D&D 5E Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs

[sunshadow21]

One thing that just occurred to me that hasn't been brought up, but is very much in play at the average game is that most of these social skills are not used in a one on one scenario, and that makes a big difference. It's not usually whether the NPC can convince one PC on a successful roll, it's whether or not they can impact the all the PCs present at once, which will often be all of them. Similarly, a PC using these skills is rarely trying to impact just one NPC, but has to contend with the fact that there are usually multiple NPCs about. This tends to make any attempt to exert full control even harder; the PC may convince the king, but the king's trusted advisor, standing right next to the king, remains suspicious and quickly speaks up. An NPC may successfully intimidate one PC, but then has to deal with not only the wide array of potential responses available to that PC, but also the wide array of responses available to each and every party member that witnessed it. An NPC may try to bluff their way out of a situation, but while the chances of bluffing out one PC is frequently pretty decent, bluffing out the entire party is rarely that easy.

Once the factors of multiple people on multiple sides potentially triggering multiple rolls comes into play, control becomes a far more relative term. Controlling a particular character is no longer the primary goal; controlling the larger scene, and ensuring an outcome that is at the very least not negative to your side becomes a much larger concern. That is where the role play kicks in, where both sides are trying to frame all of the individual skill rolls together in a way that is ultimately beneficial to them. It no longer hurts if a player's character got intimidated for x rounds when the player has the bigger picture to work within and allies beside them to save them from any real trouble that may develop.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right. And in any case, I don't create monsters and NPCs the same way. No monster I create would have that kind of ability.

I see. Follow-up, then: how would you adjudicate a player character in your game, who is a barbarian of proper level to have the Intimidating Presence ability, using it against another player character?

Apologies for the delving into corner cases, but you've stated that you avoid such corner cases by simply eliminating things from your game that could cause them. I admit that's a neat way to side step mechanics that don't agree with your philosophy, but let's be clear, that's you intentionally ignoring rules to keep your interpretation intact. And that's fine, I hope you have excellent fun doing so. But I'm confused as to how you justify quoting rules and page references that back up your position while hand-waving away other rules that don't.

I already provided my reasoning for running the game as I do. It's okay if you don't agree with it.

No, you've cloaked your reasoning as a logical reading of the rules, but you ignore things that disagree, like the Barbarian's Intimidating Presence ability. I'll grant that you can squint and choose how to apply social skills, but that ability (ETA: the Intimidating Presence ability) clearly disagrees with your philosophy of 'a PC can never be told how the PC thinks or acts unless it's magical compulsion'. Or a fear spell, natch. However, those same rules also support using social skills to influence PC thinking. They seem intentionally vague, perhaps for a reason? You have a perfectly acceptable interpretation of social skills, but you shouldn't claim that the rules indicate that your interpretation is intended. It's not intended, it's allowed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Since I feel it in poor taste to continue questioning Iserth's approach without providing my own:

I let social skills affect player characters.

Deception:

If a NPC lies to a PC, they roll deception opposed by the player's passive insight (Or active if the player declares he's paying close attention). If they succeed, and the player asks if they think the person is telling the truth, I tell them that they don't think he's lying. "You don't think he's lying." The player retains the agency to reject this belief of their characters -- to override it, as it were -- and do whatever they want or act however they want, but the social skill use sets the baseline. They can choose to deviate.

If the NPC fails to succeed at his deception check, I tell the player that they think that the NPC isn't being fully truthful. They, again, retain the agency to do whatever they want to, including overriding that statement and setting their PC at whatever mental state they wish.

For diplomacy, I use a number of different approaches. Usually, a successful diplomacy check by an NPC targeting a PC to improve attitudes will result in me telling the player that his character feels the NPC is being very charming and friendly. Again, the PC has the right to reset that opinion wherever he wants, but the roll establishes the baseline. I have been known to give an NPC advantage on other social checks against a PC when the NPC has succeeded on a diplomacy check, which, given that I still allow the players to override, may seem moot, but it can be a tremendous advantage in a multi-party situation where the PCs are negotiating between multiple other NPCs. Or in attempting to haggle - a NPC that gets a good diplomacy off against the players does a much better job in setting a price beneficial to the NPC.

Intimidate: a successful intimidate check contested by the PCs CHA save, resulting in the PC having disadvantage against the intimidater on all social checks for the duration of the social encounter. If the PC chooses to initiate combat (or the NPC initiates combat), the PC has disadvantage on the first attack roll made against that NPC. This applies even if the PC is substantially higher in power than the NPC -- every can get that momentary doubt or fear of confrontation, especially weak personality 20th level fighters that dump-statted CHA. This doesn't mean you can't punch the guy that intimidated you -- you can if you want -- it just represents the fact that you're a bit off when you do so.

That's pretty much how I work social skills. They impact the PCs, and set baseline opinions and feelings, but the PCs are ultimately under the direction of the players and they can override if they want. In the case of deception, it's mostly a wash between my method and Iserth's in that the player makes the ultimate decision in either case. Granted, I have the intermediate horribad step of daring to tell a player what his character thinks, but I'm okay there and so are my players. Diplomacy can have major ramifications when dealing with other NPCs, or when offloading loot, but neither really restrict the players either. Intimidate may have the largest mechanical effect, but it's still within the spirit of the rules and I think it works well within the spirit and intent of intimidate.

Now, please be certain that all of that gets described and roleplayed out. I believe in letting the dice inform roleplaying, not replace it. The dice should have an impact, but it's up to the players and myself how to put that impact into our roleplaying.

 

[iserith]

I see. Follow-up, then: how would you adjudicate a player character in your game, who is a barbarian of proper level to have the Intimidating Presence ability, using it against another player character?

Rereading the Intimidating Presence class feature, I see that it's a Wisdom saving throw on the part of a target, not an ability check. (I misread this yesterday.) I would thus be okay with an ability like this being used on a player character by a monster as it is pretty much the same as the Frightful Presence of a dragon.

When it comes to a character attacking or hindering another character, the rule at my table is that the target decides the outcome. Thus, all "pvp" type activity is consensual. Truthfully, it never comes up because that's not the kind of games we play. There are plenty of monsters and villains, so the players don't need to turn on each other for dramatic conflict. I wouldn't play at a table where a similar agreement wasn't in place.

Apologies for the delving into corner cases, but you've stated that you avoid such corner cases by simply eliminating things from your game that could cause them. I admit that's a neat way to side step mechanics that don't agree with your philosophy, but let's be clear, that's you intentionally ignoring rules to keep your interpretation intact. And that's fine, I hope you have excellent fun doing so. But I'm confused as to how you justify quoting rules and page references that back up your position while hand-waving away other rules that don't.

You can't really "ignore" rules in a RPG because the rules are largely descriptive, not prescriptive. The system comes into play when it's needed and goes away when it's not and this is typically when there is uncertainty as to the outcome of a fictional action taken. I've shown where my rulings were supported by the rules.

Intimidating Presence is a good example of this, actually. I'll break down the process: What's happening in the fiction is the barbarian is trying to frighten someone (goal) using his or her menacing presence (approach) e.g. "I try to frighten Beat Horsedeath with my menacing presence...". At this point, the DM must decide on success, failure, or uncertainty. In the event there is uncertainty, an ability check is the appropriate mechanic; however, the barbarian class has a feature that is an exception to the general rule and calls for a saving throw and imparts certain mechanical effects. The DM could also just say that, due to the certainty of the circumstances, the target is automatically frightened or isn't frightened at all, calling for no saving throw in either case.

So, like spells that can force particular behaviors, I would say that Intimidating Presence is an exception that proves the rule.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Rereading the Intimidating Presence class feature, I see that it's a Wisdom saving throw on the part of a target, not an ability check. (I misread this yesterday.) I would thus be okay with an ability like this being used on a player character by a monster as it is pretty much the same as the Frightful Presence of a dragon.

When it comes to a character attacking or hindering another character, the rule at my table is that the target decides the outcome. Thus, all "pvp" type activity is consensual. Truthfully, it never comes up because that's not the kind of games we play. There are plenty of monsters and villains, so the players don't need to turn on each other for dramatic conflict. I wouldn't play at a table where a similar agreement wasn't in place.

So, firstly, we've established that it's any ability that requires a save is okay? Yes?

As for your point of PC interaction, I agree that I prefer a table where their isn't constant PC antagonism, but doesn't it short circuit a bunch of possibilities to flatly rule out any possibility that there might be player on player actions? What if the barbarian is charmed, and another party member is threatening violence on his new bestie? Is not Intimidating Presence a reasonable use of the power against another player to prevent that? You hand-wave away important points of conflict because they are hostile to your worldview.

The player on player works with social skills, as well. How do you adjudicate one player intentionally lying to another (surely a situation that isn't outlandish)? Just let the roleplay, and their character's skills and abilities mean nothing?

You can't really "ignore" rules in a RPG because the rules are largely descriptive, not prescriptive. The system comes into play when it's needed and goes away when it's not and this is typically when there is uncertainty as to the outcome of a fictional action taken. I've shown where my rulings were supported by the rules.

Yet that's exactly what you did, prior to retconning your position to allow Intimidating Presence due to it's use of the saving throw mechanic (which has never been your stated position prior to this post). You said that you would not allow that ability to work against players.

And I reject your statement even further. Even the fact that you are encouraged to overrule or change rules when they don't suit you does not mean that by doing so you aren't ignoring the rule. And, yes, you've shown where you're supported by the rules (supported in that your opinion of social skills isn't contradicted by the rules -- they don't explicitly support your position, either), but then you also have shown that you'd be willing to ignore abilities with mechanics attached if they don't agree. Again, that you later changed your mind because you reviewed the specific mechanic and decided that was okay doesn't change the fact that you ignored it prior to that -- a printed class ability with an defined outcome -- because it didn't agree with your presumptions.

Intimidating Presence is a good example of this, actually. I'll break down the process: What's happening in the fiction is the barbarian is trying to frighten someone (goal) using his or her menacing presence (approach) e.g. "I try to frighten Beat Horsedeath with my menacing presence...". At this point, the DM must decide on success, failure, or uncertainty. In the event there is uncertainty, an ability check is the appropriate mechanic; however, the barbarian class has a feature that is an exception to the general rule and calls for a saving throw and imparts certain mechanical effects. The DM could also just say that, due to the certainty of the circumstances, the target is automatically frightened or isn't frightened at all, calling for no saving throw in either case.

The ability says, clearly, that if the barbarian uses the ability against any target, including another PC, that that target must make a saving throw or become frightened. There's no need to determine if the DM thinks there's uncertainly, the game has spelled out the effect -- use, save, outcome. That you even say at the end that the DM could adjudicate it as automatically successful without the save is interesting, because that's again ignoring the rule as written. I mean, you're fine to do that, but it's not fine to pretend that such a DM fiat ruling is the same as following the rule. You're even citing exceptions to the rules when you're claiming that you're not outside the rules.

So, like spells that can force particular behaviors, I would say that Intimidating Presence is an exception that proves the rule.

And, funnily enough, allowing social skills to change character behavior would also be an exception that could prove the general rule of players deciding what the character behavior is. This is a nonsense argument that doesn't do anything but throw a platitude on top of your argument and pretend it's a cherry.

 

[iserith]

So, firstly, we've established that it's any ability that requires a save is okay? Yes?

Not necessarily. But in the particular case under discussion, I think it's fine.

As for your point of PC interaction, I agree that I prefer a table where their isn't constant PC antagonism, but doesn't it short circuit a bunch of possibilities to flatly rule out any possibility that there might be player on player actions? What if the barbarian is charmed, and another party member is threatening violence on his new bestie? Is not Intimidating Presence a reasonable use of the power against another player to prevent that? You hand-wave away important points of conflict because they are hostile to your worldview.

I haven't ruled out any possibilities. I've simply stated that, in the case of character versus character conflict, the target of the hindrance or attack decides the outcome. Players acting in good faith to pursue the goals of play will make decisions accordingly.

The player on player works with social skills, as well. How do you adjudicate one player intentionally lying to another (surely a situation that isn't outlandish)? Just let the roleplay, and their character's skills and abilities mean nothing?

Again, the target decides the outcome. If another PC says something to you, you decide if you believe what was said.

Yet that's exactly what you did, prior to retconning your position to allow Intimidating Presence due to it's use of the saving throw mechanic (which has never been your stated position prior to this post). You said that you would not allow that ability to work against players.

I said what I said when I believed it was an ability check. After more careful review, I have changed my mind and explained how it is still consistent with my position.

And I reject your statement even further. Even the fact that you are encouraged to overrule or change rules when they don't suit you does not mean that by doing so you aren't ignoring the rule. And, yes, you've shown where you're supported by the rules (supported in that your opinion of social skills isn't contradicted by the rules -- they don't explicitly support your position, either), but then you also have shown that you'd be willing to ignore abilities with mechanics attached if they don't agree. Again, that you later changed your mind because you reviewed the specific mechanic and decided that was okay doesn't change the fact that you ignored it prior to that -- a printed class ability with an defined outcome -- because it didn't agree with your presumptions.

"Ignoring rules" in the sense I took you to mean suggests that the rules are meant to be followed by default which is not the case in an RPG. The rules don't run the game - the DM does. The rules are just tools to help the DM make for a fun game. When asked, I have provided rules support for my rulings.

The ability says, clearly, that if the barbarian uses the ability against any target, including another PC, that that target must make a saving throw or become frightened. There's no need to determine if the DM thinks there's uncertainly, the game has spelled out the effect -- use, save, outcome. That you even say at the end that the DM could adjudicate it as automatically successful without the save is interesting, because that's again ignoring the rule as written. I mean, you're fine to do that, but it's not fine to pretend that such a DM fiat ruling is the same as following the rule. You're even citing exceptions to the rules when you're claiming that you're not outside the rules.

The rules don't run the game. The DM does. Saving throws are only necessary when there's an uncertain outcome. If the target is immune to the frightened condition, for example, there is no need for a saving throw because there is no uncertainty - it doesn't work. If the DM decides that the target of this class feature is cowardly and believes the PC is capable of backing up the threat with life-ending violence, the DM may say that there is no save - the barbarian simply succeeds.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The rules don't run the game. The DM does. Saving throws are only necessary when there's an uncertain outcome. If the target is immune to the frightened condition, for example, there is no need for a saving throw because there is no uncertainty - it doesn't work. If the DM decides that the target of this class feature is cowardly and believes the PC is capable of backing up the threat with life-ending violence, the DM may say that there is no save - the barbarian simply succeeds.

where I disagree with almost every way you run your game, I have to say I am 100% on board with this one. I often just say "PC wins/NPC looses" no roll needed. Back in 3e I had a player who had a sorcerer/some prestige class (mind bender maybe..mind breaker...mind heard...IDK) that was full of charm and dominate spells. (player was a he but character a she) would walk into town and charm people right and left... I often just said "Ok you charmed the priest, the mayor, the bar owner..." I wasn't going to waste time with rolls...

however from time to time it mattered

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not necessarily. But in the particular case under discussion, I think it's fine.

It wasn't a trap question. I legitimately cannot predict where you come down on things now that you're opening the field to non-magical abilities that dictate what player think. Where is the line?

I haven't ruled out any possibilities. I've simply stated that, in the case of character versus character conflict, the target of the hindrance or attack decides the outcome. Players acting in good faith to pursue the goals of play will make decisions accordingly.

So... wait, what? The target of the attack decides the outcome? What did we just establish about Intimidating Presence? I had thought that you had established that the target PC would save, and, if they failed, would be subject to the Frightened condition as the ability reads. But, now it seems as if the PC still can decide to not be Frightened?

I mean, I specifically asked what would happen in your game is a PC barbarian used Intimidating Presence on another PC. You've said, in order: 1)nothing, that kind of thing isn't allowed; 2) oh, it has a save, no I'd allow that; 3) I don't like PvP action, and don't play at tables that have it; and now 4) okay, PvP might happen, but the target player decides what happens to him. 1 disagrees with 2, which is fine as you updated, 3 is nonresponsive to the question, and 4 goes back to 1, ignoring 2.

So, again, if PC1 uses Intimidating Presence on PC2, what happens in your game?

Again, the target decides the outcome. If another PC says something to you, you decide if you believe what was said.

Just to be clear, but this means, at your table, the PC and the player are the same. The PC has no abilities in social interaction that the player does not possess. So, if, for instance, you have a very gullible (but sweet) player at your table, and another player who happens to be very accomplished actor feeds the first player a line of bullcrap and she buys it, that's perfectly fine even if the first player is playing a cleric of Knowledge with a 20 Wisdom and the Insight skill and the second is playing a 6 Charisma Fighter with no appropriate social skill training? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying -- character abilities are meaningless in social interaction with other PCs or when the NPCs attempt to use social skills on the PCs. One then begins to question why anyone would put effort into learning a social skill in your game.

I said what I said when I believed it was an ability check. After more careful review, I have changed my mind and explained how it is still consistent with my position.

It isn't magic, so, no, it was not consistent with your stated position at the time. It may be now, but only because you may (see above) have broadened your position.

"Ignoring rules" in the sense I took you to mean suggests that the rules are meant to be followed by default which is not the case in an RPG. The rules don't run the game - the DM does. The rules are just tools to help the DM make for a fun game. When asked, I have provided rules support for my rulings.



The rules don't run the game. The DM does. Saving throws are only necessary when there's an uncertain outcome. If the target is immune to the frightened condition, for example, there is no need for a saving throw because there is no uncertainty - it doesn't work. If the DM decides that the target of this class feature is cowardly and believes the PC is capable of backing up the threat with life-ending violence, the DM may say that there is no save - the barbarian simply succeeds.

This is a red herring. Either you use the rules as an authority to back your position or you clearly state that you've made your own rulings. It's clear to me that you've made your own rulings and only selectively quote the rulebook as it supports you. And, let me be clear, that's perfectly fine. However, you have also tried very hard to cloak your rulings in the legitimacy of the rules by quoting specific passages with page numbers when they support your position. Again, to be clear, your position (as possibly amended) is a reasonably valid conclusion from those rules. However, that said, it's not the only reasonably valid conclusion, nor is it even implied that it's the intended conclusion from those very quotes. I'd be much more comfortable with your position if you stated it clearly as merely your preference and not as if it's the intent of the rules.

 

[iserith]

It wasn't a trap question. I legitimately cannot predict where you come down on things now that's you're opening the field to non-magical abilities that dictate what player think. Where is the line?

The line is that the character determines how the character thinks, acts, and talks. There are some exceptions, but exerting influence via social interaction and related mechanics is not one of them.

So... wait, what? The target of the attack decides the outcome? What did we just establish about Intimidating Presence? I had thought that you had established that the target PC would save, and, if they failed, would be subject to the Frightened condition as the ability reads. But, now it seems as if the PC still can decide to not be Frightened?

I mean, I specifically asked what would happen in your game is a PC barbarian used Intimidating Presence on another PC. You've said, in order: 1)nothing, that kind of thing isn't allowed; 2) oh, it has a save, no I'd allow that; 3) I don't like PvP action, and don't play at tables that have it; and now 4) okay, PvP might happen, but the target player decides what happens to him. 1 disagrees with 2, which is fine as you updated, 3 is nonresponsive to the question, and 4 goes back to 1, ignoring 2.

So, again, if PC1 uses Intimidating Presence on PC2, what happens in your game?

I've been very clear on this point. It is nuanced, but it is consistent. Perhaps you should try to understand my position rather than try to find inconsistency to prove whatever you are trying to prove. I will charitably assume you are trying to understand, so I'll break it down for you again:

If a fictional action is taken by a monster or NPC against a player character and the mechanics used to resolve the uncertainty of said action is similar to Intimidating Presence, then the player makes the save and the effects apply accordingly. This is one of those aforementioned exceptions.

If that same thing happens by a PC against another PC, then the target PC decides the outcome. This way, all "pvp" activity is consensual.

Just to be clear, but this mean, at your table, the PC and the player are the same. The PC has no abilities in social interaction that the player does not possess. So, if, for instance, you have a very gullible (but sweet) player at your table, and another player who happens to be very accomplished actor feeds the first player a line of bullcrap and she buys it, that's perfectly fine even if the first player is playing a cleric of Knowledge with a 20 Wisdom and the Insight skill and the second is playing a 6 Charisma Fighter with no appropriate social skill training? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying -- character abilities are meaningless in social interaction with other PCs or when the NPCs attempt to use social skills on the PCs. One then begins to question why anyone would put effort into learning a social skill in your game.

"Social" skills are quite good in my game because there tends to be a fair amount of social interaction challenges. We don't use them when player characters are interacting with each other, however. But neither does a player have to be afraid to talk just because the character lacks the appropriate skills. If they can articulate a good goal and approach when engaging in social interaction, success is possible without an ability check.

It isn't magic, so, no, it was not consistent with your stated position at the time. It may be now, but only because you may (see above) have broadened your position.

Perhaps you are only interpreting my position very narrowly.

This is a red herring. Either you use the rules as an authority to back your position or you clearly state that you've made your own rulings. It's clear to me that you've made your own rulings and only selectively quote the rulebook as it supports you. And, let me be clear, that's perfectly fine. However, you have also tried very hard to cloak your rulings in the legitimacy of the rules by quoting specific passages with page numbers when they support your position. Again, to be clear, you're position (as possible amended) is a reasonably valid conclusion from those rules. However, that said, it's not the only reasonably valid conclusion, nor is it even implied that it's the intended conclusion from those very quotes. I'd be much more comfortable with your position if you stated it clearly as merely your preference and not as if it's the intent of the rules.

You seem to attribute to me an agenda I do not have. I provided rules to support my rulings where it was requested. I have further stated - multiple times - that it's how I run my games and how I prefer games be run when I am a player. I have not claimed my way of doing things is more legitimate than others, regardless of how awful I think the game experience would be for me if run in the manner some posters describe.

And let me be clear: Almost every single thing the DM says is, in effect, a ruling. I don't believe that a "ruling" is something "outside" the rules - it is fully half of the DM's part in the basic conversation of the game. Some rulings may be based on the rules, some may not be. After all, this is an RPG, not a board game. The rules are not intended to be strictly followed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The line is that the character determines how the character thinks, acts, and talks. There are some exceptions, but exerting influence via social interaction and related mechanics is not one of them.



I've been very clear on this point. It is nuanced, but it is consistent. Perhaps you should try to understand my position rather than try to find inconsistency to prove whatever you are trying to prove. I will charitably assume you are trying to understand, so I'll break it down for you again:

If a fictional action is taken by a monster or NPC against a player character and the mechanics used to resolve the uncertainty of said action is similar to Intimidating Presence, then the player makes the save and the effects apply accordingly. This is one of those aforementioned exceptions.

If that same thing happens by a PC against another PC, then the target PC decides the outcome. This way, all "pvp" activity is consensual.

So, if I understand correctly, the rules apply differently depending solely on the actors involved?

I would not like that.

Perhaps you are only interpreting my position very narrowly.

I can only go by what you say here, and you said 'Only magic.' I asked for clarification and you clarified 'only magic.' I'm fine that you've changed it, but I'd like it pointed out that I was going exactly by what you said. If that's too narrow, I don't have a solution.

You seem to attribute to me an agenda I do not have. I provided rules to support my rulings where it was requested. I have further stated - multiple times - that it's how I run my games and how I prefer games be run when I am a player. I have not claimed my way of doing things is more legitimate than others, regardless of how awful I think the game experience would be for me if run in the manner some posters describe.

And let me be clear: Almost every single thing the DM says is, in effect, a ruling. I don't believe that a "ruling" is something "outside" the rules - it is fully half of the DM's part in the basic conversation of the game. Some rulings may be based on the rules, some may not be. After all, this is an RPG, not a board game. The rules are not intended to be strictly followed.

See, I'd like to agree with this, but I really don't. The rules as written are meant to provide a framework, an agreed upon reference so that every player has an understanding of what to expect. It's fine to change that framework, and occasionally good to do so, but only if everyone is made fully aware of the changes. I'm sure you do that, but then to say in a general thread that the rules are fluid isn't entirely fair -- they're not really that fluid. This thread is an excellent example. We've both read the rulebook, and you clearly run your game a different way than I do mine, but you're using the fluidity of the rules as a defense instead of clearly stating where you differ from the baseline. And the rules are the baseline. They are important to be a baseline, and it's a valid assumption to make that the rules as written will be used unless stated otherwise. Anything else leads to unpleasantness in the game as seemingly arbitrary decisions change what would otherwise be expected.

I like that I can overrule things in the rules. I like that I can modify things. But I still hold the rules as important and not something that is easily changed. I'm playing a game based on those rules, and people that sit at my table bring expectations that those rules will be used. I should endeavor to not change those rules without good reason and without informing the players beforehand. Anything else is being capricious.

Which probably explains my issues with your rulings -- they don't follow the rules and it took a great deal of questioning to get the corner cases nailed down because you were very fluid holding to an ideal not present in the rules. Allowed by them, yes, but not explicitly present, either.