Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 8475391" data-attributes="member: 7031982">The bold part.&nbsp; &quot;Charmed&quot; is an actual condition, and cannot be confused for 'guidance' or flavor text.I don't believe there is any similar thing for an action declaration that is resolved with an attribute(skill) roll.I think this (as well as the charm question) comes down to which rules/text one regards as more general vs. more specific.&nbsp; It's true that there is no footnote explaining that Conditions, as enumerated in the PHB, take precedence over the Roleplaying Rule.&nbsp; We have to infer which ones we think are more general and more specific, and we may (and seem to) disagree about that.Or by &quot;circular&quot; are you really invoking Gödel's theorem here?&nbsp; If so, I concede.&nbsp; Yes, we cannot axiomatize roleplaying theory; we need to start with an unprovable postulate. Mine is not Rule Zero, it's the Roleplaying Rule.Ok, I have to admit you pretty much lost me with this example.&nbsp; Are you saying that by giving the player an answer you have unavoidably dictated what their character thinks?Maybe the distraction here is too much of a focus on what a character thinks, when really what matters is which of those thoughts get turned into action declarations.&nbsp; After telling the Wizard what the runes mean, are you further dictating or constraining action declarations?&nbsp; If not, fine.&nbsp; But if that's followed by, &quot;Now that your character has that knowledge, there's no way she would do X&quot; then we're not fine.&nbsp; It's really that simple. Isn't your argument the same one as this that I've seen: &quot;Making sense of visual input is really a function of the brain, and you can't perceive without thinking, so by telling the player they can see something, you're telling them what they think.&quot;&nbsp; Yeah, whatever.&nbsp;&nbsp; (But, for what it's worth, I really try to avoid saying &quot;You see...&quot; and instead try to use &quot;There is...&quot;)[USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] may want to keep arguing the point about epistemological soundness, but I don't.&nbsp; I freely admit I'm choosing to give Rule 174 primacy.&nbsp; After that it's a question of how unambiguous and predictable is the implementation at the table.&nbsp; As I've argued before, there needs to be a dividing line between what the DM controls and what the player controls, and if it's not at the point of declaring actions, which emerge from character thoughts, then where is it?And for that reason, I do find the rules make the most sense if we start with the Roleplaying Rule.&nbsp; It leads to a clear boundary between authority.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bill Zebub, post: 8475391, member: 7031982"] The bold part. "Charmed" is an actual condition, and cannot be confused for 'guidance' or flavor text. I don't believe there is any similar thing for an action declaration that is resolved with an attribute(skill) roll. I think this (as well as the charm question) comes down to which rules/text one regards as more general vs. more specific. It's true that there is no footnote explaining that Conditions, as enumerated in the PHB, take precedence over the Roleplaying Rule. We have to infer which ones we think are more general and more specific, and we may (and seem to) disagree about that. Or by "circular" are you really invoking Gödel's theorem here? If so, I concede. Yes, we cannot axiomatize roleplaying theory; we need to start with an unprovable postulate. Mine is not Rule Zero, it's the Roleplaying Rule. Ok, I have to admit you pretty much lost me with this example. Are you saying that by giving the player an answer you have unavoidably dictated what their character thinks? Maybe the distraction here is too much of a focus on what a character thinks, when really what matters is [I]which of those thoughts get turned into action declarations[/I]. After telling the Wizard what the runes mean, are you further dictating or constraining action declarations? If not, fine. But if that's followed by, "Now that your character has that knowledge, there's no way she would do X" then we're not fine. It's really that simple. Isn't your argument the same one as this that I've seen: "Making sense of visual input is really a function of the brain, and you can't perceive without thinking, so by telling the player they can see something, you're telling them what they think." Yeah, whatever. (But, for what it's worth, I really try to avoid saying "You see..." and instead try to use "There is...") [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] may want to keep arguing the point about epistemological soundness, but I don't. I freely admit I'm choosing to give Rule 174 primacy. After that it's a question of how unambiguous and predictable is the implementation at the table. As I've argued before, there needs to be a dividing line between what the DM controls and what the player controls, and if it's not at the point of declaring actions, which emerge from character thoughts, then where is it? And for that reason, I do find the rules make the most sense if we start with the Roleplaying Rule. It leads to a clear boundary between authority. [/QUOTE]

Verification