Sure. Some play games with death by a random dice roll. Fun!And yet we don't all play games that demand death by narrative only. Weird.
Sure. Some play games with death by a random dice roll. Fun!And yet we don't all play games that demand death by narrative only. Weird.
That's only true if you think of an RPG as something you can "win". Which... they're not. RPGs are pretty famous for being games you can't win; you can only enjoy playing them.
You are no longer arguing the same thing. The argument was about death through a random roll, not player choice. I said myself that even though combat is a series of rolls, players can always choose to retreat.You skipped the scene where the DM described the difficult climb up thousand foot cliff and clarified that they don't limit falling damage. The paladin's player then decided they would climb the cliff instead of summoning a flying mount because they didn't want to "waste" their 4th level spell slot.
I've seen characters die for dumber reasons.
Other games of course have different goals of play but I don't want to play those games and I'm just talking about my personal preference. For the games I play the only "stake" at play when trying to open a lock is whether you can open the lock. If you can't you'll have to give up on achieving your goal or try something else.
It's not a big deal if you are playing in a narrative game where you routinely do that sort of thing. However, if you are playing a more traditional game where the fiction is established in the moment and if it's not established it didn't happen, retconning even a small thing is a big deal.Sorry, I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. First of all players are always free to interject, "hey we want to gather some herbs along the way." Or maybe flashback or retcon in a minor way, what's the big deal? Also things like PbtA, or I'm sure BW, but even trad games potentially, can accommodate some goal-resolving play along the lines of "success, anticipating this need, I employ the herbs I've gathered" (IE being a wise healer, what better supports this RP?). Again I definitely want to hear how this can be argued against!
Sure. Some play games with death by a random dice roll. Fun!
You are no longer arguing the same thing. The argument was about death through a random roll, not player choice. I said myself that even though combat is a series of rolls, players can always choose to retreat.
They can choose to retreat. They may or may not be successful, but they can choose it."Always" makes some big assumptions about the combat system involved; not all of them have a slow pace of resolution.
I think you're conflating expert knowledge (things we can't judge without extensive training) with general experience here. But not worth going that much further into.Sure. That doesn't mean that it's a fallacy to believe them because of their expertise. I can tell you that drivers in Australia travel on the left (British or Japanese style) rather than on the right (US or French style). Why do you believe me?
All you've got is testimony. I mean, you could travel to Australia and check it out. But most human knowledge depends upon accepting the testimony of those who are qualified to give it (ie authorities). That's why the notion that it's a fallacy to appeal to authority is a fallacy.
This is the problem -- at least in my reading, no one is asking what Luke Crane thinks about action resolution. In fact they explicitly don't care what he thinks.I think if someone wants to know what Luke Crane thinks action resolution should look like, reading the rules that he wrote is a pretty good way to learn.
They can choose to retreat. They may or may not be successful, but they can choose it.
I can't choose to not roll a 1.