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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 1890564" data-attributes="member: 7240">I'm not talking about what the player knows. I'm talking about what the character knows. No matter how many times I repeat it, you guys can't seem to remember that the party has a history with these gnomes and has killed some of them in the past. So, here's the actual scenario:The party talks to some gnomes and by being very very charming, they persuade the gnomes that despite the bad blood that has existed between them in the past, the gnomes should adopt the party's agenda. They are so very successful that the gnomes agree to (a) adopt the characters' agenda and transport them and their artifact(b) come up with a plan to facilitate this(c) plead the characters' case to their superiors. Using their Sense Motive check, the characters discern that these particular gnomes are sincere. However, because the characters know they gnomes' superiors hate them, what with all the past bad blood and them having killed some of the gnomes, they remain apprehensive. But because the gnomes with whom they made the preliminary arrangement do not, after talking to their superiors, tell them the arrangement is off, the characters decide to assume that things are going ahead as planned. Both the characters and the players know that some of the gnomes hate them. Both the characters and the players know that they have killed some of the gnomes in the past. Both the characters and the players know that the gnomes with whom they spoke did not have the power to decide important things unilaterally and over-rule the other gnomes. So how is this using player-only knowledge?For some reason people in this thread keep confusing remembering what happened in previous sessions with metagaming.I don't know what post you're talking about here. I've been pretty thorough in my examination of what you've had to say. But let's make a real-world comparison: I have a set of suitcases containing $10 million in unmarked, untraceable bills. I want to transport the money across the Canada-US border but I am worried that my car will get searched. I remember a shady cruise ship company that I used to work with but got into a financial dispute with earlier this year. I approach some of the employees of the company and persuade them that even though we were involved in a 4-month court battle that lost both of us tens of thousands of dollars, they should really help me move the money. They agree and make arrangements to take the money on board their ship. I never actually speak to the captain or the company's CEO but I am fully convinced that the employees with whom I did speak are on my side. Is it unforeseeable that the captain would steal my suitcases? What long attempt? There was ONE DIPLOMACY CHECK. Yes. They rolled very well. But that's it.I think you need to read my posts more carefully. What I said was that you seem to believe that rolling a Diplomacy check of 30 is equivalent to casting Charm Person on everyone within earshot.Do you work with the Compas research group or something? It's amazing how someone can make 1 out of 6 people involved in a situation equal to "nearly half." I can be dissatisfied with a game because nobody performed oral sex on me during the session but that doesn't mean that everyone needs to start looking seriously at changing the game dynamic in order to make me happy. It does not follow that because someone is unhappy with how things went that something went wrong.</blockquote>

Verification