change.  This isn't expandable.  Logically, you can argue from the general to the specific -- this means that generally true things are usually true for specific examples.  Like, if I did say I don't use ad/disad, then you could use this general statement reasonably infer that I don't use ad/disad for DEX(Stealth) checks of any kind.  But you can't argue from the specific to the general -- you can't take a specific example and assume it's generally true.  Like here, where I say I don't use ad/disad solely for hiding in the same spot, a very specific case, and then assuming that I don't use it ever, like you're doing here.  This is very faulty logic, and absolutely not true to boot. Do not make this claim again, or you are explicitly calling me a liar.Why only the ranged rogue?  My argument for not caring about DPR doesn't apply to only ranged rogues.  As for how it enhances the game, I'm not constantly monitoring for deviations from my assumptions or the need to balance characters between themselves, so I can focus more on the fiction and engaging with the PC's actions.I don't know, I don't ask, it's not my place to do so.  As for the stories, they get to tell me how their attack looked and how it worked.  I've already provided a few of these -- did you miss them?  You certainly seemed to pay attention as you attacked this as not actually roleplaying at the time.  What guarantees do I have I'm not just walking into the same thing here?  It's not like a have a lot of faith in you not being insulting or demeaning towards me.Yes, actually, I do.  While this is a ridiculous framing, highly hostile, insulting, and placing words in my mouth (I never once said "stupid" and don't consider applying disad in this case stupid), I do actually think it's better to have an understood and predictable method of resolving things that is player facing, so that they can adequately judge the stakes at play.  As such, if there's a rule for hiding, I'm not going to make changes to it unless it's something that is obvious, and I welcome my players to question any judgement I make that appears out of line with this.  This keeps me honest about the game. YMMV, but I find that if the players know what they're getting into and it isn't just "GM may I" that I get better engagement at the table with the fiction and their characters.  They actually take more risks and get more creative for me because they understand how I'm going to adjudicate things and I'm open about it at the table.For example, one of players decided that they were going to intimidate a Mindflayer about to eat a compatriot's brain to get the Mindflayer to not eat brains.  The Mindflayer was, at that moment, rather in control of the situation.  The PC in question had a backstory as a Mindflayer thrall, and was angry about it, so the player said they were leveraging that, using words/phrases they overheard other Mindflayers use to intimidate each other, and demanded the Mindflayer release the captive PC (who was stunned and grappled).  I looked at the situation, and said that this sounded Hard (DC 20), because the Mindflayer was in control of the situation and the PCs didn't appear, at that moment, to have the means to defeat him.  The approach of using his backstory meant that the PC could claim advantage due to a houserule letting players claim Inspiration to use for an action if they could tie a Bond, Trait, Ideal, or Flaw to it or a major component of backstory, which the player did, creatively, so they got advantage on it.  Since this was in the open, the player easily agreed that it did appear Hard, but attempted it anyway, and pegged it, both dice came up gold.  So, the Mindflayer didn't eat brains that day, and dropped the PC, and a negotiation took place (the Mindflayer was still in a position of strength, but the successful intimidate meant he was temporarily "friendly").  The outcome of that wasn't as nice, though, with favors traded that very much favored the Mindflayer.So, there, you have an example of how I set DCs, how players engage and declare actions at my table, and an instance of ad/disad being added to the roll.  Oh, my.  First, that you think you're riling me. Exasperating, perhaps, but riled?  You wish.  Second, the idea that ridiculous claims must be true if someone becomes upset they're leveled?  Really?  I guess that the way to prove a claim is to accuse someone of something and, if they appear to get upset, it must be true!  I mean, wow.  I'm honestly chuckling over this, in a, "they actually said that" way.Oh, sweet gods of irony, spare me from more of your torments!No, the rules are how I adjudicate actions at the table.  The law of the world is, well, something else.  I don't confuse the resolution mechanic for natural laws in the world.  I see that there's a question of whether or not a rogue could hide behind something, and thing that's uncertain, as do you.  I decide this calls for a resolution via ability check, using the rules, as do you.  I determine that this should be a DEX(Stealth) check contested by a passive WIS(Perception) check which sets the DC using the rules, as do you.  I don't think there's any addition modification needed due to hiding in the same place, which is under my authority per the rules.  You decide that it does, under your authority per the rules.  The check is rolled, modifiers added, and the result determines success or failure -- if over the DC, success, if under failure, by the rules, and both of us do this.  We then narrate the results of the check, per the rules, the both of us.  If success, then the rogue successfully hides, and gets advantage per the unseen attacker rule.  If failure, the rogue doesn't hide, and doesn't get advantage per the normal rules.So, in this case, it appears we're both using the rules exactly the same amount, in the same way with only a single difference that is discretionary.  Yet, because I don't decide how you do, I'm suddenly using the rules as a straightjacket while you, who used them exactly the same way except for one judgement call, are not.And, for goodness sakes, you don't even see this because you've erected some weird strawman about how I play otherwise (which isn't at all in evidence and I've told you that you're incorrect about it) and you're way to busy beating up the stuffed dummy you've built to bother looking at what the disagreement actually is.No, because I don't.  I'm not sure how many times I can tell you this before it sinks in.  You are arguing against a figment of your imagination.  You may wish to stop.</blockquote>

Verification