Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 6869986" data-attributes="member: 6683613">You're getting closer.&nbsp; But I wouldn't say it's a matter of whether or not trying to get the information is &quot;fair game&quot;.&nbsp; This isn't an issue of table rules; it's a matter of plausibility of character actions.&nbsp; The characters don't know the table rules the players are playing by.&nbsp; Let's say that someone else at the table is playing a dark knight named Master Bruce. Master Bruce is very perceptive and pragmatic.&nbsp; So for starters, he's got a good chance of noticing when Eloelle lies to him; I hope you'd agree that it would be out of line for Eloelle's player to dictate that her Deception always beats his Insight, so already you've got a problem there.&nbsp; And if he does figure out that Eloelle is a font of information, it is not in his character to ignore this fact.&nbsp; So if Eloelle's player expects Bruce's player to have Bruce ignore this fact because Eloelle's combination of narrative and mechanics requires it, then you've got a problem again.Now you're conflating mechanical &quot;choices&quot; with narrative &quot;choices&quot;.&nbsp; You could choose mechanically to build Eloelle as an Int 5 character or an Int 15 character.&nbsp; But when we compare the two builds narratively, Int 5 Eloelle has fewer narrative choices than Int 15 Eloelle.&nbsp; You have made a mechanical choice that limits your future narrative choices.&nbsp; Like how shooting yourself in the foot is a personal choice that limits your future recreational choices to activities that don't require any walking or running.I dunno, I'm not turning green yet.&nbsp; Which is good, because my stretchy purple pants are in the washer.&nbsp; You really wouldn't like me when I'm angry on laundry day.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 6869986, member: 6683613"] You're getting closer. But I wouldn't say it's a matter of whether or not trying to get the information is "fair game". This isn't an issue of table rules; it's a matter of plausibility of character actions. The characters don't know the table rules the players are playing by. Let's say that someone else at the table is playing a dark knight named Master Bruce. Master Bruce is very perceptive and pragmatic. So for starters, he's got a good chance of noticing when Eloelle lies to him; I hope you'd agree that it would be out of line for Eloelle's player to dictate that her Deception always beats his Insight, so already you've got a problem there. And if he does figure out that Eloelle is a font of information, it is not in his character to ignore this fact. So if Eloelle's player expects Bruce's player to have Bruce ignore this fact because Eloelle's combination of narrative and mechanics requires it, then you've got a problem again. Now you're conflating mechanical "choices" with narrative "choices". You could choose mechanically to build Eloelle as an Int 5 character or an Int 15 character. But when we compare the two builds narratively, Int 5 Eloelle has fewer narrative choices than Int 15 Eloelle. You have made a mechanical choice that limits your future narrative choices. Like how shooting yourself in the foot is a personal choice that limits your future recreational choices to activities that don't require any walking or running. I dunno, I'm not turning green yet. Which is good, because my stretchy purple pants are in the washer. You [I]really[/I] wouldn't like me when I'm angry on laundry day. [/QUOTE]

Verification