Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8591546" data-attributes="member: 71699">The text addresses the reader directly - "if you feel" - so while I agree that there is room for the design intent to be that it should be a group consensus, the words on the page do not imply that. The group must be convinced yes, but to me the words imply that any member of the group can call bull. You - the person reading these rules - may do so. Thus, following the text someone does have the power to issue an authoritative ruling.That said, I don't believe it harms what I am saying whether it is any one or several members of the group. The rule (as a literal rule) can very well be one available to the group, even if not to individual members. An example might be a rule where board members can vote a director out. They can't exercise that rule individually, but they can do so collectively.I do agree that what you say isn't mere quibbling: it is reasonable to consider if anything authoritative is in play or not. My interpretation is that yes, something authoritative is in play - and it can be exercised by any one (or more) member(s) of the group. The player accused of reaching can have their declaration overruled. The nature of the rule is regulatory: a player has the prior ability to use a trait against themselves. The rule regulates that use.I feel here that a great deal of fictional positioning is in play and - because the example has to start and end somewhere - not mentioned until it is apposite. For example<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There are gnolls intent on pursuing</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There is a shadowy tunnel</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">We're presently at its mouth, able to peer in</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Harguld has a crossbow</li> </ul>To my reading, what you are describing is simply the absence of an outline of the fictional position obtaining at the start of the action. Such omission is common. I don't believe it right to read the example as the position being established simultaneously with the player declarations.In the given fictional position a timing misjudgement is legitimate. Dro narrated something that made sense in the circumstances: it was valid given the fictional position. Compare with something else Dro might have said:That doesn't work. If the laces were tied, how did that not matter when he positioned himself in the tunnel mouth? And so on. Others can probably come up with better examples. In your interpretation, for me there is an overlooking of the validating function of the fictional position, and no true consideration of what declarations would count as invalid.</blockquote>

Verification