Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8871755" data-attributes="member: 4937">Given that all of your arguments are given in bad faith up to and including distorting my words...Yes, I am assuming bad faith on the part of the player.  I have explained why I am assuming bad faith based on long experience as a GM with many many different players - friends, strangers, young people, old people, novices, grognards.  I am pretty confident in my diagnosis of the sort of player that pulls this sort of stunt.  But, importantly, the assumption of bad faith has absolutely nothing to do with the process of adjudication.  I don't need to agree with Reynard about anything.  There is nothing impossible about adjudicating the situation fairly.  Even if I thought the character was acting in good faith, I'd still go through the same explanation.  Something like:"You the player offered me a simple and natural proposition, "I open the chest."  The most reasonable and natural assumption when a person opens something is that they grab any obvious handle with their hand and open it.  It would be unnatural to assume anything else, and if the player intended something other than the obvious and natural they should have specified it.   The simple and casual nature of the proposition implies, absent any other evidence, that the character acted in a simple and casual fashion.   No tool was specified nor any special circumstances implied.  I made accounting of the fact that you were wearing only normal clothing that in game has no protective qualities save for a very minor bonus made against long term exposure to wet and minor cold and whose principal implied qualities is that it's durable enough to wear outdoors in normal circumstances and in normal weather without suffering damage.  I note that your character sheet has no mention of gloves, and further that the description of the clothing makes no mention of gloves and certainly no mention of a specific sort of gloves which would be relevant here.  I further note that before this moment you've made no mention of gloves that might be relevant to any of the actions you've hitherto taken.  Nothing in the fiction has established the presence of gloves and you have made no prior attempt to assert their presence.  So I rule that you aren't wearing gloves, and I apologize if you actually did imagine you wear gloves, but as you can offer me no evidence of that I can only from an impartial standpoint rule that you don't have gloves.  The previous ruling stands for lack of positive evidence to contradict it.   In the future, if you think something is particularly pertinent to a scene or to a particular proposition you should positively assert its presence so that no one has to guess about things.  I do try to steer players to revealing anything I think is pertinent, but I can't always do that without revealing information in the metagame (which isn't fair to you or the other players and spoils the game) or which interferes with your agency (which again isn't fair to you or the other players), and fundamentally it's not my responcibility to play your character for you."And again with the dumb bad faith argument on your part.  I have already said that if the player could as much as show that he owned gloves, I would give him the benefit of the doubt (even if as was highly likely he was acting in bad faith).  That's because the process of adjudication I outlined is both impartial and favors the player.  If I did somehow get as clownish of a situation as you imagine in your distorted bad faith argument, then I would give the player a little lecture about if he really did have 20 different outfits that he needed to make clear in some fashion which one he was wearing, preferably by marking it on his character sheet but at the least by at some point signaling whenever he was changing outfits.</blockquote>

Verification