Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6874527" data-attributes="member: 16814">It does.  It allows her to continue to know the correct answer while denying the Evil Cleric that same information despite LOL's failed save because LOL has a powerful patron that works to subvert Evil Cleric's magic.  That she failed an INT check earlier doesn't really matter -- that's come and gone.  What matters is that LOL believes she knows the correct answer and is able to circumvent the mechanics of ZoT because you think it's a better story.  It might be, I'm not judging that, but it does require that you change the way ZoT works.  I know you're fine with houseruling, and you call it such, which is great.  No issues, mate, enjoy your game.  My problem is claiming that this is how the rules actually work instead of stating that it's a houserule.  The way the rules work doesn't allow for this narration.Because that's how the rules work.  Again, if you change the rules, and you're welcome to, that that's fine.  You, at least, seem to have a pretty good handle on potential pitfalls and are willing to take action.  Elfcrusher, on the other hand, refuses to see any potential issues and further declares that he's 100% in the rule swim lane.  That's an issue.  I've no problem with the concept, I have a problem with not being honest about what the concept is.  The LOL fiction requires ad hoc changes to rules because she's the only character that declares a narration in opposition to the mechanics -- that she knows when the mechanics say she doesn't.  The rest don't know because they failed -- they're pitched as capable of knowing, but, through their handicaps, didn't put forth the effort at the right time to know.  So, they're not the issue.  The issue boils down to declaring narration in opposition to the initial mechanics, and how that sets up a chain of further necessary changes to mechanics to allow for the narration to survive.  That's an issue.I don't understand your question.  It seems to be 'why do you have with incoherent narration when others don't?'  At least, that's my best parse, and the answer should be clearly self-evident -- I like coherent things.Again, you're separating the narration from the mechanics when the mechanics directly constrain the narration.  You're separating things that cannot be separated without an ad hoc houserule, which you admit.  Yet you persist in arguing when I've made my point (LOL's example requires houseruling) by essentially saying that LOL's example requires houseruling.  Yes, it does.  Thanks!No doubt.  I disagree that it's harmless to have to constantly create ad hoc rulings to protect the LOL concept when it runs afoul of the rules, but to each his own.  So long as we're agreed that such ad hoc rulings are creating houserules, we really have no difference of opinion except as to the worth of the event.  I find LOL needlessly silly and convoluted for little payoff -- she's a nuisance concept.  Any concept that has as it's core reversing the outcome of the mechanics in narration is a nuisance.  The not-strong Orc is decent - it accepts the result of mechanics and doesn't reverse them to say "I'm secretly strong, I just failed that on purpose to throw you off the scent of my secret power."  It fails or succeeds with the die rolls and has an interesting way of explaining those failures and successes.  LOL reverse the outcome in her narration.  She doesn't give a reason for the result, she contravenes the result.  That's just a nuisance and not interesting enough to play with.  I grew out of finding that interesting around the time 2e came out and I graduated high school.</blockquote>

Verification