Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9699922" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I know this is a not-uncommon line some folks draw (and to be clear, I understand why its one as it involves buy-in from the player), but in a lot of cases those sorts of things aren't all-or-nothing (I don't remember if they are with GURPS but I suspect at least some of them are modifiers).  They still accept that not every decision is going to be entirely within the player's choice.  After all, even if you took a "Trusting" disadvantage, there still needs to be some sense on the GM's part of what the limits of that are (it at least shouldn't be completely unlimited), and at that point how is "The opponent is convincing because it says so right in this skill they bought" not okay when you don't have trusting, but someone much less capable able to pull it off is okay if you did?  There should be cases in both examples where its just not going to work, its just more likely in the case of the Trusting character than the one who isn't (and probably even less with someone who's bought some ability that makes it hard for them to be played).It just seems a very binary view of the process to me.</blockquote>