Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6847482" data-attributes="member: 42582">That's not actually true. In some threads on fighting, for instance, the views of active or former soldiers, or martial arts practitioners, are appropriately accorded greater weight than (say) my views - given that I have never been a soldier, nor practised any form of martial arts.The point of mentioning my occupation is that, probably more than anyone else still posting in this thread, I think and talk about the relationship between action and reasons for action as an ordinary part of my job. And, as I said, I wouldn't look askance at someone who described as irrational behaviour that was not akratic, but was nevertheless goal-thwarting.I think commenting on this will be enough.Almost by definition, a person who acts stupidly has failed to exercise reason, sound judgement or good sense. That's what it means to act stupidly.Way back at post 739 I said thatthe whole game is a mental challenge. That is inherent in it being the sort of activity that it is. Playing the game means thinking about who is a friend and who an enemy; whether to move left or right in combat; how to allocate various resources (eg X/rest abilities); whether to rest or move on; etc. Participating in the game means thinking about these matters, and making sensible choices - or in a party-based game like D&D, helping the group as a whole arrive at a sensible choice. Expecting or demanding that the player of the 5 INT character to argue for irrational choices in these respects is, in my view, unreasonable. (If the player wants to play that way on his/her own motion, that's his/her prerogative.)At post 803 I elaborated, in response to a question about "playing a dumb character", thatIf your PC's goal is X, and you declare an action that will thwart X, then that action is irrational. If you, as a player, choose to play that way then - subject to the usual caveats about social contract, table harmony etc - that is your prerogative. But I don't think the rules of the game oblige or even expect you to make such irrational action declarations.In other words, I was saying that a stupid character is characterised by making irrational decisions - ie ones that are contrary to the decisions that character has reason to make; or, to use the language of dictionary.com, decisions that are lacking in reason, sound judgement, or good sense. And I was denying, and continue to deny, that the rules of the game oblige or event expect players of low INT PCs to make action declarations that are irrational in this sense.I think that claim is perfectly clear (whether or not one agrees with it). I think my use of the word "irrational" is also quite clear. That you prefer to use the word differently is a fact about you, but not one that I am going to be moved by. (That's another reason for mentioning my occupation - I take the views of academic lawyers and philosophers, who have made a career of studying the nature of reasons and reasoning, as my chief guide on usage of the word "irrational".)Instead of a pointless detour down a dead-end semantic pathway, it might be more profitable for this thread if you were to engage my claim about what the game rules expect or demand of players.In that spirit, I ask: how do you think it improves the game to have a PC whose player is obliged to declare, as actions for his/her PC, actions that will thwart or at least impede the PC and the party in the attainment of their goals? If this is what you mean by good roleplaying, what is it that makes it good?</blockquote>

Verification