Search results

I miss those threads!!

Because it isn't the same situation. The cook wasn't always in the kitchen, or she would be there even if the roll is successful. The fact that she is there if it fails and not there if it succeeds makes it very different. Because a successful roll would prompt the same thing if she was there...

Okay, cool. So what was the point of bringing them up in a discussion about cause and effect?

What? There exists the remote possibility that this is a crazy person tackling me because I'm there and not because I punched out. I am unable to say absolutely that the punch influenced him, because there isn't a 100% chance that it did. Because being connected =/= caused. You are trying to...

I don't really agree with that. If a player wants a PC of some new race that I have no problem with and probably would exist somewhere in the world, it's okay for me to find a spot that they could/would live in and just add them there. Even if it's in the middle of the campaign. Already...

A lot of the things we are connected to are necessary conditions for other things that are necessary conditions for other things and so on. The societal pressures that cause the conditions that result in gang activity and violence stem from necessary conditions we are connected to. And that's...

And yet not the cause. It's just connected in a distant way. Then everything in the world is caused by everything in the world. We have enough interactions across the globe to connect pretty much everything in some distant way. If that's all that is required to cause something, then we all...

Lots. The criteria are too varied to list. I'd have to be in a game when a specific set of circumstances came up before I could figure that out. What happened that would cause it? His decision. That I punched you is very probably connected to the decision, but no part of it forced(caused)...

Right. I understand the philosophy behind your playstyle. This debate, though, does come down to granularity, since that's what my side of this is looking at and using. It's the heart of the differences here and largely why this discussion has lasted as long as it has. :) And again, I'm not...

Wait! You used Godzilla, too!?

Sure. He can also add Godzilla. The ability to add stuff doesn't inherently make it a good idea. And guess what I didn't cause? That bystander to tackle me. That was entirely his decision, not at all forced(caused) by me. Same with the arrest. Someone calling the cops isn't forced by me...

It's a failure of an example. Cause and effect is direct. If I punch you in the eye, the effect is a black eye. The cause of the people inside dying is the fire. Fire burns you, then you die. Cause and effect. Failing to pick the lock does not in any way, shape or form cause the death of...

That's kind of the heart of this debate. :P That's true, though I still think it unlikely that 6 seconds is going to make that much of a difference in the overwhelming number of times the party encounters this kind of thing.

Why? Why did the pick lock roll need to make it so that they could not be saved in time? If 6 seconds is going to be the difference between survival and death, the inferno was already so bad that the rogue would likely have not even made the attempt in the first place. Survivor's guilt often...

No. After the lock opens, a simple, "I open the door and look inside" is fine. No need to make it separate declarations if you include them together. If I automatically included opening the door when the lock was picked and a trap went off, the player would scream bloody murder. They are not...

Because you don't have access to it until you open the safe door. Until then unless you can phase your hand through steel, it's not accessible. The only thing that changed with the pick lock roll was that now the lock is open. You have to take another action to gain access to what is inside...

Even then you didn't kill that person directly when you locked him in. It was indirect. If you shoot someone in the leg and give that person a lifelong limp, then 20 years later the limp causes the person to fall down stairs and die, you caused that death indirectly. It doesn't matter that you...

Those are really bad examples. Poison killing someone is a DIRECT effect. Clicking the mouse and the post being posted is a DIRECT effect. Opening the lock(or not) has zero direct effect on the fire or saving the folks inside. This is a pretty good sized Strawman. We aren't saying that.