Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Indaarys" data-source="post: 9201419" data-attributes="member: 7040941">You're asserting without incontrovertible evidence what two different people think. Thats what an assumption is. Doesn't mean you can't draw conclusions, but you also can't assert what other people think. And I would know, given I don't always respect that to my own, Red Text themed detriment. And if we aren't abstracting an entire interaction, there are times when being willing and intending to follow through isn't the end of the interaction.To make up an example, in Inglorious Basterds theres the scene where the Bear beats a particularly brave Nazi officer to death with a baseball bat. Nothing about the Bear up to the moment he threatens the Nazi with the bat says he'd be unwilling to follow through, and as the scene plays out, he definitely has zero qualms about it. Thats who he is. But, imagine he sees the bravery the Nazi puts up and decides not to. Its not a reflection of being unwilling, perhaps hes just impressed at the unshakeable bravery and the Basterds decide on another route to get the info they want. Go Aggro necessarily precludes this, because its triggers and outcomes are prewritten, and so in order for this hypothetical scene to occur, a meta discussion has to take place to waste time negotiating all of this to see if the game can even support it, and if it can, what if anything needs to be done. A less abstracted experience wouldn't preclude this scene, nor require any negotiation. The Bear's player describes how he threatens, perhaps making an Intimidation check (perhaps not), and the GM per the result or just pure roleplay advises that the Nazi doesn't falter.The Bear's player then decides what to do. Beat him to death, or do something else.</blockquote>

Verification