Search results

Yes, perhaps. But that has nothing to do with the persuasion check. The cleric need to exist to be persuaded!

I mean yeah, this is just really perplexing and frustrating. I have hard time believing that someone could have genuine trouble understanding this. o_O 🤷 No wonder this thread is well over 2000 pages long! @clearstream where are you trying to get with this? A this point it must be clear what...

But not to decide what that information is. No. The character decides that they try to persuade the cleric to cast the spell, and they speak words to do that. It is all in-character, there is no divergence to meta decisions like there obviously is in the rune case. Like this exact thing...

Also why I bristle when someone suggests that the rest of the game should be structured more like the combat, wanting some tactical "social conflict" mechanics and whatnot. No thanks! The combat minigame is fun and I'm fine with it, if it is just a part of the game, but I absolutely do not want...

I just do not believe you're thinking this logically then. The player has the ability to dictate reality to solve the character's problems, the character doesn't. The difference obviously is there and it not a small one.

This is good example, as players having access to plenty of tactical information their characters wouldn't and then discussing it midst of a rapid battle and making decisions based on it absolutely is a thing that causes the character and player decision space to diverge. Like no question about...

They did though. And so does the GM in almost every RPG. No, that's called collaborative storytelling. It might be playing RPGs as well, but to be that it takes more than people contributing to shared fiction. It isn't, and I have never said it is or should. All am trying to do is to get you...

Of course is different! The player operates under knowledge that they can dictate reality, the character does not. Like if you knew your hopes and conjectures would have high chance of becoming reality without you taking actions that causally make them so, would that not affect what you hope or...

It's not. They are just completely different things resulting different decision spaces. How is that hard?

I think more general "warlord" subclass is far more usable that some super specific and weird thing*, so this seem like a good direction. * A lot of the newer sub classes unfortunately are like this.

Yet the player did. Thus the player and character decision spaces were divergent. Like I have been saying for pages and you keep baselessly denying.

It is not. Yes there is. The conjecture causes the reality rather than the reality causing the conjecture.

We use skills to settle what is not settled all the time. The difference is does the character have causal capability to settle the matter in the fiction, or do they have such only in the rules. In convincing priest case it is clear that a character could talk to a priest and convince them, and...

No it is not, or at least not any more than the player ability to accept any fact presented to them. Like I said earlier, either the spell levels are diegetic in the setting, or they aren't. It is about the relationship between the rule and the fiction, and that certainly can be determined...

In my experience players wanting to do flat out impossible things simply is not a thing that happens. In rare cases it does, it is almost always due some sort of misunderstanding about what the situation is, and then the correct course is to clarify the matters.

Yeah, me neither. (OK, the last one might have some meta justifications going for it sometimes.)

Yet in your game Einstein indeed would cause things to be as he postulated. You cannot just reverse the causality and pretend that it doesn't matter. Also, do experts in your game always postulate things beneficial to them? I bet that most of the time they do. Because the players know that...

Because in the latter case the character action causes the outcome in the fiction and in former it doesn’t.

I think the core fault line is whether one wants to try to correlate the player decision space with the character decision space or not. If one wants to do so simulative mechanics might not be the only way to get there, but they certainly help, as they model things that are diegetic and thus...

I mean yeah, you'd think. But every time someone says that "personally I don't like a narrative game due this difference" then certain people will go for thousand pages trying to claim that there is no actual difference!