House Skills 3.0

[Dragontologist]

As long as it's not combat, there is no need for cards.  But it's still an Action.

[LucasJamison]

Andy, I think your read is incorrect, and needs better supporting arguments than you have so far presented.  There is enough context to suggest that an "Action" (for instance, as you have to "spend an Action" to do certain things, but not others) is classification of event which differs from say, walking down the hall, saying hello, shaking hands, or whatever.  Please provide some reason why this should be ignored in favor of your interpretation.

[Dragontologist]

All I've been DOING is using case studies.  Quotes from the rulebook and Vinny's rulings.  My argument is simple: everything is an Action, because anything ANYONE does to affect another Avatar or the Nexus is termed an Action.  From looking through the rest of the rules, the only actions that specifically say "this does not count as an action" are either 1) reactions, which respond to someone else's Action (eg, Y+ House Skills), or 2) only affect the player performing the action, with no effect on anyone around them (eg, Shape Change). The definitions that Bill created are NOT in the rulebook - there is only one type of Action.

((Btw, I'm trying to get Vinny to post about this, and he will within a day or two once he has read the thread.))

[LucasJamison]

All I've been DOING is using case studies.  Quotes from the rulebook and Vinny's rulings.  My argument is simple: everything is an Action, because anything ANYONE does to affect another Avatar or the Nexus is termed an Action.  From looking through the rest of the rules, the only actions that specifically say "this does not count as an action" are either 1) reactions, which respond to someone else's Action, or 2) only affect the player performing the action, with no effect on anyone around them. The definitions that Bill created are NOT in the rulebook - there is only one type of Action.

Your quotes from rulings don't pop up in their original context on a forum search: do you have a link to the initial statements?

Without that, I've just got this "beta 3" rulebook to go by.  I read "effect" in that context as "game effect", as in a mechanical effect, or effect achieved through implementation of a game mechanic.  Not an effect like "put a smile on my face", "got my shoes dirty", "made me feel like less of a man".

[wcshoe]

You know, you can lead a mule to water...

I am through posting here until Vinny confirms or denies this. So far, every Rules/Combat GM that has participated in this thread has posted that you are wrong in your 'case studies," Andy. You refuse to believe them, and continue to argue otherwise. I was willing to consider that maybe it was a simple misunderstand under the use of terms that was causing this. That doesn't look like the case though.

[Alf Cunha]

**  I've been watchign the posts and since my PoV was represented I didn;t feel there was a need to add anything.  Thus, I'm just going to state that Bill's differentiation of 'a'ction versus 'A'ction is the best argument, in my opinion.

    On a side note:  you know, for a group of people who roleplay these bad@$$ characters who engage in constant discourse and physical assault upon one another some of us get WAY too sensitive in real life.  Yeah, sometimes we make comments that sting ... get over it