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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8156845">I would defnitely not sign off on 1 as you have phrased it. And I think I have been very, very clear about this in many of our conversations here. I keep seeing a 'its impossible to simulate reality" straw man in these discussions, and I am quite clearly not coming at this from that level of realism at all (I pretty consistently use the term believability or believable for that very reason, and I have been using it for years). Not saying things in there may not apply, but your phrasing is not what I am looking for. I want the things my character says and does to matter. I want to feel like if I make a compelling argument, it has more weight than if I make a bad one. And I think most of the time, with most GMs, this is how I feel. It isn't about the person in the group who is an actual lawyer, making the most lawyerly argument and therefore convincing the NPCs or the senate in the game. Again, it is a game. This isn't a serious attempt to simulate reality, it is an attempt to emulate a believable world or genre. And when I invoke logic, I am referring to the GM's judgment being logical, not on the players making logical arguments through their characters (logic doesn't always work, sometimes what works is appealing to what a person wants, rather than appealing to their sense of reason). What I want is for the GM to seriously ask him or herself things like "How would Josephus respond to what Brendan just said to him, based on what Joesphus wants and knows?" when evaluating what I am doing.</blockquote>

Verification