Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7743675" data-attributes="member: 996">Make different decisions, anyway.&nbsp; Afterall, someone could be telling the truth, but have the wrong information, himself, for instance.&nbsp; He could be lying, but you don't want to let on that you believe that.&nbsp; Thinking someone is being truthful is just that, not thinking he (or you) is necessarily infallible.At least, if the possibility of 'false positives' exist.&nbsp; If the resolution of a roll results in knowing he's lying or not or &quot;you're not sure.&quot;&nbsp; Then, actually, you're always sure, you can never get a mistaken impression that a liar is being truthful or mistake mere nervousness for lying or whatever.&nbsp;Yes, it is.&nbsp;&nbsp; That's why I felt compelled to spell it out, because that's the important distinction, in my view.&nbsp; Not whether the details of a system that does model character abilities rather than resorting to substituting player abilities, might end up abridging player agency in some instances.&nbsp; That happens a lot in these discussions &quot;risk I'm willing to take&quot; turns into &quot;something I demand all the time.&quot;&nbsp; That's why we have a battlemaster in 5e, calls for a fighter that could actually do stuff, even if it meant complexity, became calls for a 'complex fighter' for complexity's sake.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;I'm blanking on the words you usually use, but objective and method?&nbsp; Players need to tell you what they're trying to accomplish, and how.&nbsp; That's a form of 'framing,' I think, and avoids some pitfalls.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7743675, member: 996"] Make different decisions, anyway. Afterall, someone could be telling the truth, but have the wrong information, himself, for instance. He could be lying, but you don't want to let on that you believe that. Thinking someone is being truthful is just that, not thinking he (or you) is necessarily infallible. At least, if the possibility of 'false positives' exist. If the resolution of a roll results in knowing he's lying or not or "you're not sure." Then, actually, you're always sure, you can never get a mistaken impression that a liar is being truthful or mistake mere nervousness for lying or whatever. Yes, it is. That's why I felt compelled to spell it out, because that's the important distinction, in my view. Not whether the details of a system that does model character abilities rather than resorting to substituting player abilities, might end up abridging player agency in some instances. That happens a lot in these discussions "risk I'm willing to take" turns into "something I demand all the time." That's why we have a battlemaster in 5e, calls for a fighter that could actually do stuff, even if it meant complexity, became calls for a 'complex fighter' for complexity's sake. ;) I'm blanking on the words you usually use, but objective and method? Players need to tell you what they're trying to accomplish, and how. That's a form of 'framing,' I think, and avoids some pitfalls. [/QUOTE]

Verification