Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6845801" data-attributes="member: 16814">If it's okay to say that you're not actually interfering with the action declaration by providing a clear path for which such declarations can be arbitrarily denied by a biased party, then it seems to be that it's equally fine to ask for an INT check to see if a player is smart enough to turn a dial to the correct answer, because I'm not saying they can't declare that, I'm saying the outcome is in doubt, and I'm asking for a check. Same thing, we're both determining an alternate method for adjudicating an allowed character declaration in a situation in which we wish to encourage a certain kind of play and discourage another kind of play.   Although, I'm certain you don't see it as an agreement.So we're in agreement that this is a step there where the play thinks of the answer, yes?  You explicitly state that if the player states that question aloud, it's able to be adjudicated, but if they don't speak the question, no adjudication can take place, even if it's obvious that such a question occurred and was left unspoken, yes?  If both are yes, then what's the real issue of me recognizing that the middle step, spoken or unspoken, is actually in doubt and asking for a check to resolve the uncertainty?  Is it really only that the character didn't speak it aloud?</blockquote>