Argument about Luck.

[cowswithguns]

I do appreciate everyone's responses, but I do want to make clear that I'm the instigator in the argument, he just won't accept that I'm right, and tries to argue down everything I proffer to that effect, or shut me down entirely, but just the same, I'm the aggressor. As well, I am biased I'm sure, and I do want him to post his side of it, and have a chance to defend himself. And he is a good GM (I guess in his absence I'm defending him to a point), and it's really not arguing most of the time, it's this and a few other isolated instances, where I'm unable to clearly illustrate my point, and can't point to some piece of evidence or logic that is unassailable. So yes, I'm definitely the one that bogs down the game or won't let it go, but in MY defense, it's infuriating.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by cowswithguns

I do appreciate everyone's responses, but I do want to make clear that I'm the instigator in the argument, he just won't accept that I'm right, and tries to argue down everything I proffer to that effect, or shut me down entirely, but just the same, I'm the aggressor.

Presumably he's using the NPC's Luck to reroll your PC's Defense? I think you have a legitimate issue there.

[lexington]

Originally Posted by cowswithguns

Despite this, he refuses to accept that he simply doesn't understand the underlying concepts, in particular context, won't listen to me trying to explain it, and says that my asking Kromm constituted a logical fallacy as an appeal to authority, and has no standing.

An appeal to authority is only incorrect when the authority has no relevant qualification (ie appealing to Einstein's beliefs on biology). As the line editor and one of the designers there is no authority that can possibly be more qualified than Kromm.

[zorg]

1. If you emailed Kromm, what was his answer?

2. None of us is your GM.

3. imo, and even though I'm not an English major, a successful Active Defense affects not the attacker, but the defender. The result of a successful Active Defense is the negation of an attack, the avoidance of damage. It occurs at a point when the attacker has done his thing - the attack roll was successful, or there wouldn't be a defense.

If you go for a wide interpretation of "affect", then your Luck can also influence the proverbial butterfly in China.

This is also exceedingly clear from the examples in the rules.

Scrolling the down the page, I see that Kromm has answered already, and that I can stop typing.

[zorg]

Originally Posted by cowswithguns

Despite this, he refuses to accept that he simply doesn't understand the underlying concepts, in particular context, won't listen to me trying to explain it, and says that my asking Kromm constituted a logical fallacy as an appeal to authority, and has no standing.

I retract my earlier advice, and advise you instead not to game with this guy any more.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by cowswithguns

Despite this, he refuses to accept that he simply doesn't understand the underlying concepts, in particular context, won't listen to me trying to explain it, and says that my asking Kromm constituted a logical fallacy as an appeal to authority, and has no standing.

The author has no standing to explain the intent of what he wrote? Well, that's very pomo of your GM.

Anyway, the emphasized "or"s clearly divide the circumstances under which Luck can be used into three cases:

• your own success, damage, or reaction rolls
• outside events that affect you or your whole party
• when you are being attacked.

For Character 1, it's clearly not the first or last case, but only the second which might potentially apply. Does it? Clearly not. The example of when you can't use luck illustrates the intent of the rule. The lucky character cannot use his luck to aid the strong character attempting to knock down the door. The strong character's success may have eventual consequences for the lucky character in the course of play, but his success or failure does not have a clear, rules-defined impact on him, any more than the Blinking character's success or failure does not have a clear, defined impact on the lucky character. Besides, if luck were allowed in any case where the consequences of a roll might, somewhere down the line, affect the lucky character, there would essentially be no limitation on its use at all, so why would the rules specify any constraints? At best, the description would be self-contradictory and meaningless.

[Grouchy Chris]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

The author has no standing to explain the intent of what he wrote? Well, that's very pomo of your GM.

Nah, Textualism vs. Original Intent has been around a lot longer than postmodernism.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Grouchy Chris

Nah, Textualism vs. Original Intent has been around a lot longer than postmodernism.

Regardless of literary criticism schools, there's an "organized gameplay" context and in a sense as the OP isn't in an Officially Organized And Sanctioned SJG Campaign, Kromm (or any other SJG official) really doesn't have any standing or authority in his game. Kromm's not playing with them, Kromm therefore doesn't have a horse in that race.

That said, if they're arguing over Kromm's intent rather than the GM's (and other players) preferred, personal interpretation of the rule ("He meant X!" vs "I don't give a hoot what he meant, I think it's a ridiculous idea!" sort of thing) saying he doesn't have any standing in clarifying his intent is kind of funny.

[Kromm]

Removing my "game designer" hat before witnesses and speaking strictly gamer-to-gamer: The individual in question doesn't understand the meaning of "logical fallacy" or the specifics of when and why an "appeal to authority" is a bad thing; appears to be legalistic to a fault; seems incapable of understanding nuanced English; and is less interested in having fun than in being right. My advice is to stop gaming with him, take him off your speed dial and Christmas mailing list, and find somebody without a socialization disorder to replace him. You might also want to give him a therapist's phone number. If he acts like that all the time, he's going to need it.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Removing my "game designer" hat before witnesses and speaking strictly gamer-to-gamer: The individual in question doesn't understand the meaning of "logical fallacy" or the specifics of when and why an "appeal to authority" is a bad thing; appears to be legalistic to a fault; seems incapable of understanding nuanced English; and is less interested in having fun than in being right. My advice is to stop gaming with him, take him off your speed dial and Christmas mailing list, and find somebody without a socialization disorder to replace him. You might also want to give him a therapist's phone number. If he acts like that all the time, he's going to need it.

I'm Quoting this For Truth. This guy continually accuses you of all kinds of dishonest behavior and talks down to you. If I were in your position, I'd just refuse to play at the same table with him, regardless of whether he's playing or GMing. You don't need the aggravation.