Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8007747" data-attributes="member: 16814">It would be more like saying that you loosed a bolt at the Burgomaster, but he used magic to reflect it, but then it bounced off the Captain's shield and hit the Burgomaster anyway.  This weird combination is only because the Burgomaster has a trait that reflects arrows, so you show that, but the Captain's shield has an similar enchantment, so they cancel out and the PC's intended action succeeds!  I mean, that's pretty much it here.  The Burgomaster has a 'nuh-uh' ability that you bring in the Captain to negate so the PC lands their attempt.No, the Burgomaster is secretly afraid that the PC is correct, which is why he lashed out.  When his friend supports the PC, it's still the PC's accusation that causes the Burgomaster to reconsider.I agree.  The Captain coming in telling the Burgomaster that the townsfolk agree with the PC is also a simple narrative logic that seems impossible to unintentionally misunderstand, yet here we are.Only if Bob relates the argument you just made to Sam and then Sam reacts, because that's the example.  I think, maybe, you might want to go back and re-read it, because you seem to keep arguing that it makes no sense for the Captain come in when the Burgomaster calls him and then relates the insult to him -- ie, Bob tells Sam what you just said.  This example just continues to show that you're somehow missing the factual chain of events in the example and substituting some other chain that, well, is probably as bad as you think but it's not what was presented.But, regardless, if you cannot agree that RPGs should be able to recreate common conversational occurrences, then there's not much we can really discuss -- we disagree too fundamentally to proceed.  I would hope that's not the case.</blockquote>

Verification