Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7743679" data-attributes="member: 29398">Maybe the statements are using the word "think" where something else would be better?  As in:You first start by stating the check resolution unequivocally what the PC believes to be true.You then say that the PC is free to act as if it is not true and do something different.Howzat?Your point about illusions caught my interest.In my game, if a PC (or player) thinks there's something fishy about my description of a scene they are always free to state "I disbelieve" - a full-round action during which they attempt to see though an illusion.  I roll in secret, and on success the illusion becomes apparent to that PC...who can then give a significant bonus to any other PCs attempting the same disbelief.  This is pretty much straight out of the 1e rules and it's never been a problem.Without a successful disbelief, however, the illusion is "real" to the PCs until and unless they interact with it in such a way as to break it (e.g. someone steps on to the illusory floor over the shaft and falls through).I have a hard time thinking of social stuff in the same light.  Illusions, for one thing, are pretty much binary - in the end you either believe them or you don't - while nearly anything social is going to be much more of a series of sliding scales and never-the-same-twice variables.Lan-"Illusionist has always been one of my favourite classes to play"-efan</blockquote>