D&D 5E "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding"

[Hriston]

I'm sorry, but it's anyone advancing the idea that the rogue ceases to exist when they go behind the rock? Anyone? No? Then we aren't violating object permanence when we infer that the rogue is dull behind the rock, even though we can't see, hear, or otherwise detect the rogue.

Huh. It's as if you didn't even try to understand what I said. I didn't say your inference was in any way in conflict with object permanence. My point was that object permanence renders an inference completely unnecessary because it's the understanding that the rogue is still there behind the rock. An infant doesn't come by this knowledge by using deductive reasoning, and neither does anyone else. In fact, most people don't develop the ability to use deductive reasoning until early adolescence. Instead, anyone at least as cognitively developed as a two year old forms what's called a "mental representation" of the rogue, which conforms to past experiences with people and objects, including the knowledge that people and objects have an existence of their own and don't just disappear when they can't be directly experienced. There's no reason (pardon the pun) to infer anything because these thoughts take place automatically and inform us that the rogue is indeed present behind the rock.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Huh. It's as if you didn't even try to understand what I said. I didn't say your inference was in any way in conflict with object permanence. My point was that object permanence renders an inference completely unnecessary because it's the understanding that the rogue is still there behind the rock. An infant doesn't come by this knowledge by using deductive reasoning, and neither does anyone else. In fact, most people don't develop the ability to use deductive reasoning until early adolescence. Instead, anyone at least as cognitively developed as a two year old forms what's called a "mental representation" of the rogue, which conforms to past experiences with people and objects, including the knowledge that people and objects have an existence of their own and don't just disappear when they can't be directly experienced. There's no reason (pardon the pun) to infer anything because these thoughts take place automatically and inform us that the rogue is indeed present behind the rock.

I'm afraid it's you that's not understanding. Object permanence is the understanding that the rogue does not cease to exist just because you no longer observe her. It's also, amusingly, an inference. It's the conclusion that objects remain even after they cease to be observed, arrived at through reasoning and experience -- an inference.

And, again, you can assign whatever weight to this inference you want in your game. If you feel it's significant enough to prevent hiding, sounds fine, good gaming.