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: 8011673" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, silence on message boards is not consent or agreement.  There's any number of reasons I may not have responded to you, and silent assent should not be your default assumption.  The first time I realized what had happens was the same post you made things personal by attacking me instead of discussing my argument.  I put you on 'scroll snooze' and didn't read your posts for a few days.  As I do, I will usually look against after a few days and see if I think it's worth re-engaging.  Here we are.If you want to assume that lack of response is agreement with your arguments from other posters, go ahead.  You should never assume that about me.I am summarizing my point fairly and correctly because my point hasn't changed.  It's the same point I've made in many other threads.  I have no reason to obfuscate it in any way.  I'd actually strongly recommend that you do go back and check before you suggest I'm mistaken or in error about my own arguments -- not a good look.No, I'm saying I, as GM, can refuse to adjudicate the action at all.  There are any number of action statements that are genre inappropriate that I wouldn't even countenance, much less adjudicate.  There are many that I would.  Without a specific statement and situation, I'm not going to say one way or the other and keep both options open.Would I similarly have to adjudicate a cheated roll?  Or a dishonest modifier added by a player?  A genre inappropriate action can rise to the level of bad play and shouldn't be treated as a valid input to the game as a whole.  I don't need a rule in the game to decide this or we need to talk about how GMs must honor cheating because there's no rule specifically to deal with that outside of fiat.  If an action rises to the level of being outside the game, I don't have to use game rules to deal with that -- I can just say, "no, do we need to discuss this or are you going to engage the game?"If it's not at that level, then, sure, adjudicate it if you want.If the GM chooses so.I'm very confident that I've only ever said, "follow the fiction."  Following fiction seems like nonsense to me, so I wouldn't have said that outside of an unfortunate typo.  Following the fiction, refers to a specific fiction.  My mistake in assuming it would be obvious that it was the fiction created in the game.  I didn't think that it would be taken as refering to any fiction, as that doesn't seem a logical argument at all (as you note).  Now that I do know that some will miss the definite article or not grasp it's intent, I'll make sure to sprinkle in 'follow the established fiction.'  I am glad that this formulation let you understand my point.</blockquote>

Verification