Argument about Luck.

[cowswithguns]

I've been having an argument with my GM for months now about the Luck advantage, the argument goes like this,

Player 1 fires shotgun at Player 2.
Player 2 Blinks successfully.
Player 1 attempts to use Luck to re-roll Player 2's Blink Active Defense.
An argument ensues and obscenities are uttered.
Player 1 attempts an argument.
1. That Player 2's dodge was an event, and that it was physically outside of Player 1.
2. That Player 2's dodge affected Player 1. (i.e. that the fight continues, Player 2 could still attack, etc.)

The crux of it is the line "Your Luck only applies....... or on outside events that affect you or your whole party..." B66 2nd column, 4th Paragraph

It's essentially boiled down into an argument over the interpretation of the English language, whereby he refuses to believe anything I say (I'm notoriously bad at explaining things, and have a history of going on about things I don't know about).

I went so far as to e-mail Kromm about this:


"My friends and I are having an argument that's keeping me up at night, and I demand satisfaction! The argument is
about how you can or can't use the Luck advantage. I think it's very clearly worded, but I'll share the line in question.

"Your Luck only applies....... or on outside events that affect you or your whole party..." B66 2nd column, 4th Paragraph

Without even thinking about it I assume you mean "outside event" figuratively referring to context and situation.
I've tried many times to explain the meaning of the phrase "outside event" to no avail, and am convinced that
none of them understand English. They further ask how I know it's the figurative and not literal form. Other than
saying "It's obvious," or that the literal form wouldn't make sense in that context, I've got nothing. I just understand
English, I can't really explain English. I usually lose arguments like this because I suck at arguing, and there is
nothing that I can proffer to support the claim that I "just understand English."

The situation unfolds as thus, paraphrased to be concise.
Player 1 fires shotgun at Player 2.
Player 2 Blinks successfully.
Player 1 attempts to use Luck to re-roll Player 2's Blink Active Defense.
An argument ensues and obscenities are uttered.
Player 1 attempts what I believe is a fallacious argument, that constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of English.
1. That Player 2's dodge was an event, and that it was physically outside of Player 1.
2. That Player 2's dodge affected Player 1. (i.e. that the fight continues, Player 2 could still attack, etc.)
Further, those aren't things that affect you, from my understanding of the English."

He responds:

> From: seanm.punch@sympatico.ca
> To: flashgorden18@hotmail.com
> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 01:54:36 -0400
> Subject: Re:
>
> On 1 Sep 2010 at 20:21, Eric Gorden wrote:
>
> > Without even thinking about it I assume you mean "outside event"
> > figuratively referring to context and situation.
>
> Without reading further, I'll say that's intended to be read as "random
> bad stuff that happens to you or your group": The king rolling a rotten
> reaction toward the party and deciding to decapitate them all, a stray
> missile from a nearby battle homing in on the team's spaceship, the GM
> declaring there's a flat 1 in 6 chance of orcs showing up and rolling a
> 1, etc. You can request rerolls for all that, because these bad things
> are precisely the sorts of events that lucky people avoid.
>
> > Player 1 attempts to use Luck to re-roll Player 2's Blink Active
> > Defense.
>
> You can't do that. Somebody else's defense roll is *never* a legitimate
> target for Luck. That isn't an outside event -- it has zero to do with
> the environment or the adventure hosing the PCs. It's a specific combat
> action by an enemy. You can only request rerolls on those when they're
> *attacks* against you. The rules are rather explicit on that.
>
> > 1. That Player 2's dodge was an event, and that it was physically
> > outside of Player 1.
>
> That is not a logical interpretation of the English language. That's a
> rules lawyer talking double. To wit: That's wrong -- no cookie. I won't
> even comment on the other statements, as that one right there is bogus,
> so the others that depend on it are likewise bogus.
>
> In combat, you can use Luck as follows:
>
> * To reroll any roll YOU make: Attack, defense, damage, HT not to pass
> out, DX not to trip, Fast-Draw, etc. These CAN affect foes.
>
> * To reroll any ATTACK or DAMAGE roll (or equivalent -- for instance,
> the roll vs. Arm Lock to break your arm, which is damage in disguise)
> made by someone else against you.
>
> That's it.
>
> SP.


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 ask everyone who has English qualifications, (i.e. a degree, and state them in your answer, otherwise he won't listen) to give their opinions on this argument, and if they can, break the statement down and explain it. I further ask the person in question to respond by defending their argument.

[rosignol]

Originally Posted by cowswithguns

I've been having an argument with my GM [...]

The GM is the ultimate arbiter of how things work in their game. If the GM says luck cannot be used to re-roll the defense rolls of something the PC is attacking, it can't be used that way in their game.

[aesir23]

The Wishing enhancement (Powers 59) is required to effect other people's dice rolls. If you could effect any roll that could possibly have any effect on your character, that enhancement wouldn't be necessary.


The "outside events that effect you or the party" bit I've always taken to be general stuff like "does the bridge collapse while you're on it."

[EDIT] I have a BA in English, and am currently enrolled in Graduate school for English Literature. There is no "official meaning" to colloquial phrases like "Outside Events" that they secretly share with you in college. Anyway, the question shouldn't be "what does this sentence mean", it should be "how was this advantage designed to work". Kromm answered that question with all the authority possible.

Ask your rules lawyer this: "If Luck applies to any roll you make, and any event that takes place physically outside of you, than what doesn't it effect? If it does in fact effect every roll that matters, why even have language in the advantage limiting the rolls it can effect?

[aesir23]

A logical argument for you to use:

A: There exists a +100% Enhancement called Wishing that allows you to effect all rolls made in your presence.

B: If Luck effected all such rolls anyway, no such Enhancement would exist, or it would be worth 0 points.

C: All rolls made by someone else take place physically outside the PC.

D: Any roll made in an RPG can be said to effect the PCs or party.

E: If all such rolls were legitimate targets for Luck, you could use luck to reroll all rolls made in your presence.

F: Since Wishing exists, E must be false.

[cowswithguns]

Originally Posted by aesir23

A logical argument for you to use:

A: There exists a +100% Enhancement called Wishing that allows you to effect all rolls made in your presence.

B: If Luck effected all such rolls anyway, no such Enhancement would exist, or it would be worth 0 points.

C: All rolls made by someone else take place physically outside the PC.

D: Any roll made in an RPG can be said to effect the PCs or party.

E: If all such rolls were legitimate targets for Luck, you could use luck to reroll all rolls made in your presence.

F: Since Wishing exists, E must be false.

I think that one would have worked too.
I suck at arguing.

[cowswithguns]

Originally Posted by aesir23

Ask your rules lawyer this: "If Luck applies to any roll you make, and any event that takes place physically outside of you, than what doesn't it effect? If it does in fact effect every roll that matters, why even have language in the advantage limiting the rolls it can effect?

That would probably work if I could have thought of it.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by cowswithguns

*snip*

The GM's interpretation -- while not necessarily correct from an outside point of view -- IS correct for the games he is running. A different GM may apply their interpretation differently. If you don't like the way the GM is interpreting the rules, tell them so. Negotiate. If you are unable to reach a solution you both find acceptable?

Stop playing in his game. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

If you continue to play in his game then you consent to his interpretation while playing the game he is running. Calls to authority are futile.

[Grouchy Chris]

Originally Posted by cowswithguns

I ask everyone who has English qualifications, (i.e. a degree, and state them in your answer, otherwise he won't listen) to give their opinions on this argument.

If the person you are trying to convince thinks that a degree in English or some related field is necessary to understand the rules in the Basic Set, then I think there's no hope of having a reasoned discussion of the situation with him or her.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Grouchy Chris

If the person you are trying to convince thinks that a degree in English or some related field is necessary to understand the rules in the Basic Set, then I think there's no hope of having a reasoned discussion of the situation with him or her.

QFT. Furthermore if he thinks that Kromm's opinion of the rules is irrelevant to the discussion, then there's really no hope. Personally it sounds like this guy likes to argue and loves to throw the "rules" of debate in people's faces. I'd find a GM that wants his games to be fun, instead.

[Grouchy Chris]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Furthermore if he thinks that Kromm's opinion of the rules is irrelevant to the discussion, then there's really no hope.

Ironically, Kromm is exactly the sort of authority the GM claims he's looking for. He's a professional writer and editor, which makes him more of an authority on the English language than just any old English BA. Furthermore, he's a writer and editor specializing in the field of role playing games. Quite apart from the fact that this very role playing game is his full-time job, he's as good an authority you're going to get on figuring out what RPG rules are supposed to mean.