NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8475866" data-attributes="member: 71699">A handful of people here have developed a shared picture. I agree that they have that picture because of a fundamental interpretation. The criticism is not passive-aggressive, but focused on the kinds of arguments presented. What I've been told repeatedly is that some would like to claim the high ground. There is no such high ground.That is an aspect of what I meant in my reference to Investigations. When it comes to meaning - particularly in games - we're dealing with self-supporting structures. As we come into the game, we bring far more than I think we are conscious of. So much in fact, that I think we can make ourselves blind to even the possibility of certain meanings.I understand the arguments being made. I can see how the picture can look, but I can also see another picture. One that looks interesting, and so far as the RAW goes is better entailed.It takes a game mechanic to override it. Skills are game mechanics. A character with athletics can't simply decide to jump further than their strength in feet, they either have to engage with uncertainty or perhaps the DM will say it is not possible. But athletics is just as imaginary as deception is: it's all fiction. I am saying that the DM may call for a check (something [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] concedes) and is justified in calling for a check (something [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] disagrees with.)It's a complicated argument<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Possibly, it comes down to whether anything within the definition of roleplay can be uncertain.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Here for the sake of argument we concede that it is even at issue, i.e. that the 185 text counts as a general rule (notwithstanding reading as a definition)</li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It hasn't been shown that a DM needs to rely on precedent, which is what I think [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] is insisting on: there are likely numerous cases where a DM is expected to establish precedent (or just decide)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Alternatively, there could be an assumption that players deciding is never subject to uncertainty. I suppose we don't want to put this forward as an argument about human free will, so we have to look at it in game terms. In game terms, players sometimes don't decide. When does that happen? When a game mechanic applies. Are skills game mechanics? Yes. QED.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A secondary defence then comes into play claiming that uncertainty only occurs within the scope of certain exceptional mechanics. This is a suspect argument because formerly all we were asked for is evidence that player decides could be uncertain: the bar has been raised! And so far without any justification given (i.e. no justification as to why it even matters, seeing as all we wanted to show is that player decides could possibly be uncertain.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Regarding this secondary defence, we do see clear cases of special pleading. X is specific enough, Y is not specific enough. Y is different from X for reasons. (Both are game mechanics. Both employ very specific means and can have very specific outcomes.)</li> </ol>Thus to now shift to a new layer of argumentation - that of undermining my right to even participate in the debate - is not ideal.</blockquote>

Verification