Search results

While that is the original meaning of the term, most buildings called "châteaux" in French today are not castles, and are instead manor houses or palaces. Versailles, for example, is a "château" but definitely isn't a castle, it's a palace. (It was called a "château" in its time because, when it...

Even if it's just "a" cook, moving around the kitchen, going to the pantry, sometimes going outside to get fresh ingredients from the garden (hence why there's a door to the outside nearby...), setting out food for other servants to deliver to someone's room or table, asking the footmen to...

So...you agree that the (alleged) counterexample doesn't apply in cases where, y'know, actual success genuinely is possible? Possibly--but I should think the player would know this up-front, rather than the GM saying, "Teehee! See? You actually COULDN'T succeed, this just told me how BADLY you...

Yes... And the door... IS NEAR THE KITCHEN. That's why this was ever relevant in the first place! For God's sake, have we already looped around to forgetting why this was being brought up at all????

No. What I'm saying is, in both cases, you are inventing a new fact about the world that wasn't present before. Just in one of them, you're (foolishly) making that fact be something vast and transformative, while in the other, it is narrowly-tailored and relevant. But both things involve doing...

And yet again, what "quantum" is changes to fit whatever argument is convenient for the arguer today. I'm done. I'm not going to respond to arguments that make the goalposts more mobile than a parkour artist on speed.

As always, quibbles rather than engaging with the core point. You're now declaring that this challenge never could have ever been resolved. So there would not have been a roll. We are, I should think extremely obviously, talking about cases where a roll is in fact valid, where success can in...

What does "better than some" mean? Because "some" can mean almost anything. Like, as long as you can find at least one (or, if someone is being a stickler, at least two) games that aren't as good, then that statement is true, but like...being better than the two worst possible examples isn't...

What's the difference between those things? Like seriously. In practice, what's the difference? Because as far as I can tell, "you put your hand in the wrong space, one that just happened to be crumbly" IS the very thing you're arguing against, but now you're saying it's totally fine. You're...

I just...I don't buy this. I don't. A "complication" means that things...got complicated. An event or an object or an action which actually IS a problem. With the competent person at the helm...that "actually IS a problem" doesn't happen--or, at least, it happens very rarely. Conversely...

And if more folks held a position like this, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem. Instead, there have been several folks across this thread who have declared D&D to be not only very good for sim, but among the very best for it, dismissing the parts that welcome adjustment, as you say...

.... Which is literally what was being described. There IS a cook around, somewhere--her position isn't quantum, it is not currently known, in part because they're probably moving about. You don't precisely know where. Full success? You hear the cook tooling around and waited until they were...

Absolutely not. "There is an iceberg ahead" is only a complication if the person at the helm doesn't know how to pilot their ship. The iceberg simply is not a complication if you have a competent, observant pilot at the helm. You are correct that physical things which could become...

This would seem to setup a conflict in the manifesto presented earlier. That is, that manifesto claimed that mechanics are never more important than what is in the world itself. But giving a mechanic a label like "miss" (or "hit" or various other things) is in the mechanics, not in the world...

So simulation is whatever we declare it to be. The principle of explosion destroys all conclusions by making literally everything true. But what actually makes that thing that thing? Authoring new fiction IS ALWAYS "changing the world". That's what authoring new stuff is. So by your very...

How can one say one is putting simulation as the primary process, when one explicitly invites or includes components that are contradictory to it? It's like saying that every superhero game ever is a perfect simulation game--it's just simulating a world where all of the head-scratching genre...

And being stealthy when you pick a lock is thus definitely never relevant whatsoever, no matter what, under any circumstances? Pull the other one.

Which is a lovely description, and a non-sequitur. The person I was responding to declared a bright line, a line in the sand: GMs (of the style being discussed) would not EVER factor in a character's stats into a roll they made about whether an encounter might happen. I have seen this happen...

Then you are still employing it. It still matters, it still affects the roll. Sure, it doesn't affect the specific number in a direct mathematical equation. But the character's characteristics still affect the result. The alleged distinction, that a player rolling something with their stats...

Not particularly? Hit points, saving throws, heck even to-hit rolls (including the everpresent 1-in-20 chance to crit) have been there from the very beginning. Every edition brings its own bits and eliminates bits from previous editions. We might be able to say, in a very loose way, that some...