Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7588194" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I blame it on table style personally. I've tried pretty hard to get people to describe things to me about how they accomplish a task. I've tried and I've tried, and all I get are blank stares and &quot;I don't knows&quot; So, I've taken over the &quot;style points&quot; narration. When a player lands an awesome blow, I describe it. When they pull off an intense character skill challenge, I describe it. Otherwise they just stare at me in existential terror at having to come up with something on the spot. I haven't given up on it, but it's just a fact of my style now after all these years. So... what value are we getting out of this &quot;rules don't say&quot; conclusion? I understand making sure we look at our assumptions and make sure we know what the rules are (I'm having a discussion in another thread where the fact that you can wield any weapon regardless of proficiency is being brought up) But in this instance... what is the alternative here that is worth noting? That the rules don't explicit tie the skill called out for lying as being countered by the skill that detects lying? Did they even need to state those two skills being in opposition? I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make by quoting the rules at me here and hinting at &quot;deeper&quot; points.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7588194, member: 6801228"] I blame it on table style personally. I've tried pretty hard to get people to describe things to me about how they accomplish a task. I've tried and I've tried, and all I get are blank stares and "I don't knows" So, I've taken over the "style points" narration. When a player lands an awesome blow, I describe it. When they pull off an intense character skill challenge, I describe it. Otherwise they just stare at me in existential terror at having to come up with something on the spot. I haven't given up on it, but it's just a fact of my style now after all these years. So... what value are we getting out of this "rules don't say" conclusion? I understand making sure we look at our assumptions and make sure we know what the rules are (I'm having a discussion in another thread where the fact that you can wield any weapon regardless of proficiency is being brought up) But in this instance... what is the alternative here that is worth noting? That the rules don't explicit tie the skill called out for lying as being countered by the skill that detects lying? Did they even need to state those two skills being in opposition? I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make by quoting the rules at me here and hinting at "deeper" points. [/QUOTE]

Verification