Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8475372" data-attributes="member: 16814">Show me the override in Charm Person that cannot be similarly explained away as only applying to non-PCs because the Roleplaying Rule shields the PCs.  This is my point that Charm Person has the same level of exception that social moves do.  There's nothing there that indicates that it overrides the Roleplaying Rule that is any more explicit that the descriptions of the social moves or that isn't exactly as susceptible to the same reasoning that says that social moves are not uncertain.  Charm Person makes no specific exception at all and could be as easily read to only apply to monsters and NPCs just like the monster proficiencies in social moves are considered to be only applicable to other monsters and NPCs.  This is the crux.  If you aren't privileging the Roleplaying Rule, then the argument falters.  And the privilege of the Roleplaying Rule is based on an assumption made to specifically privilege the Roleplaying Rule.  We don't see this argument formed elsewhere, and in fact this very privileging of the Roleplaying Rule forces some rather tortured interpretations of other, more clearly stated rules.I have a good deal of knowledge about calculus.  I don't, however, remember everything about calculus.  In fact, some things I intentionally do not retain.  And the reason for that is that I can rebuild that knowledge by extrapolation from the principles I do have committed to memory.  And yet, the end result of that thinking isn't anything but knowledge -- once complete, it's no different that I now know this bit of how to do calculus than the bits I recalled before.  Both are knowledge, and both can be further utilized -- at least until I discard the new bits again.  Foundationally, this is true of many disciplines -- you learn how to think because that's what creates new knowledge.  The process of what I know and what I think are inseparable.But, let's look at a game example.  A Wizard has run across some runes.  He tries to recall what he knows about these runes.  He does so.  We're going to say that this Wizard has just invoked knowledge and did no thinking at all in matching what he sees to what he recalls?  I mean, let's say that knowledge and thinking are separate.  The Wizard recalls knowledge about runes.  Cool.  How does he apply this knowledge to read these runes without thinking?  How can we say that the Wizard has matched up his recollection to his observation without ever once having to evaluate or consider if this rune looks more like this recalled one or that recalled one?  Is there no interpretation between languages going on?  I mean, should I have to tell the player what the runes mean but use that ancient language to do so, and let the player be interpreter to a different language?  If I provide the translation, have I told the player which interpretation his character thinks it more or less right -- have I provided all the possible ways it could be interpreted and translated, or have I provided a clear translation that elides all of this thinking and application of knowledge?  And, so far, I've completely avoided actual scientific literature on memory, recall, and cognition.  Going there really shows that these things are not separate.  Sigh.  The primary point of the argument that I am contesting is to claim that this one interpretation is actually better than the others -- it's more epistemologically sound, I believe was an early claim.  That it makes more sense and has fewer disruptions to the other rules.  That a new player would easily tease this interpretation out because it's the most clear one to have.  All of these are wrong.  It's not a better interpretation.  It causes multiple disruptions to other rules.  And new players would be hard pressed to pull this out of a single sentence on page 174 that isn't talking about action adjudication but is discussing what roleplaying can be (and it's not even complete there).  If none of it matters, then why are these claims to superiority being made?  And why is my attempt to show that they are not superior somehow more worthy of being told that it doesn't matter and I should let it go than the ones trying to say that their way is better?  Hell, I agree it's better, I just don't agree with the argument that the rules make it so. They don't.</blockquote>

Verification