Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8472280" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Obviously, but based on what principles and what passages from the rules have you arrived at this interpretation?That’s an argument ad populum, which is fallacious and therefore not logically valid.It was not a sound argument for the position it was being used to support, as [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] demonstrated.I disagree. When a player describes an action (assuming it is a complete description, including goal and approach), what happens on a success is that the player succeeds in their goal. When an NPC takes an action in a social context, the outcome is not uncertain, since the player decides what their character does, so no roll is necessary to determine the outcome.Great!I don’t get to decide, words just mean things. The quote cited did not contain an explicit exception to the general rule that the player decides what their character does. You may have inferred an exception, but no exception is explicitly written, and in an exceptions-based rules system, an exception must be written explicitly in order to override a general rule.Ok? But we’re arguing about what the rules say, which requires us to use epistemology to determine the validity and soundness of the interpretations being presented.Go against what rules? You cited the existence of social skills on monster/NPC stat blocks as evidence that those skills are meant to be used against PCs, based on the logic that they would be useless if they weren’t. I countered your argument by pointing out that those skills would still have a use if they were not meant to be used against PCs - specifically, they can be used against other monsters/NPCs. Your conclusion therefore does not follow logically from its premise.</blockquote>

Verification