Search results

I think you are misunderstanding the argument. The use of quantum in this thread encompasses method--'things are quantum for the players but not for the GM' is a meaningful statement. People are not just using quantum to mean 'authoring here and now because of a real world prompt'. Also, the...

But they differ in the method of authorship, which matters. In the confirmation case, the method gives reference to the GMs plans or perhaps to aspects of the world ('a town of this many people should have a farrier'). Making it up doesn't. The implication is instead "oh Bob had a nice idea...

I don't think I understand this post--or rather, I understand all the words and the claims and everything, but I don't understand what you are asserting when you say 'not grappled with the tension'. Are they not aware of it? Are they aware of it but deal with it poorly? Perhaps the problem is...

We've talked a lot about simulationism. But really I think it grates on me the most from the gamist perspective. If I as a player can introduce new things into the fiction that help my PC win, or if complications that I couldn't have planned for occur to help my PC lose, then it is harder for me...

There is a massive difference. If I call to confirm a reservation and they make up a different time, for example. It seems to the view of gaming that views these two as identical has some significant unstated assumptions, like "nothing can be considered real until it is introduced to everyone...

It's also not how I play, outside of establishing background information in session 0. In that case it's ok for everyone to take a more GM sort of role.

Yep. There is no point in going through it again. The argument has been well stated and looked at from lots of angles and there are very clear differences. At this point if someone is still not getting it they perhaps never will.

The important thing is that the world responds to your character to amplify the feeling of being a particular species. Mechanics guarantee that. But a GM who cares will get you further.

There is fierce debate about this. Carl Sagan's "Mars belongs to the Martians" was one of the opening shots, and I don't think it has progressed much since then. Scientifically speaking, folks are concerned because if there was any evidence of ancient life it could be wiped out.

It is interesting to see how the conception of decent living standards evolves over time. This looks like no vineyards, but phones for all and 1 laptop per household. There is a contrast with say, Wendell Berry's "Why I am not going to buy a computer" (1987). Dream job or not, I think most...

I remember there was a micro-blowup about the direction from some people online when this was announced. Probably the complaints you'd suspect, and probably for the reasons you suspect. That was over a year ago; seems a long time to keep it in development if it was that bad a match. The point...

At least for me, that's because the gnome/halfling, human/dwarf, elf/orc lineages don't exist in any of my settings. Human/elf and human/orc sometimes do. And I like to play species as sufficiently distinct that mechanical differences make sense. If you have many half-species with small...

-I would allow as a DM for some worlds. If my setting had half elves before, I'd allow 2014 rules. -I think it was a poor change but I'm not that discontented and I doubt we'll see a return. Here I think it depend on what other systems do. If after 10 years, WotC is the only one doing it this...

They clearly are effective enough for the many low level modules, so I'm also confused by the criteria. @Campbell's take on fit, as in "sufficiently connected to the narrative the game is trying to create", seems better.

The comment you were replying to says: This doesn't just encompass a change from A --> B; i.e., the runes were a guacamole recipe, and now are a map. It also includes changes based on which player declares the action. i.e., if Bob reads them they become a guacamole recipe, if Alice does they...

Don't want to move too fast, but reread Faolyn's post, especially the bold. She doesn't see the interpretation as silly because it is objectively unlikely, but because it is a little too cute that they would happen to mean exactly what the player wants. (correct me, @Faolyn, if I am wrong).

In the fiction they don't change. At the table they do. If Bob declared the action rather than Alice, Bob might have some other thoughts. I refer you here. We are saying the same thing...I don't know why you are so allergic to the 'setting the stakes' phrasing. When I say "the player sets the...

I didn't see the film as suggesting Hanna is in the right with respect to his family.

Yes.

The argument isn't that nothing else is at stake, just that the only thing directly adjudicated by the die roll is the task. If I roll to pick the lock while being pursued by knife guy, then obviously more is at stake... But we can model this as two rolls, (i) lockpick and (ii) stab attempt or...