Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8472394" data-attributes="member: 6779196">If the player decides what their character does, the outcome is not uncertain. It is certain that the character will do what the player decides they do.No, [USER=2209]@Voadam[/USER] has cited the rules for ability checks and made the argument that if you interpret that section as an exception, that would mean that the outcome of the NPC’s action is uncertain. That argument is logically valid (it’s conclusion follows logically from its foundational assumptions), but has not been proven to be logically sound (it’s foundational assumptions have not been proven to be true), because no explicit exception to the general rule has been indicated in the cited text. You (you specifically) are trying to say that an explicit exception has been indicated in that text and that I just didn’t like it, but if that’s the case, I apparently missed it, because in Vodam’s quotation of the rules I do not see any explicit statement that the outcome of an ability check can override the player’s ability to decide what their character does. This is why I say you are rejecting basic epistemology, and arguing with you is therefore pointless.You (you specifically) have also said that you don’t interpret the text stating that the player decides what their character does as a rule. This, too, is logically valid (if it’s not a rule, then the outcome of an NPC’s attempt to socially influence a PC is indeed uncertain), but not as logically sound as my position, since it relies on the assumption that some of the text in the rule book is not rules text in order to be valid, whereas my position does not rely on any such assumption.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8472394, member: 6779196"] If the player decides what their character does, the outcome is not uncertain. It is certain that the character will do what the player decides they do. No, [USER=2209]@Voadam[/USER] has cited the rules for ability checks and made the argument that if you interpret that section as an exception, that would mean that the outcome of the NPC’s action is uncertain. That argument is logically [I]valid[/I] (it’s conclusion follows logically from its foundational assumptions), but has not been proven to be logically [I]sound[/I] (it’s foundational assumptions have not been proven to be true), because no explicit exception to the general rule has been indicated in the cited text. You (you specifically) are trying to say that an explicit exception has been indicated in that text and that I just didn’t like it, but if that’s the case, I apparently missed it, because in Vodam’s quotation of the rules I do not see any [B]explicit[/B] statement that the outcome of an ability check can override the player’s ability to decide what their character does. This is why I say you are rejecting basic epistemology, and arguing with you is therefore pointless. You (you specifically) have also said that you don’t interpret the text stating that the player decides what their character does as a rule. This, too, is logically [I]valid[/I] (if it’s not a rule, then the outcome of an NPC’s attempt to socially influence a PC is indeed uncertain), but not as logically [I]sound[/I] as my position, since it relies on the assumption that some of the text in the rule book is not rules text in order to be valid, whereas my position does not rely on any such assumption. [/QUOTE]

Verification