Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7307939" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Thanks for once again creating and then slaying strawmen of your creation. Its always amusing.Where to start?First the opening long graphs... Yes thanks for going into such in depth detail which repeats what i said... Combined use of some auto-play and some checks is done, is done to different degrees by different GMs (you describe what i assume to be some of yours here and others have described differently iirc esp for the drawer key for instance.) Its a spectrum, with wherever you are on the soectrum having its pitfalls and benefits.On the sicial ones, again the seemingly fallback strawman. Not talking about globe theater oratory or flowery speech... Thats a rather hostile read if it is meant to portray the positions presented. Its about a player being better at presenting a case that is convincing to the GM to get into the GMs oarticular auto-play zone and bypass the character's shortcomings in presenting similarly convincing arguments. As your own example shows with your "insinuate this" "offer that" you have an option where you are removing the possibility for the CHARACTER failing at social discourse botches a PLAYER well constructed social attack or as you would say approach. Meanwhile, other folks on that spectrum might choose to allow the CHARACTER stats to play a role, allowing in our game for the possibility that a character with low cha or low persuasion to fail at the presentation.Surely we have all seen cases where great ideas were presented badly and so failed to be received as well as they could."Accusing other people of being easily swayed..." Was not said. I simply acknowledge that many people are influenced by more persuasive presentations and so the more a GM allows the scope of the Player-GM auto-play to cover with no reference to character (enough to make it an oft cited strategy for more success, for instance) the more the more persuasive player may benefit and te less some characterctraits may be worth. Since iserith admitted being subject to persuasion, not sure why you think recasting this as easily swayed accusations will serve your case. In my case, as noted, i tend to keep the scope of my GM-player only auto-play without reference to character  rather small, in keeping with the walk across florr, tie shoes, etc. That means when i get persuaded, the impact is minimal since its usually stuff even poor stats would succceed at most times. So, its much more like a  "time saver" and much less a "strategy."But itis good to see that even after the creation of the "flowery shakespear" and "easily swayed" diversions, you come back to agreement... Different tabkes, different preferences and no need to portray or reference a "lack of pitfalls" (potential or otherwise) for any one approach. So seems we agree on some of the big picture.Sent from my [device_name] using <a href="http://EN World mobile app" target="_blank">EN World mobile app</a></blockquote>

Verification