Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7942350" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I wanted to go back to this for a moment. How exactly is life free from outside influence? We’re all impacted by outside influences all the time. We don’t have to look very far to find one going on right now. But even in the absence of a major event, there are any number of minor outside influences that impact each of us daily. That may be a definition, but that does not make it the definition. This is where I think you’re being unreasonable. This is simply not true. It would require there being one valid interpretation of a character and all others being invalid. If I as a player declare an action for my PC and I don’t vocalize my reason for doing so, then how would you as GM ever know if I was taking that action because I wanted to do it as a player, or because I thought that is what my PC would do, or both?And if someone else was playing that character, faced with the same decision....could they not conceivably come up with a different course based on what they thought a character would do? So two players could come up with alternate actions based on what they thought the character would do. Therefore, there is no one preferred choice.You are right.....it is not my distaste for it that makes it untrue. It’s the fact that it’s not true.I appealed to poo, sir, not to authority.</blockquote>