Search results

for (iii) a player can hope for anything, perhaps not reasonably but reasonably wasn't an original requirement. I'm all for saying it should be part of the requirements, but let's first tackle what you actually said before we go modifying it to make it correct. for (ii) being a possible...

1. So I agree, but why does the hope need to be reasonable? 2. Why didn't you mention this 'reasonable' requirement of the hope in the initial post? EDIT: 3. How is it determined what counts as a permissible action declaration? The System?

And thus if they succeed, they get their goal? If that's their goal and they succeed, then ought they not to get it, at least according to what pemerton said?

Yes. That's the implication of the statement as given. Obviously it's absurd. No one actually holds that position. Are you saying they can't hope for 1,000,000 gold upon opening the lock? Because if not then suppose they do! You have this backwards. I'm proposing that the player can hope...

That there are exceptions seems to undermine the point you were attempting to make with the example though?

I'm not at all. The statement was that 'there will almost always be some other description, beyond "the lock is now open", that they hope to become true. Its failure to become true would be an in-fiction consequence of the character failing to pick the lock as they hoped.' So if a player...

Essentially it all boils down to - IMO, you have unrealistic expectations around communication in a typical group. I think you read that into my response when it wasn't there at all because I wasn't in 100% agreement. My whole point was there are exceptions and your post on the subject left no...

You said 'When the player declares "I pick the lock", then - as you say - there will almost always be some other description, beyond "the lock is now open", that they hope to become true. Its failure to become true would be an in-fiction consequence of the character failing to pick the lock as...

Which makes it rather sound like - 'anything the player desires to find upon picking the lock he should find on a success'. And if that's not what you are saying then it's not clear why this supports your actual position instead of the 'finding anything he desires on successfully opening the...

I think that's a cart before horse problem. If people don't have a somewhat shared terminology for nearly any of this how can you even ask questions about preferences when 2 participants may answer they have a preference for X but understand X to mean totally different things? (You need the...

Right, I'm personally interested in where that boundary lies between which new situations are fail forward and which are not. To me it's the heart of understanding it. That's why I don't get the pushback here. My goal isn't to say, see fail forward is incoherent because you can't fully define...

Obviously that the terms can mean something different than the person think they mean. But I'm saying it's the combination of complexity and overloadedness. Take for example 'I want horror in my next RPG.' Do I mean the setting is horror? Do I mean I as the player want to experience horror...

I’ve not played the others but I think stars without number would handle it well. Love the game too! Though can’t say I loved the ship combat, but I don’t know that any game handles ship combat well.

Humans have been dealing with the communication problem ever since we began communicating :) Better language won’t solve the problem. Education might, but most of the time avoidance is easier than confrontation and so the person never realizes what actually caused the issue if they even realize...

Or if you just want to design a game that should play similar no matter the table, making it easier to join random games and get what you want out of them.

On the incomplete question - Maybe. Maybe not. I’m less sure on that point. To some degree the mix of players on a basketball team changes how they play, but that’s strategic and tactical and not on the game level, or the match between the Chicago and Boston is a different experience than...

I do as well. It’s back to pros and cons though. Consistency in each instance of play vs greater flexibility in experiences we can achieve. I can see how that consistency might be more important to some and from a game design perspective would be much easier to design for.

How would you be able to tell the difference? Because no player has ever unjustifiably got aggravated with another’s play simply because they didn’t like the final outcome? Because every player playing in good faith is a great communicator in the meta channels? I think you are demanding...

Right. But each of those settings can have their own setting mechanics as well. I think talking about core d&d 5e is useful, but as a full picture of the game, it’s incomplete. Systems that leave less gaps here (in this example they define their world, but it could be any kind of gap) are...

There are many worlds which d&d does poorly. People craft ones that work well with the system. But maybe more to the point, I’d view each d&d world as a separate game.