Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6883661" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Except that LOL expressly narrates against the failed INT check to begin with -- that's the starting condition, not the following ZoT that causes the mechanical break you're alluding to here.&nbsp; And, in the post above, you expressly state that, &quot;if a certain outcome is mechanically mandated than the fiction must somehow accomodate [sic] and express that....&quot;&nbsp; LOL does not accommodate or express the outcome of the failed INT check, she narrates directly opposite it, as in, &quot;I really know/solved that puzzle/figured out the riddle, I'm just not telling the answer.&quot;&nbsp; This is the break that fails your statements above. Unless, of course, you're using non-standard definitions of 'accommodate' and 'express.'&nbsp; Your choice of response skips over this and jumps directly to the part where that fiction is established and your bending other mechanics around the fiction.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 6883661, member: 16814"] Except that LOL expressly narrates against the failed INT check to begin with -- that's the starting condition, not the following ZoT that causes the mechanical break you're alluding to here. And, in the post above, you expressly state that, "if a certain outcome is mechanically mandated than the fiction must somehow accomodate [sic] and express that...." LOL does not accommodate or express the outcome of the failed INT check, she narrates directly opposite it, as in, "I really know/solved that puzzle/figured out the riddle, I'm just not telling the answer." This is the break that fails your statements above. Unless, of course, you're using non-standard definitions of 'accommodate' and 'express.' Your choice of response skips over this and jumps directly to the part where that fiction is established and your bending other mechanics around the fiction. [/QUOTE]

Verification