Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7743475" data-attributes="member: 5142">I know, and this is perhaps a sign that we are talking past each other. But that is my point, namely that a failed (or successful) check provides a soft limitation on what a PC can think. Your quote contains a caveat. A self-aware limitation brought about by an inability to confirm through the intution of Insight your &quot;gut.&quot; The interpretation of the rolls influences the player who influences the PC. But the roll itself creates soft limits of what can be interpreted in the narrative. Not entirely sure what's controversial about that notion. Admittedly, this portion of the discussion is less about &quot;use&quot; but more of a philosophy of dice resolution and what it conveys in the narrative. My general angle is simply that dice resolution inherently creates limitations of interpretation for the in-narrative fiction, which can extend to the &quot;thoughts&quot; of the PC.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7743475, member: 5142"] I know, and this is perhaps a sign that we are talking past each other. But that is my point, namely that a failed (or successful) check provides a soft limitation on what a PC can think. Your quote contains a caveat. A self-aware limitation brought about by an inability to confirm through the intution of Insight your "gut." The interpretation of the rolls influences the player who influences the PC. But the roll itself creates soft limits of what can be interpreted in the narrative. Not entirely sure what's controversial about that notion. Admittedly, this portion of the discussion is less about "use" but more of a philosophy of dice resolution and what it conveys in the narrative. My general angle is simply that dice resolution inherently creates limitations of interpretation for the in-narrative fiction, which can extend to the "thoughts" of the PC. [/QUOTE]

Verification