Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8475335" data-attributes="member: 16814">And there is nowhere that it's suggested that the Roleplaying Rule has the primacy that you give it.  Both are equally unmoored, and both don't matter according to your argument that everything is permitted.   If you start with everything is permitted, then any argument that follows that tries to suggest that this thing is more permitted than the other is an utterly failing argument -- you've successfully spited your own face when you waggled your cut off nose at others.This is exactly what I'm arguing, so no, I was already this clear.  I very easily followed that argument, and was countering your position here as equally unmoored because that authority has to exist for PC actions to operate, and if the authority exists there, it exists everywhere.  We we accept this premise, you cannot question where the authority exists in the case of NPC vs PC social moves as if it doesn't because it would rely upon the same authority present for PC vs NPC social moves.  You're creating a special distinction for one while ignoring that the same applies to the other -- which is special pleading.Wait, you just said you were engaged with the premise that there's roleplaying and then there's mechanical resolution per [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER].  This argument discards that and returns to "roleplaying is always active so there's no distinction."  That's a party foul in the discussion -- you've move the goalposts from the current argument to a different one to dispense with the already conceded premise of this argument.No, you've created two arbitrary categories and binned checks into one or the other and then said "all checks in bin one are the same as each other and all check in bin two are the same as each other."  You then try to claim that this is treating all ability checks the same -- it's not.  Bin one is treated differently from bin two.  Very differently.  This is not treating all ability checks as equal!The argument is that you are exactly doing this -- you are treating the two bins differently at different times.  In some cases, ie when the PC uses them, all bins are equal.  In other cases, when a PC is not using them, the bins are different.  So bin two gets flipped around depending on who's using it.  Yes, I know the argument that this isn't so because it's whether or not it's uncertain, but that uncertainty is directly tied the what's in bin two.  And the justifications for this are thin as heck and require imaginative excuses like "I'm not telling a player what their PC thinks on a insight vs deception check because I'm describing what they see!"  But you haven't at all addressed the counter argument to this that shows you're either creating player side puzzles to solve to find out what their PC thinks of the information or that you're just avoiding certain phrases to do the same on the PC side.  This a rhetorical device where you're pretending there's a difference here, but the very nature of this action by the player is to find out what their PC thinks about the NPC.  I do not see how this can actually be avoided.It does not apply the Charmed condition.  I know, weird, right?The idea that the processes of the brain and cognition make such a distinction -- that thought and memory are not intimately interconnected and that thinking on a thing alters the memory of the thing -- is fascinating to me.  It's basically arguing that your understanding of these things is controlling for all play everywhere such that you can universally say that your understanding of knowledge and thinking means that these mechanics in this game are distinct.  I find that a fascinating example of motivated thinking.Yes, we've covered that you find your handwaving to be sufficiently vigorous that you can claim that your approach, of all approaches, is the most indicated by RAW and RAI.  That any counter argument doesn't matter because of Rule Zero, but that this one is the most suggested.  That you have to make an unsupported assumption to start, and that the entire argument fails absent that unsupported (and actually somewhat countered) assumption, is ignored.  That your reading requires many other unsupported changes -- or rather than the only support for them is the Roleplaying Rule, itself supported only by the unsupported assumption -- is similarly ignored.  Satisfied that all counterarguments are ignored, the argument that your interpretation is the most supported forges on, totally ignoring that it's built on quicksand.</blockquote>

Verification