2
\$\begingroup\$

I wanted to ask a question that goes against something that some (many? a lot? most?) DMs believe. I thought it would be best to be clear and thorough in explaining why I came to the conclusion I did, then asked the question as "is there something wrong with this?"

Here is the question in question: When spotting a hiding creature, is hearing useful?

Several users pointed out that it might be better to change the question to reflect the title, and cut out 95% of the post and make it an answer.

However to me this has several problems. I am interested only in answers that address the points, however if my question is posted as an answer, there is unlikely to be any discussion of the points on the question. The answer is likely to be downvoted until hidden. Other answers are unlikely to actually address the points.

How should this question be dealt with? I want to know if there is a problem with this logic, I am not interested in a generic copy paste of the rules that doesn't solve anything.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Why the resistance to asking something like It seems that the rules technically allow a creature to a remain hidden while making noise, its noise not revealing its location. Do the rules directly address the role of hearing in the stealth process? and seeing what others say first? \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Mar 19 at 9:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @HeyICanChan Because I'm not asking if that's the rules, I have read over the rules a lot. If I ask that then answers are unlikely to address the points, which is what I'm after. The ideal answer for me would be "the bit you said about X is wrong because Y". As you can see on the question, I'm already receiving offtopic answers. \$\endgroup\$ – user-024673 Mar 19 at 9:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ Here's the thing: If someone asked It seems that the rules technically allow a creature to a remain hidden while making noise, its noise not revealing its location. Do the rules directly address the role of hearing in the stealth process? or whatever, could you then rephrase your question as an answer to that question? (Personally, I've had more success with my questions that speculate less on what the answers could be than with those that speculate more.) \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Mar 19 at 9:48
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I am not sure what goal you have with this question. You're asking for input, but you immediately debate the one answer. If you aren't actually interested in other views, what will this question get you? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Mar 19 at 13:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch There seems to be a systemic issue where everything I post is assumed to be aggressive. If an answer is made and I have concerns or questions about it, I don't think it's unreasonable to voice them. Ultimately for me the point of asking a question is to get an answer. If the answer has problems, it can be worked on, but that requires someone to point them out. \$\endgroup\$ – user-024673 Mar 19 at 23:48
8
\$\begingroup\$

Separate argument from explanation.

The question contains two things: one is a completely valid question with explaining how this became to be an issue, the second is an answer to the question that builds an argumentative structure that answers the issue. You should separate the argument from the explanation.

The difference is in the intent: an argument attempts to settle whether or not some claim is true, and an explanation attempts to provide understanding of the event.

In your conclusions that follow your descriptions, you are using an argumentative structure that tries to convince the reader. This argumentative structure belongs to an answer.

To make this more actionable let us look at when your explanation starts to become an argument, this is the first instance:

This clearly divides the mechanics:

  • You can't hide if you can be clearly seen
  • You have to stay quiet, or you give away your position

Instead of explaining how you came to understand the issue, you start to make assertions that mean to convince the reader that your way of understanding the issue is correct. You are starting to build an answer with an argument that begs the question. At the end of your argumentative structure, you are asking a question that already assumes that its premises are true (detecting a hiding creature is a purely visual perception check, so you can't detect a hiding creature with hearing).

once again matching up with our expectation that hiding means you aren't making sound.
(emphasis mine)

With this structure you are hoping to influence the answers to your question. As Hey I Can Chan points out in their comment:

Why the resistance to asking something like It seems that the rules technically allow a creature to a remain hidden while making noise, its noise not revealing its location. Do the rules directly address the role of hearing in the stealth process? and seeing what others say first?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Could you explain that further? An argument is an explanation, so I'm not sure what needs to be separated. \$\endgroup\$ – user-024673 Mar 19 at 9:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ I appreciate the edit, but I don't feel it makes anything much clearer. Argument and explanation can be synonyms, in that logic in support of an idea. I made the whole post with the same intent, to explain/argue my logic. Specifically how could I restructure the question to be "explanatory" instead of "argumentative"? \$\endgroup\$ – user-024673 Mar 19 at 9:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ @pllpnakjlx I hope this is more actionable :) \$\endgroup\$ – Akixkisu Mar 19 at 9:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Thanks, I will try and work on the question. To be honest I'm a little skeptical, I feel that the structure of presenting rules, and then stating my interpretation makes it easy for people to hone in on errors. The question assumes the premise is true because that's the position I'm coming from. \$\endgroup\$ – user-024673 Mar 19 at 9:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ if you are skeptical refere to your comment "If you check my answer I talk about some passages which indicate you are being silent while hiding. " \$\endgroup\$ – Akixkisu Mar 19 at 10:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's just a typo, don't read into it to much :P \$\endgroup\$ – user-024673 Mar 19 at 23:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ I updated the question to hopefully make my concerns more clear, if you wouldn't mind giving it a read it would help a lot. Thanks again for your feedback so far! \$\endgroup\$ – user-024673 Mar 20 at 2:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .