Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8442390" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Sorry, my phrasing was a bit unclear. People frequently mischaracterize my style as requiring detailed descriptions of actions,&nbsp; and point to combat to try and indicate an inconsistency in my technique. I’ve addressed this many times now in this thread. However, what your post revealed was that I am treating combat and non-combat actions consistently, and it is others who are treating them differently, adjudicating actions so as to remove the influence of tactical acumen from out of combat play but not doing the same with combat.Again, sorry, I thought I had addressed this, but I suppose my phrasing was a bit unclear. If the action they both describe logically could not fail to achieve the goal they both state, then they would both succeed. If it could not logically succeed, they would both fail. If there was a chance the action might succeed in accomplishing the goal and a chance it might fail to do so, and the results of that failure would be meaningful, then they would both have to make checks, and obviously the player with a -1 would be less likely to succeed in that case than the one with all the bonuses.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8442390, member: 6779196"] Sorry, my phrasing was a bit unclear. People frequently mischaracterize my style as requiring detailed descriptions of actions, and point to combat to try and indicate an inconsistency in my technique. I’ve addressed this many times now in this thread. However, what your post revealed was that I am treating combat and non-combat actions consistently, and it is others who are treating them differently, adjudicating actions so as to remove the influence of tactical acumen from out of combat play but not doing the same with combat. Again, sorry, I thought I had addressed this, but I suppose my phrasing was a bit unclear. If the action they both describe logically could not fail to achieve the goal they both state, then they would both succeed. If it could not logically succeed, they would both fail. If there was a chance the action might succeed in accomplishing the goal and a chance it might fail to do so, and the results of that failure would be meaningful, then they would both have to make checks, and obviously the player with a -1 would be less likely to succeed in that case than the one with all the bonuses. [/QUOTE]

Verification