Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6874583" data-attributes="member: 42582">You said "I also expect such narration to be long term coherent and not a series of increasingly outlandish patches to save a bad concept." I asked "Who do you think takes a different view from the one you expressed?" The question was mostly rhetorical, because I think the answer is obvious: everyone expects narration to be long term coherent and not a series of increasingly outlandish patches to save a bad concept. Everyone likes coherence.Hence, appealing to these values (coherence, avoidance of bad concepts, etc) doesn't tell us anything about Eloelle, ZoT or house ruling. The fact that you don't like Eloelle doesn't tell us anything about the degree of your love for coherence compared to (say) me or [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION].But I think it does tell us something about differing views as to the nature and purpose of RPG mechanics.This is not a gameplay benefit conferred upon Eloelle's player (or upon anyone else). It's not even a gameplay change.The NPC does not have access to any less information than s/he would if Eloelle was narrated as being thick as two planks. The player does not have access to any more information than s/he would if s/he narrated the 5 INT character as being thick as two planks. (So it's not true that Eloelle's player continue to know the correct answer while denying the NPC that information. Eloelle's player has never know the correct answer, and has no access to that answer for gameplay purposes. This is a consequence of the character having 5 INT.)All the changes are in the narration alone. I think that [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] has used the word "fluff". Following Ron Edwards, I would describe it as mere colour. It is colour/flavour that is being very deliberately quarantined from having gameplay consequences. (I've pointed to a scenario in which this might change - namely, the use of a Tome of Clear Thought or of a Gem of Insight. But that change would be quite acceptable in mechanical terms, because those items change the INT of the character.)There seem to be category errors here. Eloelle "exists" only in the fiction. The mechanics of ZoT exist only at the table. At the table, the question is how to narrate the outcome of ZoT, given that Eloelle is not to be permitted to hand over any information, because as a result of the 5 INT on her character sheet s/he is not permitted to have access to information in such a way as would inform the play of the game.Coming up with the idea that, in the fiction, her patron shields her from the enchantment is an ad hoc narration to preserve the gameplay status quo. It is not a conferral of a benefit on any player. (That there are, relative to the fiction, counterfactual possibilities where Eloelle is worse off is neither here nor there. Eloelle is not a participant in the game who has interests that need to be respected, balanced, etc. The point of the mechanics is to adjudicate the play of the game, not ensure some imaginary "balance" between imaginary people, such as Eloelle and the GM's ZoT-casting NPC.)I think we have different views as to what the mechanics of the game are for. Hence - in virtue of applying this different general conception to a particular situation - I think we have different view of what the mechanical workings of ZoT are.I see ZoT as serving two purposes. When cast by PCs on NPCs, it is a device (like scrying magic, detection spells, etc) that obliges the GM to hand over some bits of backstory. (In this case, backstory concerned with the beliefs of NPCs.)When cast by a NPC on a PC, it is a device that enables the GM to permissibly declare actions for his/her NPCs which have regard to the beliefs of the PCs without being accused of cheating, or abusively metagaming, by imputing knowledge to the NPCs about the beliefs/motivations etc of the PCs which they couldn't reasonably enjoy.These functions are mediated via a notion that the spell exerts a compulsion on the character (hence it is an Enchantment spell, it grants a CHA save, etc).These are the functions that generate its interaction with INT, which - via knowledge checks - is another device for regulating access to backstory (in the case of players) and for constraining GM action declaration for his/her NPCs (eg the GM is expected to play giant ants differently from liches and gold dragons, in virtue of their differing INTs).If a character has 5 INT, the player of that character gets less access to backstory (because knowledge checks will fail more often). A flipside of this is that NPCs who case ZoT on that character get less access to information, and hence - at the level of gameplay - have fewer GM action declaration options opened up for them.This is the salient mechanical operation of ZoT. When Eloelle is being played at the table, this is the operation that needs to be preserved. That the narration is adjusted in an ad hoc way to ensure this (namely, Eloelle's failure to hand over much useful information is narrated in terms of patron intercession rather than being thick as two planks) is not, in my view, any sort of fundamental change to the mechanics of ZoT. Rather, it is upholding a mechanical status quo.As I've said, it's no skin off my nose if someone wants to call that a house ruling, but that's not really how I see it: no new resolution device, no new game element, no new option, no new constraint, has been introduced into the game. Rather, the status quo of how a 5 INT should interact with ZoT has been preserved.I suspect that [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] sees the matter in broadly similar terms to me.</blockquote>

Verification