Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 6870150" data-attributes="member: 6683613">Is Stealth also not a personal-concealment skill because invisibility is a spell?Non sequitur.You're still doing it.&nbsp; You're telling Bruce's player that Bruce ought to act a particular way, and trying to justify it to yourself and to me by disparaging the player as being &quot;adversarial&quot; and not &quot;supporting&quot;.&nbsp; Bruce's player is not the bad guy here.&nbsp; He just wants Bruce to act according to his character.&nbsp; And Bruce is a paranoid bastard who suspects everything, even that noblest paladin Clark of Kent.And like I said above, in a post you may have missed because you were writing all this, the group runs into this problem even if they're not rolling dice against each other, and even if Eloelle's player agrees that Bruce should figure it out.&nbsp; But since they're rolling dice now, let's talk about that.&nbsp; You question the player's motives in making the die roll, as if he's just looking for an excuse.&nbsp; But he doesn't need one; in this narrative paradigm, he could simply declare that Bruce sees through the lie with far more justification that Eloelle's player could declare that he doesn't.&nbsp; (Per the guideline you mentioned earlier that a defending character's player is entitled to narrate the outcome of an adversarial act, and a lie being an adversarial act.)&nbsp; No, the most charitable way to view this situation, without having to attribute malicious motives to Bruce's player, is to think that he honestly doesn't know whether Bruce would see through the lie or not.&nbsp;&nbsp; Bruce is a pretty good lie detector but Eloelle is also a pretty good liar, so it could plausibly go either way, and in this game dice are the standard method of adjudicating an uncertain outcome.Okay.&nbsp; Wow.&nbsp; See my earlier post re: you being the disruptive, abusive, unpleasant, and childish one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 6870150, member: 6683613"] Is Stealth also not a personal-concealment skill because [I]invisibility[/I] is a spell? [I]Non sequitur.[/I] You're [I]still[/I] doing it. You're telling Bruce's player that Bruce ought to act a particular way, and trying to justify it to yourself and to me by disparaging the player as being "adversarial" and not "supporting". Bruce's player is not the bad guy here. He just wants Bruce to act according to his character. And Bruce is a paranoid bastard who suspects [I]everything[/I], even that noblest paladin Clark of Kent. And like I said above, in a post you may have missed because you were writing all this, the group runs into this problem even if they're not rolling dice against each other, and even if Eloelle's player [I]agrees[/I] that Bruce should figure it out. But since they're rolling dice now, let's talk about that. You question the player's motives in making the die roll, as if he's just looking for an excuse. But he doesn't need one; in this narrative paradigm, he could simply declare that Bruce sees through the lie with far more justification that Eloelle's player could declare that he doesn't. (Per the guideline you mentioned earlier that a defending character's player is entitled to narrate the outcome of an adversarial act, and a lie being an adversarial act.) No, the most charitable way to view this situation, without having to attribute malicious motives to Bruce's player, is to think that he honestly [I]doesn't know[/I] whether Bruce would see through the lie or not. Bruce is a pretty good lie detector but Eloelle is also a pretty good liar, so it could plausibly go either way, and in this game dice are the standard method of adjudicating an uncertain outcome. Okay. Wow. See my earlier post re: you being the disruptive, abusive, unpleasant, and childish one. [/QUOTE]

Verification