Search results

I don't think that's in dispute. However, which principals, priorities and constraints matter a great deal to folks, as this thread demonstrates in spades. :)

I don't think so. The people encountering it aren't the ones generating it in the way the person opening the box are determining the state of the quantum cat. The DM(universe) is determining it. It's a fine line, though, so I can see why Hussar would think it's the same.

If it's pre-established it can't be quantum, because its existence isn't predicated on what the PCs do or what the players roll.

Think you'll be able to make it?

I explained it above to Hussar, but the reason it's not quantum is that I'm going to roll for encounters before the party even camps for the night. I check random encounters days in advance of party rests when I know where they are going, and for rooms before they get there when I know where...

It doesn't exist until after I establish it as a fact, but it isn't in a state of both existing and not existing at the same time until observed(the die is rolled to pick a lock). That cook is going to be beyond that door or not BEFORE the lockpicking starts. That's not a quantum cook.

If the cook is only there because of the lockpick roll, yes. Improv =/= quantum. Existing and not existing until after a die is rolled = quantum. Again, fail forward isn't relevant. I'm talking about those of us who avoid fail forward, either the correct or incorrect versions. I haven't...

Psh! Everyone knows you dig a hole down to China, not Australia.

If it isn't, some other place owes us an apology for Paul Hogan.

What authority do you have standing over your shoulder telling you that the Google street view is accurate or not? That's just weird.

We aren't talking about being discovered by someone who is already there before the lock is picked and hears the rogue. We are talking about a quantum cook that only appears in that room if the roll fails. The cook is not connected to the roll in any way. You absolutely know who I mean by...

You're confused. Correlation does not equal causation. The cook being there)or not) isn't connected to picking a lock Yep. You are arguing against nothing here. Nobody has said you can't use a resolution process that connects a cook to picking a lock. Two for two on arguing something...

I prefer not to even do that much, because I have so many other things on my plate that I don't need yet another NPC to worry about running. Rarely I will have an NPC in the party, but it will be a temporary thing necessitated by something in the fiction, rather than as a permanent or...

Not really. There's this one line that mentions spells, but in the context of forging. Dwarves could create magical things through their amazing craftsmanship, but they didn't have spells in the sense of D&D wizard, clerics or even bards. They weren't really casting spells so much as subtly...

Yeah. In my experience it wasn't replaced by anything, even more combat. The result was that once you hit 6th or 7th level, advancement just stopped. Especially when you factor in level drains and save or die effects. Most of our PCs never even made it to 5th level, let alone 6th or 7th.

It's not just that the stakes have been set, but more so that the lockpicking attempt has nothing to do with the cook. Being discretely different events means that there should be different rolls to determine each. Another thing is the level of realism, which may or may not be an issue to any...

I haven't. In fact, I wasn't even originally talking to you.

Many games played, many fantasy books read, many fantasy shows watched and many fantasy movies watched, the vast majority without herb foraging. I said it doesn't allow for what I do, and it doesn't. What I do isn't simply forage for herbs. The how is also very important. What you want isn't...