Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7451727" data-attributes="member: 6857506">That's perfectly reasonable, but not the only way to conceive of it.Low wisdom need not manifest as generically reckless behavior.  In fact, it is probably more interesting if it is somewhat situational, or otherwise nuanced.I'm familiar with that argument, but my point is not that all player knowledge is automatically fair play to be transferred to the character.  Rather, in brief, I think people often lowball character knowledge, particularly in assuming that the knowledge of an inexperienced player is a good approximation of the knowledge of a low level character.  (Not that people put it that way, but it is implicit in what they say, or at least it seems so to me.)Sure, and there's a lot of specific knowledge that I would handle this way.  However, for a lot of generic knowledge, I think auto-success is well justified since that "or whenever" that you skipped over lightly probably includes at least an order of magnitude more (fictional) time that will ever be covered by game play.Yeah, and that's an example of that assumption creeping in - that what a player knows likely exceeds what a character would know, whereas I would tend to assume that just the opposite is true, at least in the realm of generic knowledge (a term I admittedly have not defined, but the approximate intent of which is, I hope, reasonably clear).</blockquote>