As I said, you fail to see the ambiguity of your own question and writing because there is implicit meaning in it that you cannot free yourself from, but which is not as clear-cut as you think - not to me/us at least. I'm not saying you're wrong in your interpretation, not at all, but you also seem to fail to understand that others can interpret it differently. This seems to upset you and I tried to explain, because I think that the other interpretation is as valid as yours, but you fail to see this and get irritated because I/we do not see as you do. Hardly pragmatic.

I will let it rest now, I have tried to explain why it can be interpreted differently and you fail to understand, or are not willing to see it from a different perspective. Fine. Your choice. I have tried, but this is getting silly.

I'm frustrated, not irritated. I'm trying to explain that the way I formulated my question doesn't leave ambiguity, where you are saying otherwise. Given the timeline present in my question, I can't see a way to interpret it differently. I understand what you are saying, I just don't view the ways you are suggesting the question can be interpreted as logical or reasonable, given the chronological absolutes presented in the question. I respect what you are doing, I just disagree with it. Agree to disagree sir, no hard feeling on this end.

This conversation reminds me of this funny.

Well, frustrated then. Still, my point stands.

But can you not see that the way you formulated your question isn't as clear cut as you want it to be? The time-line you're referring to is your intention and meaning (implicit, underlying), but its not as clear cut nor as explicit at you seem to want it to be. There are no "chronological absolutes" presented in the question text, that's my point, that is exactly what is up to interpretation. Hence why I, and numerous others here (as I read it at least, I may be wrong of course) interpret it differently and point out the openness in the question and answer supplied. You can refer to and quote your exchange with Sam as much as you want, it doesn't make it less open to interpretation, because neither the answer, the question nor the talent text is precise and accurate. Which is the source of this thread, and the disagreement first whether you can do this or that (number of ranks used, activate it by will or not, etc), then whether Sam said this or that (regarding before or after the critical is rolled). Even by explaining what you meant and what you think/mean/are convinced is inherently to be understood, the fact of the matter is that it can, obviously, be interpreted otherwise, if not we would not have this discussion, but we are.

To me it's largely obvious, because I'm biased, I know how I will let my players use it. Regardless of whether your interpretation of Sam's answer is right or wrong, because it's my game, my group and my victi...uhm... players....

I agree it's your game and do what you want. That's why in my game I will allow any player who spent xp on this talent to decide, after rolling, if he wants to suffer critical hit A or B, as by choosing his character might actual be more durable than a character who didn't spend xp on the talent.

So your saying that when a dice is rolled, and a 90 comes up, that is open to interpretation? The act of 3 ranks of Durable turning a 90 to a 60, is open to interpretation? When a 90 is rolled, a discreet point of time is created. The entire conversation I posted, takes place post 90 being rolled, because all that is discussed is a 90 being rolled. Option A stipulates that Durable isn't an option, the 90, that was rolled, the time point we are dealing with, automatically becomes a 60. Option B, the one Sam claimed was correct, stipulates that that Durable is an option, and the player has the option to be hit by a crit of 90, that was rolled, the time point we are dealing with, OR lower that number 90, that was rolled, the time point we are dealing with, to a 60, and suffer that crit. Option C stipulates that each rank of Durable is optional and the 90, that was rolled, the time point we are dealing with, can be left alone, lowered to an 80, lowered to a 70, or lowered to a 60, at the discretion of the player.

What I'm getting from you is that Durable is an option, but only before the roll, so when a 90 is rolled, you can choose to lower it to 60, but the 90 was rolled, so you couldn't choose to lower it to 60, because it is too late, remember next time? Is that the interpretation you are suggesting? I'm not trying to be cheeky, condescending, or rude, I just honestly can't wrap my head around your methodology of thinking. I mean no disrespect, and thank you for explaining to me your thought process.

If Sam believed that Durable was an option, but only before the crit roll, wouldn't he have corrected my faulty premise? The act of turning a 90 to a 60, which he approved, is by definition, dealing with discreet numbers, and is therefore, after the crit roll. If he believed otherwise, I expect he would have said, B is close, but not quite there. Durable is optional, but only before the roll, so they player can choose to use it or not before the roll, and either suffer the crit as rolled, if he chose not to use it, or suffer the roll minus 30, if he chose to use Durable.

You're stuck in your notion of the inherent premisses and implicit meaning and context of your question. I cannot speak for Sam about what he might or might not have done, and neither can anyone else, we can merely speculate, which is poor form and makes for poor argumentation. If you fail to understand that other people can interpret this differently than you by now, I don't know what will.

I'm going to try to break it down further...

1) You supply Sam with a question about whether a talent can be applied at will, and whether you can use as many or as few of the ranks of said talents you possess.

2) You supply an example value, 90, as starting point.

3) None of the above does explicitly state whether this choice you refer to, should be made before or after the roll - the mention of a value and what happens to it does not mean that it is naturally understood as already rolled in a combat scenario. Of course, I understand from your explanations that this was your intent, your assumption and implicit meaning, however nowhere in your formulation is this addressed explicitly, clearly and precisely.

4) Therefore you assumptions can be both correct and incorrect. This:

There is a timeline in this question. My character exists and has 3 ranks of Durable. Then my character is attacked and crit, and the roll of that crit is 90.

Is what I mean is implicit, and unclear, until you explain it here. This is not clear-cut from your question, however it is as reasonable to interpret it this way, as not to, I guess.

This too:

We are now in another, later part of the the timeline. In this timeline, Durable is an optional talent, and the player, who has been hit and crit, and had a 90 rolled against them, can suffer a crit of either 90 or 60.

is not explicit in your question formulation, nor is it the only way to interpret your question. If Sam did or did not we can merely speculate.

To put it in yet other terms: you did not supply a context (i.e. a small narrative or situation in which it happened, players' and characters' action and whatnot), events and chronological description, you supplied facts, values and alternatives void of description, but your formulation lacked a clear chronology of whether the roll had happened and whether the choice happened before or after. I understand that you mean it is explicit, I think it isn't. The fact that you hadn't conceived of the idea to distinguish between choice before or after roll does not make your question any clearer the way its formulated. That is information supplied after the fact.

So it can easily be understood as if the option B is based on a choice before the roll, which then resulted in a 90, which is - if the choice was to use the talent - then reduced to 60, as easily as it can be understood that the roll is 90 and the player chooses to activate and then reduce the 90 to 60.

I know this is not what you think, meant and so on, but isn't it, by now, obvious that the whole exchange is open to interpretation? I know I'm a pain in the lower part of your back, but I'm not doing this to be a pain. Neither am I saying that I'm right and you're wrong. Because, frankly, both notions seems ok to me. Your interpretation and conclusion breaks with assumptions that is easily carried over from other more rigid games, which might be the intent, which might be a good thing. I'm just saying it's not clear cut. There is a good chance you're right, but that does not mean that other interpretations here are wrong - when it comes to the formulation of your question - until we get a clarification in this matter.

I understand your point now, though I disagree with it. Regarding points 2 and 3, I think that saying I've been crit for a value of 90 is implicitly stating that everything subsequent happens after the critical roll, because I don't know of anyway in the game to generate a critical value other than rolling 1d100. Do you know of such a way? Otherwise, I don't see a way to not view that as an implicit statement that can only be interpreted to mean one point in time, post roll. Regarding 4, I said "If I have 3 ranks of Durable, and am critted with a result of 90, what happens?" in my original e-mail. If you don't know of any other way to achieve a critical number, my initial statement in the e-mail says the exact same thing my later statement you says is clearer does. As to your claim that my later point discussing the results of being crit for 90 not being explicitly set after being crit for 90, when I write, especially a question, I work forward chronologically. I suppose it is possible to interpret the order of my comments in a non-chronologically forward path, but isn't that illogical?

Obviously, this is divided into camps: those that think that you should be able to choose a 60 or 90 on the crit chat by using Durable, and those that think you should use Durable before the results of the roll are known. Everyone has their (good) reasons as to why they think their way of applying Durable is best and all others are unfair/metagaming/stupid.

Verbosity, thy name is gamer.

These people then are assuming that, given Sam's answer on the matter, he was either 1) reading AndreKeller's email and responding after fully understanding his option B and all-the-other-points-that-make-it-impossible-to-assume-anything-else as loquaciously argued by Andre, or 2) Sam is not fully understanding Andre's option B and his-answer-is-still-open-to-interpretation-because-of-X-times-50-reasons.

Most of the stuff in here is just people arguing the same points back and forth, with each under the impression (perhaps correctly) that they are being misunderstood. And "if only I could just get this point across, then everything would be as clear as day and people will stop posting things that make it seem like I'm being crazy."

I have fallen prey to this myself.

In any case, maybe now that everyone (I think) understands each other, we could just wait til Mr. Stewart gets back to IceBear's query?

A fair point away. Frankly, the debate Jeg and I are having has moved beyond eote and into language, and I for one am enjoying it. He has an interesting perspective to me, and he is vigorously defending it, which I appreciate.

... right. Uhm. I gather that that is what you meant, that it is clearly a way to interpret it (and for all that I know how Sam interpreted it). Still, its not necessarily how it is understood by all who read the exchange. As should be obvious by now.

For you it is obviously illogical to interpret it any other way than you intended it, but that doesn't make it illogical to point out other interpretations, or have other interpretations. Communication logic is a mandatory subject when starting higher education over here, and examples just as this, more or less, are used. With variations of course depending on faculty and stuff. I find it interesting and particularly so when communicating across cultures, and between different social institutions... but I digress.

Now, I'll admit, that my first reaction was to interpret it the way you do (I think... ). Others on the other hand interpreted it differently, and I think those are fair interpretations. As you say, we have moved over into a discussion about language. Given the premisses you have laid down after the fact, you interpretation makes sense. Now, if the premisses are unclear, the text becomes more open to interpretation. I for one see that the premisses can be unclear, since regardless of how or when you produce a critical result in the game, the question is short and provides only a value and three options, not stipulating of whether the choice to use should be before or after - which I've gathered were something you hadn't considered, which is fair all things considered. I also gather that you think there's a time-line there, but as I've said, it is not obvious that this (to me implicit) time-line is essential and imperative to the interpretation of the question and therefore the answer. That's why it becomes open to interpretation. Because the value could be either according to sequence in combat, or as an arbitrary value presented regardless of when the choice for use of the talent is made. People pose questions in different ways, mostly imprecisely, and this makes it open to interpretation, if variables up for debate are not explicitly addressed in the formulation of the question.

As long as I've played roleplaying games, any modifiers to a roll need to be stated before the roll is made and the result determined - unless it explicitly says otherwise. Since Durable has no such text, we apply it at the same time we apply other modifiers (like having previous Crits or the Viscous quality or Lethal Blows). Once we have the total modifier, we roll and adjust the raw number on the dice by that modifier before getting a result.

The argument that this may make you "less durable" is pointless. Sometimes a Vicious weapon might be less vicious and someone with Lethal Blows may hit less lethally. So what. Keep it simple.

That is, I believe, the conventional use of modifiers.

Again, the discreet nature of the number 90, which can only be generated by rolling a 1d100 in this game as far as I know, is an implicit indicator of the timeline of the question, which is after a roll. And I'm operating from an American cultural base where conversation, unless otherwise indicated, moves forward in time. Since in my initial e-mail, I established with my pretense that the entire question occured after a crit roll, that is the point in time I expect the answer to occur in, unless otherwise stated.

Numerous rpgs I've played have had reactive modifiers, usually bumping up a defensive or offensive modifier after an attack hits or misses, enabling the drama and tactical decision making of hits becoming misses or misses becoming hits. It doesn't feel like an unconventional usage to me, in fact, I prefer it. Gives the players more agency and creates more interesting stories to tell, in my opinion.

Basically, I'm asking for a sample way to interpret the e-mail and subsequent response I got, that derives it meaning pre-roll, that doesn't come from misreading the e-mail or knowledge of a game mechanic I'm unaware of.

Crits suck. You spend xp so crits suck less. Crits still suck. Move on.

Again, the discreet nature of the number 90, which can only be generated by rolling a 1d100 in this game as far as I know, is an implicit indicator of the timeline of the question, which is after a roll. And I'm operating from an American cultural base where conversation, unless otherwise indicated, moves forward in time. Since in my initial e-mail, I established with my pretense that the entire question occured after a crit roll, that is the point in time I expect the answer to occur in, unless otherwise stated.

Again, you put way too much emphasis of how a roll is generated in game (a poor thing to cling onto in this discussion, because it is, when it comes to your written words largely irrelevant), when the question you pose is out of game, about a mechanic - and explicitly vague as to when the choice you speak of is made (it is not specified and the question is about choice, and if any, what choice, nothing about when, its simply not there...) I am not the only one who have read that vagueness into your question, and that should be proof enough really that you are not nearly as accurate and precise in your formulation of the questions as you claim to be (regardless of your cultural base). Just the fact that you have to explain and point at a "time-line" in your sentence proves the vagueness, the ambiguity, in your formulation as written, not perhaps as intended, i.e. what you had in mind, and the meaning behind the question, but as written. This is why language, grammar, spelling and writing skills are so important, and why in most countries (barring few exceptions) the levels nowadays are obscenely poor compared to a few generations ago. And people who are interested in this are at best regarded as pedants and mean.

Basically, I'm asking for a sample way to interpret the e-mail and subsequent response I got, that derives it meaning pre-roll, that doesn't come from misreading the e-mail or knowledge of a game mechanic I'm unaware of.

This... why? Your written question and your "premiss" about about when a crit roll is made is at best a tangent, a poor straw to cling to when the written text is as it is. It is related, but hardly what it the issue. The issue is that it is easy to misinterpret what you have written due to the vagueness of the formulation, at least for some. The fact that people have, means that there is no point in "disagreeing" that it is possible to interpret it differently, and therefore is ambiguous - unless you mean anyone who interprets it differently are stupid, irrational and incapable of following your logic.

And again, just to be clear, I'm not saying that interpreting it differently means that you are wrong in your interpretation, nor that any other interpretation is more valid than yours. Just that the question opens up for interpretation, as this thread is proof of.

Sam's answer (and he's playing it safe )

To answer your question, you may choose to use the talent after you roll the critical hit.

However, if in the course of playing the game you find this significantly slows gameplay, I encourage you to discuss the issue with your players. Except in a few rare occurrences, the lower crits are better; if nothing else because they're easier to heal. Having all your players default to having Durable "always on" shouldn't significantly impact gameplay either way.

And of course, the GM can always choose to use this or any other rule in whichsoever way they see fit to make their game fun for everyone at their table. The fun's the important thing. ;-)

Good on him. Well that clarifies that. Onwards!

Good on him. Well that clarifies that. Onwards!

So, everyone is correct. Game on.

Indeed.

I believe how the crit number was reached, i.e. rolling, is in fact the entire point of the debate we have. I disagree with you since you never showed me a way that a crit number can be reached other than rolling a dice, nullifying your point. Regarding my "time-line" discussion, yes, it was very tiresome to type all that out, since as I've said, I operate on a chronological forward base, but since you were debating the point and asked for explicitness, I belabored the point. I thought it was silly, but the idea that you think that was necessary in order to be accurate makes me think we have completely different viewpoints on this matter. I prefer context to inform discussion, and am ok making implicit references that only have one logical extrapolation. If other people illogically arrive to an incorrect conclusion from what I write, that is on them, not me, and as you've said, language or culture differences might be the reason. I fundamentally disagree with you sir, and especially disagree with your superior tone regarding the matter, since I think you are wrong and your tone implies your correct and can't be challenged. Regardless, you have been respectful in your discourse and I deeply appreciate that. Good day to you sir and may your games be enjoyable!

I'm glad the situation has been resolved, and everyone can ultimately play the game however they and their gm decide! I for one am going to try to get my option C to be the table rule. Good games all!

I must ask, where did you learn to debate and have a discussion? Because that straw-man of an argument you cling onto about "when a crit is rolled" is irrelevant to the discussion about the issue with your ambiguous formulation of the question.

If you think that accuracy and preciseness of language is secondary to implicit meaning and your own notion about how communication works, then good luck to you, I hope you have nothing to do with science or of any importance where others are involved. I may have a superior tone, I apologise, but you have ignored my points and jumped to other arguments and positions that fit your stance, which is to me seems heavily coloured by pride and hubris because you have never once even considered that your phrasing of the question could be imprecise, instead you have been reiterating points we have been through, or using irrelevant points about me having to come up with an alternate way of rolling criticals, which has nothing to do with poor language and writing, no matter what your intention and underlying assumptions were about what you said. What you said is what has been understood by others, now if that causes a misunderstanding, then its on you, not them, to rectify the misunderstanding. This is a simple rule, one that too few live by. You did that, after a while, but at that point I was under the impressions that we were no longer discussing whether your or anyone else's interpretation were correct, rather we were discussing the ambiguity in your formulation, and therefore the validity of other interpretations, regardless of whatever you meant to write, or thought you had written.

There is nothing "illogical" about interpreting your poorly formulated question to mean something else than you in your mind, your head, believe says something else. This has little to do with culture, but with educated communication and exchanges.A

And about the tone, you can certainly challenge my stance, but use an argument that is relevant to the discussion, which is that your ambiguous formulation can be interpreted differently, not something about an alternate way to produce critical results...