Search results

I have, including in the post that you quoted.

Well, I think your "proper definition" is silly. I learned a few nuclear decay sequences in high school physics. I learned that the standard nuclear decay properties are either alpha or beta particles. I have no evidence for any of that stuff other than what I learned. I have never built, owned...

I'm sure you appreciate the irony here - what makes that definition authoritative? And suppose that it is authoritative, @FrogReaver and @Maxperson have asserted that it would in any event be a fallacy for me to accept it on that basis!

You are the one referring to "supposed" experts. Do you think that the rules of Burning Wheel are only "supposedly" authoritative on how Luke Crane intends the game to be played?

Appeal to an authority is not a fallacy. For instance, I believe that exposure to radiation in large doses is harmful to human health. Why? Because I was told as much by someone who knows more about it than me (ie an authority). Authorities are the basis for most of my knowledge outside my...

What I find weird is that you will post again and again that realism, causality etc are fundamental to your enjoyment of RPGing. But then you like this post from Maxperson: So you appear to agree that the sequence of resolution in D&D combat does not conform to forwards-only causality and is, in...

What error do you think I have made in reading the rules of Burning Wheel and applying them in play?

Yes, it's a consequence of failure. If you succeeded, you wouldn't suffer the complication. Eg if you get to the top of the cliff in time, your friend who is to be sacrificed at the appointed time will still be alive. I don't know what this means. The complication is an event, so I'm not sure...

Well I found it on DnD Beyond, and I didn't have to speak a special DM password to get access to it.

Huh? It's not fallacious to appeal to authority. Given that most of us are not geniuses, we rely on authorities for most of our knowledge. I've linked to the rules for Burning Wheel probably a dozen or more times in this thread. And have quoted them. From p 32: Failure Complicates the Matter...

Actually, I referred you to the rules for Burning Wheel. Which have been cited and discussed at great length in this thread. Including in some posts replying to you. You can download the relevant rules for free: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/98542/burning-wheel-gold-hub-and-spokes

Here's a piece of GM advice from In A Wicked Age (p 10): Playing with details Whenever you describe something - describe your character or her actions as a player, describe a scene or the weather or a building or a mob as GM - whenever, say exactly what makes sense to you, and then say at least...

Of course, the more you emphasise that the "H"s must be different, the more that cuts both ways. Situation A is quite different from what I described, because the player knows. Whereas I was posting about a situation - quite a common one, I think - in which the GM knows that the player's action...

It's not a thought experiment. It's a reflection on an approach to RPG play that has been advocated in this thread - eg by @Lanefan and (as best I read their posts) @Micah Sweet and maybe also @AlViking and perhaps even @SableWyvern (though I'm least sure about that last suggestion). And it is...

Yes, there a lot of systems of simultaneous resolution that are possible.

From the AD&D DMG, pp 9, 61: the reader should understand that ADBD is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be token too seriously. For fun, excitement, and...

In my post, I stipulated the identity of the "H"s: And I don't think the stipulation is one that bears no connection to reality. Everyone here has done a lot of RPGing. So we have all probably played through numerous "x"s - like purchasing gear, or foraging for herbs - which did not shape what...

The point can be made more analytically, I think. Let's suppose that there are three salient characters: H(ero), who is a player's character; V(illain), who is a GM-controlled character; and C(aptive), who is unconscious and/or immobilised and so unable to act. (And so at this stage I leave it...

D&D occasionally uses morale/passion-type modifiers. In the original MM, some creatures - dragons, su-monsters - get combat bonuses when defending their young. And berserkers get general combat bonuses due to their "battle lust". Since 3E, barbarians have received combat bonuses when raging...

The difference isn't very clear to me.