Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6856639" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yet, at my table, everyone knows that &quot;the elf&quot; doesn't mean &quot;the drow&quot;. This is an illustration of the point that &quot;defaults&quot;, or decontextualised dictionary definitions, aren't generally relevant to interpretation except as a rough starting point. Mutually understood intentions to refer to one thing rather than another, based on mutually understood recognition of what is or isn't salient in the context, are far more important.This is just restating your claim, without answering my question.If, at the table, it is clear that the player does not intend &quot;the armour&quot; to include the (saliently distinct) gauntlets, what does it matter that there is some default usage of the phrase?The GM knew the player didn't want to sell them! The GM knew the players would be disappointed when he told them that the ranger had sold them. But because the player didn't use the GM's preferred from of words to express his intentions, the GM has held him to have declared an action that he did not want to or intend to declare. (Once again, contrast a player who says &quot;I leave my backpack behind&quot; forgetting that something valuable is in the backpack.)That's why I have repeatedly said that the GM is not being tricky with regard to the fiction (eg the GM has not done anything clever in playing the NPC smith); the GM is simply being tricky with regard to the wording of action declarations.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6856639, member: 42582"] Yet, at my table, everyone knows that "the elf" doesn't mean "the drow". This is an illustration of the point that "defaults", or decontextualised dictionary definitions, aren't generally relevant to interpretation except as a rough starting point. Mutually understood intentions to refer to one thing rather than another, based on mutually understood recognition of what is or isn't salient in the context, are far more important. This is just restating your claim, without answering my question. If, at the table, it is clear that the player does not intend "the armour" to include the (saliently distinct) gauntlets, what does it matter that there is some default usage of the phrase? The GM knew the player didn't want to sell them! The GM knew the players would be disappointed when he told them that the ranger had sold them. But because the player didn't use the GM's preferred from of words to express his intentions, the GM has held him to have declared an action that he did not want to or intend to declare. (Once again, contrast a player who says "I leave my backpack behind" forgetting that something valuable is in the backpack.) That's why I have repeatedly said that the GM is not being tricky with regard to the fiction (eg the GM has not done anything clever in playing the NPC smith); the GM is simply being tricky with regard to the wording of action declarations. [/QUOTE]

Verification