thread: 2009-05-13 : Now where WAS I...

On 2009-05-13, valamir wrote:

I'm not sure I see the distinction you're making.

Ultimately all such rules come down to having to justify you note yourself in your example above of
"I empty the cylinder at him. Hey GM, am I shooting a gun at somebody?"

This is essentially asking the GM to confirm that your statement of emptying the cylinder is sufficient justification to claim the escalation.  The only question is how obvious the justification Dogs is it enough to just point the gun?...what if you fire it in the air?...what if you fire it at someone but intentionally miss as a warning shot?  Aren't those just different attempts to justify grabbing the dice that require judgement? (I can't remember if in Dogs the rule is specifically that you have to be shooting at someone...but you get the idea).

Same thing with "+2 from taking the high ground"...also subject to lazy play issues.  How many times can a character jump up on a table to claim the high ground?  Is standing on the tree stump sufficiently high to get the bonus?  Etc, etc.  All such rules can be "worked" all such workings require judgments all judgments must weigh the proposed justification.

I can't see a hard line distinction here.


This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":