Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5037668" data-attributes="member: 2011">If I were you, I really wouldn't care either.The only reason this is important enough for KD to bring up at all is because for me, Telepathy has led to a slightly less than satisfactory roleplaying experience.Every time a telepathic one off behind the scenes communications goes on in the game where my PC is prevented from participating, I think "Oh great, another roleplaying opportunity thrown in the garbage can".I find Telepathy as a PBP concept to be annoying. Not a big deal, just a minor annoyance. And this is why I waited to even bring this up until the Kalashtar in our group who was the main focal point of most of these types of one off conversations had left the group because the player no longer enjoyed playing that PC.And before someone says "But you decided for your PC to be out of those conversations", that's partially correct. I roleplayed my PC the exact way most players should have roleplayed their PCs: afraid of Telepathy when they first encounter it. Instead for the sake of expediency, the other players decided "oh well, it's only a game, my PC is totally cool with someone talking in his head" instead of it scaring the crap out of them. That's their choice too. I'm ok with that. But instead of dropping most of the Telepathy, the other players decided to continue using it. That's ok too. But because they made that choice, my roleplaying experience is slightly less satisfying.It's also correct that most PCs are out of the one off telepathic communications, not just my PC.And the rules appear to support a POV that not just anyone can do this, only the Kalashtar.I also understand that it might not bother the other players. It bothers me both because it does not appear to be the rule and also because I don't roleplay to read a book. I roleplay to participate.So I understand and even respect that you do not have a horse in this race. I do.You're a judge. You should be impartial.And note: I did not bring this up for a proposal. Kalidrev did. I only brought it up for discussion. Kalidrev appears to have enough of a horse in the race for him to propose it the way he wanted it proposed.It would be explicit if it said "Anyone can initiate the conversation". Since it does not say that, you are inferring that rule out of whole cloth.Your interpretation is not even implicit. The words "You can" and "Any ally can" are the only rules we have for initiating and hence, my interpretation is implicit.Two way says nothing about who can start the communication. Your interpretation is called an assumption, not a rule because there is not one word in the rules that even hints at your interpretation.</blockquote>

Verification