Clyde Sullins
XP:
Persuasion +3
Philosophy +1
Socialization +3
Rhetoric +1
Lore:
Auristics: Recognizing Overgiving
Auristics: The Aura of a Pycon
Rhetoric: Making an Argument
Persuasion: Trying to Strike a Deal
Ball: Fearsome Wroth
★
Ball
XP:
Intimidation +2
Socialization +2
Rhetoric +2
Philosophy +1
Observation +1
Lore:
Overgiving: Euphoria
Overgiving: Sweet Whispers
Philosophy: Objectivity vs Subjectivity
Magic: Natural vs Unnatural
Notes: Good thread, you two! Ball is pretty scary. I have a few notes. I'll start with Clyde. First, I am definitely willing to buy that Auristics can see the stains of magic on a person's aura. That much is explicitly stated in the lore. But knowing that the magic was Flux specifically when your character has no skill in the magic and very little lore is dubious at best. I could maybe see it a bit more if Clyde had more lores on Flux in the general sense, but it appears that isn't the case.
The reason I didn't award any negotiation was that there didn't seem to be any compromise involved in this interaction, nor any attempt at it. When Ball offered counter arguments, I didn't see Clyde trying to take the middle ground. Persuasion is more appropriate here, as Clyde stood his ground, rephrasing the same arguments over and over again rather than trying to sympathize or alter his approach. Compromising, using 'yes' questions and hashing out the terms of an agreement are all related to negotiation. Making an argument, sticking to your guns and trying to bring someone around to your point of view without giving an inch more closely resemble rhetoric or persuasion.
Now, Ball! You grumpy guy, you. I wanted to elaborate a little bit more on the nature of the lore I gave. The objectivity versus subjectivity lore is referring to the distinctions Clyde made on the nature of what is right and wrong, versus what simply is. I think they're very interesting arguments and I'd be willing to bet that once Ball has calmed down, he'll have a lot to think about in regard to what Clyde said.
This was a good thread. I think it might've gone farther if both characters weren't so stubborn, but such is the nature of people. Well done. If you have any more questions or concerns, don't hesitate to PM me.
and so, the journey continues...
XP:
Persuasion +3
Philosophy +1
Socialization +3
Rhetoric +1
Lore:
Auristics: Recognizing Overgiving
Auristics: The Aura of a Pycon
Rhetoric: Making an Argument
Persuasion: Trying to Strike a Deal
Ball: Fearsome Wroth
★
Ball
XP:
Intimidation +2
Socialization +2
Rhetoric +2
Philosophy +1
Observation +1
Lore:
Overgiving: Euphoria
Overgiving: Sweet Whispers
Philosophy: Objectivity vs Subjectivity
Magic: Natural vs Unnatural
Notes: Good thread, you two! Ball is pretty scary. I have a few notes. I'll start with Clyde. First, I am definitely willing to buy that Auristics can see the stains of magic on a person's aura. That much is explicitly stated in the lore. But knowing that the magic was Flux specifically when your character has no skill in the magic and very little lore is dubious at best. I could maybe see it a bit more if Clyde had more lores on Flux in the general sense, but it appears that isn't the case.
The reason I didn't award any negotiation was that there didn't seem to be any compromise involved in this interaction, nor any attempt at it. When Ball offered counter arguments, I didn't see Clyde trying to take the middle ground. Persuasion is more appropriate here, as Clyde stood his ground, rephrasing the same arguments over and over again rather than trying to sympathize or alter his approach. Compromising, using 'yes' questions and hashing out the terms of an agreement are all related to negotiation. Making an argument, sticking to your guns and trying to bring someone around to your point of view without giving an inch more closely resemble rhetoric or persuasion.
Now, Ball! You grumpy guy, you. I wanted to elaborate a little bit more on the nature of the lore I gave. The objectivity versus subjectivity lore is referring to the distinctions Clyde made on the nature of what is right and wrong, versus what simply is. I think they're very interesting arguments and I'd be willing to bet that once Ball has calmed down, he'll have a lot to think about in regard to what Clyde said.
This was a good thread. I think it might've gone farther if both characters weren't so stubborn, but such is the nature of people. Well done. If you have any more questions or concerns, don't hesitate to PM me.
and so, the journey continues...
