Me>> and is later questioned by the Riddler ('I know this one! 'Seasy! The
>> answer is blah blah...*om*..whaddafu-?') then he doesn't have to make
>> a skill roll when questioned IMO.
>Nah, I don't like it. Too "pat", and way too open to abuse. The Socratic
>model implied, to me, that you've got to do a whole lot of introspection,
>examination, and questioning of your beliefs and understanding, either
>as a softening-up process before the Riddle's "answer" is surprised out
>of you ("Fish! ... Now, why the HELL did I say that?"), or else during
>the answering of the Riddle ("Umm... Let me think... Ah! Fish!").
You have a valid criticism of the one-liner. It was late, I was tired, Wakboth made me say it. I do agree that the Illumination takes place while being subjected to a Socratic Dialogue rather than simply being asked a question. It was my intention to convey the impression that knowing the answer does help the answerer comprehend what is being said. OTOH, the insight that comes from having known the answer beforehand is not as strong as the insight that comes from not having known the answer beforehand IMO. So I imagine the questions are kept only in the hands of the Masters to rpevent their potency from ebing diminished. I understand that the answers to Zen Koans are not widely disseminated for this reason.
>Under Peter's model, I don't see why the answerer would even need to know the
>language his "answer" was in, since it's irrelevant for him to have any
>experience in, or comprehend in any way, the subject of the Riddle he's
>"answering". Might as well use nautical metaphors to explain something to a
>Pentan.
I did use the example of a joke or a lie when saying the Riddle was a spell. Both analogs require the use of context and communication to be effective and I believe that for the riddle to be successful these factors are required.
Powered by hypermail