Search results

This does not seem to comport with what as being said; as noted, the imagined world was allowed to not have precedence if genre convention would say otherwise, which...pretty much seems to fly in the face of everything you've just described here. Does this mean any person can declare any game...

Is that actually true? I don't grant that it is. Like I genuinely seriously do not grant this claim. "Complications" that you can't deal with are independent. But having a competent person at the helm genuinely does mean fewer things become complications at all.

But you contrasted it against the GM's roll, by describing how it removes uncertainty! Both things resolve uncertainty. Both things address parts of the world. Part of picking a lock is that, y'know, you want to do it as successfully as possible: nobody discovers you, nobody notices damage to...

I guess I don't understand why the guard is related, but the cook isn't. Both are people inside/around the house who could be a peril for the lock-picker if something goes wrong while they're picking the lock. Both could be revealed to be approaching. Though that seems to rather tug against the...

... How on earth is the picking-a-lock roll not resolving uncertainty????? That literally does not answer the question. What does simulating mean? You've made clear that "simulating" is perfectly compatible with genre conventions, gameplay contrivances, and thematic/dramatic patterns rather...

Then what on earth does "being a simulation" even MEAN? Because at this point you've reduced it to little more than "doing what I like something to do, and not doing things I don't like it to do", which is so far beyond useless, it should never have even been given a label in the first place.

Why would it be different if the player had rolled a specific result, and as a result you knew there would be terrain or a situation that was logical? But that has quite literally been a core point for the thread for hundreds and hundreds of pages at this point. That it IS simulating reality...

So DMs never factor in, for example, the party's stealthiness for what results might come up on a wandering monster roll? I can literally say I have seen more than one DM apply such a thing (e.g. the party scout's Stealth bonus reducing the result of a wandering-encounter roll so that lesser or...

The thing you quoted said nothing about your views. It said that the game under discussion--D&D--is not a very good simulationist game. As in, the claim that its rules are not well-constructed for the purpose of simulating things with granularity and precision, but instead relies significantly...

The thread up to this point has made it pretty clear that "quantum" is the enemy, whatever form it might take. But even if we grant your "there is a taxonomy" thing, I do not understand why the GM throwing the die makes any form of (alleged) quantum-ness, whatever form one picks out, 100%...

Indeed, this would seem to be precisely the opposite of "resembling reality" or "having the semblance of truth". Because good things happen more often and bad things happen less often when competent people are leading, when compared to incompetent people leading. That's why we care about the...

Well, at least for me? This was the thing people hammered home, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and... They harped on this. "D&D lost out! D&D FAILED FAILED FAILED FAILED because of 4e! 4e was the single worst thing that ever happened to D&D, so we need to NEVER do...

Ooh, so it's super vulnerable to things like Simpson's "paradox". That is, the situation where treatment A does better with low-severity patients, and treatment A does better with high-severity patients, but when combined all together, treatment B does better overall. Not saying that this...

Had they even an inkling that they had done so, don't you think they'd have touted it? They wouldn't even need to say they actually outsold D&D. Just say "based on our internal sales numbers, you, our loyal audience, have made Pathfinder the best-selling TTRPG we always knew it could be" or...

I mean, they pretty clearly didn't even try to do anything more than "Legally Distinct TTRPG That Totally Isn't 3.5e ᵇᵘᵗ ᶦᵗ'ˢ ᵇᵃᶜᵏʷᵃʳᵈˢ⁻ᶜᵒᵐᵖᵃᵗᶦᵇˡᵉ"--and in fact tried very hard to be exactly that and nothing else.

Okay. As is rather often the case, your experience has...some pretty dramatic differences from mine, to the point that your examples based on that experience genuinely sound so extreme as to be made up, rather than factual. That doesn't mean you are making them up, mind, but it means it's...

Er...no? It doesn't take that many iterated rolls. Going back to the 60% chance--what would you consider "near 0"? I would say "less than 5%", since that's functionally the zero point for D&D checks. log(.05)/log(.6) = 5.8645ish. So that means after only six rolls, the character has less than a...

Objectively, if you apply the same bonuses--so the only thing that differs is the roll itself--having to pass multiple checks ALWAYS reduces the chance of success. This is a simple mathematical fact. Even if they have a 95% chance to succeed (failing only on a nat 1), needing to make three...

Certainly. It's helped that I've mostly worked with new players myself, but my usual approach is to emphasize the impending nature of the consequence, rather than the it's-already-foregone nature. So, if my group's Battlemaster were to get a partial success on Defy Danger to evade a flame-spirit...

No, what I mean is, I cannot conceive of a situation in Dungeon World (indeed, in any PbtA game) where you would GET TO the house, and know NOTHING except the bits you've permitted. Like...this is functionally skipping over hours, perhaps multiple sessions, during which a great deal more...