Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Epic Meepo" data-source="post: 9440545" data-attributes="member: 57073">I think you've successfully identified what's causing friction in discussions about the hiding rules. I suspect some people who are pointing out the absurdity of the RAW are trying to make a similar point, albeit in a more circumspect manner.The new rules for hiding are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They are trying to present a codified, stealth-button-type game mechanic for a gamist play style (in which the game is a self-contained, deterministic set of rules with their own internal logic), while simultaneously providing a natural language appeal to "rulings not rules" for a more narrative, natural language play style (in which the so-called game is just a set of guidelines for creating a consistent, shared narrative).The problem with this approach is that those two different philosophies aren't entirely compatible. If you want a gamist, stealth-button mechanic, you have to go all in and define everything in gamist language. Writing half of a gamist rule and then telling players to fill in the rest with common sense is antithetical to the gamist philosophy. That's like saying the resource cost to build a road in Settlers of Catan is whatever resource cost the active player thinks makes sense for the terrain in which the road is being built. That's not a game rule. That's a guideline for making a ruling.Conversely, it makes no sense for natural language guidelines which appeal to common sense to also include gamist language. Common sense trumps everything, so invoking technical jargon keywords with meanings not grounded in natural language is a needless distraction. All the technical language gets immediately thrown out the minute it contradicts common sense. At which point, why is it even there to start with? Just provide an appeal to common sense and an example or two to demonstrate how common sense applies in situations that arise at the table.Writing some sort of hybrid rule in an effort to allow for both of these possibilities is absurd. If the PHB wants to allow for both of these approaches to the rules for hiding, it needs to actually present two alternative rules for hiding. You can't just mash-up gamist language and natural language to produce some sort of middle ground that appeals to multiple play styles. By failing to commit to one philosophy or the other (or to a pair of variant rules), it seems to me the PHB is implementing both potential approaches to the rules poorly.</blockquote>

Verification