Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6877773" data-attributes="member: 16814">Yes.</blockquote>She doesn't know the answer to the Riddle.[/quote]No.&nbsp; According to her narration, she knows the answer but will not provide it.&nbsp; Either narration matters, or it doesn't.&nbsp; If it doesn't, then it's entirely orthogonal to the game being played and we shouldn't be having this discussion at all.&nbsp; You cannot divorce narrative from the game or it ceases to be a game and becomes a story-telling exercise.No, she doesn't.&nbsp; She lies, because she knows the answer.&nbsp; Yes, she failed her INT check, so she can't respond with what the DM would have told her, but she's narrated she knows the answer so she can't say she doesn't.&nbsp; This is a case of the concept walking itself into a corner.&nbsp; permerton (and you, I think) keep insisting that this should happen because then the DM must play the character, but that's a strange argument as it presumes that the player is infallible and unquestionable and it's only the DM's weird rulings that caused the situation.&nbsp; Rather, it's the player's choice to have narration that works against the mechanical outcomes that's the issue here.&nbsp; The player caused this situation, not anything else, and it's up to the player to work out a way to resolve the problem in their narration without expecting the DM or the other players to change rules or behaviors to accommodate it.&nbsp; Again -- this is the fault of the player of LOL, and it's not the responsibility of anyone else to fix it.&nbsp; Most clearly this isn't the fault of ZoT, because it's not broken in any other situation other than a player narrating in opposition to the mechanics.&nbsp;Yes, she again narrates in contravention of the mechanical outcome of the game.&nbsp; Sure, you can, but if you do so, it's a house rule, not RAW.&nbsp; Which has been my point all along -- you're welcome to play this way, with the concepts that cause issues with the rules -- but it requires you to intercede to prevent paradoxes in the rules that your choices have created, and those end up being house rules.&nbsp; Not wrong, and I'm happy you enjoy your games (sounds like you have fun!) but you can't claim that you're changing rules isn't actually changing rules because you don't want to say that.&nbsp; LOL might be able to narrate her own reality in your game, but you can't narrate your own reality out here.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 6877773, member: 16814"] Yes. [/quote]She doesn't know the answer to the Riddle.[/quote] No. According to her narration, she knows the answer but will not provide it. Either narration matters, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it's entirely orthogonal to the game being played and we shouldn't be having this discussion at all. You cannot divorce narrative from the game or it ceases to be a game and becomes a story-telling exercise. No, she doesn't. She lies, because she knows the answer. Yes, she failed her INT check, so she can't respond with what the DM would have told her, but she's narrated she knows the answer so she can't say she doesn't. This is a case of the concept walking itself into a corner. permerton (and you, I think) keep insisting that this should happen because then the DM must play the character, but that's a strange argument as it presumes that the player is infallible and unquestionable and it's only the DM's weird rulings that caused the situation. Rather, it's the player's choice to have narration that works against the mechanical outcomes that's the issue here. The player caused this situation, not anything else, and it's up to the player to work out a way to resolve the problem in their narration without expecting the DM or the other players to change rules or behaviors to accommodate it. Again -- this is the fault of the player of LOL, and it's not the responsibility of anyone else to fix it. Most clearly this isn't the fault of ZoT, because it's not broken in any other situation other than a player narrating in opposition to the mechanics. Yes, she again narrates in contravention of the mechanical outcome of the game. Sure, you can, but if you do so, it's a house rule, not RAW. Which has been my point all along -- you're welcome to play this way, with the concepts that cause issues with the rules -- but it requires you to intercede to prevent paradoxes in the rules that your choices have created, and those end up being house rules. Not wrong, and I'm happy you enjoy your games (sounds like you have fun!) but you can't claim that you're changing rules isn't actually changing rules because you don't want to say that. LOL might be able to narrate her own reality in your game, but you can't narrate your own reality out here. [/QUOTE]

Verification