Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 6869258" data-attributes="member: 6683613">Thank you.You may be avoiding using certain words, but you're still persisting in reading a motive that is not in evidence.&nbsp; Your camp is the one calling players &quot;abusive&quot;, &quot;uncooperative&quot;, &quot;disruptive&quot;, &quot;unpleasant&quot;, &quot;childish&quot;, whereas I have argued point blank that <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?482860-Geniuses-with-5-Int/page11&amp;p=6867923&amp;viewfull=1#post6867923" target="_blank">&quot;[t]hey're not being bad players by thinking this way&quot;</a>.&nbsp; They're willing to engage with the fiction and devote thought to its internal logic -- that's the furthest thing from uncooperative.&nbsp; And if you are at a table with such players, and you insist on playing an Int 5 genius anyway, then they're probably going to see you as the player who is being disruptive, abusive, unpleasant, and maybe even childish.&nbsp; (Let's face it, &quot;My character sheet says Int 5 but I'm actually a supergenius!&quot; is not stereotypically the declaration of a mature roleplayer.)So no, I do not have these concerns.&nbsp; Do not attribute them to me.&nbsp; Address the concerns I have actually expressed, not the ones you hypothesize.&nbsp; And address them with substance, not with aspersions.You are definitely changing a statement in the core rulebook about what the Intelligence score is.&nbsp; You can claim it's not a &quot;rule&quot;, but...When you've got two competing brands of &quot;truth&quot;, that's always a paradox risk factor.I believe that you believe that, but I also ask that take a step back and consider seriously the implications of what you've been saying re:&nbsp; players who tug on the dangling plot threads of your narrative being &quot;uncooperative&quot;.I'm sure Elminster already has them stashed away somewhere.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 6869258, member: 6683613"] Thank you. You may be avoiding using certain words, but you're still persisting in reading a motive that is not in evidence. Your camp is the one calling players "abusive", "uncooperative", "disruptive", "unpleasant", "childish", whereas I have argued point blank that [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?482860-Geniuses-with-5-Int/page11&p=6867923&viewfull=1#post6867923"]"[t]hey're not being bad players by thinking this way"[/URL]. They're willing to engage with the fiction and devote thought to its internal logic -- that's the furthest thing from uncooperative. And if you are at a table with such players, and you insist on playing an Int 5 genius anyway, then [I]they're[/I] probably going to see [I]you[/I] as the player who is being disruptive, abusive, unpleasant, and maybe even childish. (Let's face it, "My character sheet says Int 5 but I'm actually a supergenius!" is not stereotypically the declaration of a mature roleplayer.) So no, I do not have these concerns. Do not attribute them to me. Address the concerns I have actually expressed, not the ones you hypothesize. And address them with substance, not with aspersions. You are definitely changing a statement in the core rulebook about what the Intelligence score is. You can claim it's not a "rule", but... When you've got two competing brands of "truth", that's always a paradox risk factor. I believe that you believe that, but I also ask that take a step back and consider seriously the implications of what you've been saying re: players who tug on the dangling plot threads of your narrative being "uncooperative". I'm sure Elminster already has them stashed away somewhere. [/QUOTE]

Verification