Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7569908" data-attributes="member: 22779">You keep repeating this but it's not true.There's no guessing about the player's motivation going on here.&nbsp; The player has specifically SAID OUT LOUD why he's taking this action.&nbsp; There is nothing going on here that isn't absolutely, 100% clear to the table.&nbsp; There's no suspicion.&nbsp; To suspect would mean that I didn't just hear the player declare that he's committing suicide by spear to break the spell.&nbsp; There's no &quot;thought crimes&quot; and whatnot. How can it be policing what the player thinks when the player EXPLICITLY STATES WHY the player is taking an action?Which brings us to the &quot;reasonable&quot; argument.&nbsp; You claim that it's reasonable for the frog to leap up and impale itself on a spear or jump under someone's foot just in time to get killed.&nbsp; To me, that's not believable.&nbsp; It's just not.&nbsp; At least, it's completely unbelievable to me.&nbsp; It's not a plausible course of action for a frog.&nbsp; Run away?&nbsp; Sure, I'll buy that.&nbsp; But jump onto a sword?&nbsp; That's just ludicrous.I don't like Looney Toons in my gaming.&nbsp; Not that it's Serious Business gaming either, but, at least a nod towards believability would be nice.&nbsp; And this course of action, which is what I'm actually criticizing just isn't plausible.Tell you what.&nbsp; Go down to the river with a spear, and try getting a frog to kill itself on your spear.&nbsp; You can't stab the frog.&nbsp; You just have to scare it onto the spear.&nbsp; Go ahead. I'll wait.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7569908, member: 22779"] You keep repeating this but it's not true. There's no guessing about the player's motivation going on here. The player has specifically SAID OUT LOUD why he's taking this action. There is nothing going on here that isn't absolutely, 100% clear to the table. There's no suspicion. To suspect would mean that I didn't just hear the player declare that he's committing suicide by spear to break the spell. There's no "thought crimes" and whatnot. How can it be policing what the player thinks when the player EXPLICITLY STATES WHY the player is taking an action? Which brings us to the "reasonable" argument. You claim that it's reasonable for the frog to leap up and impale itself on a spear or jump under someone's foot just in time to get killed. To me, that's not believable. It's just not. At least, it's completely unbelievable to me. It's not a plausible course of action for a frog. Run away? Sure, I'll buy that. But jump onto a sword? That's just ludicrous. I don't like Looney Toons in my gaming. Not that it's Serious Business gaming either, but, at least a nod towards believability would be nice. And this course of action, which is what I'm actually criticizing just isn't plausible. Tell you what. Go down to the river with a spear, and try getting a frog to kill itself on your spear. You can't stab the frog. You just have to scare it onto the spear. Go ahead. I'll wait. [/QUOTE]

Verification