Search results

Note: your definition above leaves off nearly all the specific implementations of it in games like AW or burning wheel. The confusion being referenced is this conversational shift between the general notion of fail forward to any specific implementation of it. Of particular note is that when...

Just to be clear. I'm challenging your categorization of things based solely on the definition you provided. Let's be precise here. I do not say that managing logistics and inventory by itself can be an example of rising action or rising conflict. I say that it can be a part of rising action...

My understanding of fail forward as applied to d&d is as a technique where at least some failures (maybe sometimes all) become successes with a complication. So in d&d if you rolled a failure on your check to pick the lock, then you actually pick the lock and some complication occurs, be it...

I can't tell if this is just being pedantic or something else. Perhaps an example will help illuminate. Attack rolls in D&D. Are they representational? I say they are. What are your thoughts?

You do realize you used the term first to define narrativist? You do realize I'm asking questions so I can understand what you mean by the term? I mean what conclusion should I be drawing from you saying you don't know what I mean by it when we both know I'm asking questions to understand what...

Right. The ‘not boring’ stems from other areas than action resolution. It comes from the setting/situation in your play.

Well, I think you view them that way. I think some other proponents of them may view them as more gamist since their resolution mechanics are at least somewhat less DM dependent (at least from the descriptions of AW I've seen). At least that's the vibes I've gotten. Could very well be mistaken.

I think it's both trivial and pedantic. More importantly I think all of these things can be better explained by different phenomena. IMO. Players ask so many questions because there is an objective world that exists and the GM's words are the only true source of information on that. There's...

There's a few different directions but probably not mutually exclusive directions. Kind of, but I think you have that backwards. If I accurately understand what narrativist is then I can explain why my play either is or isn't narrativist and where specifically it diverges. I don't want you to...

Good! It’s a matter of opinion is a good starting point. So? Does that justify ignoring the 2am version vs the 5pm version vs the undetermined entry time version and that those you are responding to have different opinions about those different versions and yet you know this and still insist...

Taking the what should be the equally true contrapositive makes it more clear I think. ‘If you use fail forward you should have an agenda as the GM to make characters lives not boring.’ From a purely logic perspective I don’t have a problem with that statement. Humans sometimes add baggage...

IMO. Disney in this instance is behaving ethically. Until the decision is final they should be defending their interests and the ‘whales’ as you put it are the only real threat to their interests at the moment.

I think either photocopier or artist analogy could work. For the artist analogy it’s just not clear the ai should be treated as a separate entity like a separate artist instead of as a tool to make anyone into an artist. It’s also not clear that it shouldn’t be treated as a separate artist...

if one is engaging with ‘what happens if it’s [creating an ai from copyrighted material] deemed fair use’ then the answer isn’t ’assume It isn’t deemed fair use’. And I’m not attempting to convince that it ‘should’ be anything. I’m just suggesting that’s a real possibility to consider.

I agree. Most anything is still possible. I’m just saying it seems this possibility or something similar is being discounted far too quickly.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. The whole premise is that using those copyrighted works to make an ai will be counted as fair use. In a discussion with that assumption then theres a notable difference between xerox that doesn’t have such fair use claim and an ai that does.

Umm… that’s not what makes something diegetic? When their given reasons aren’t listened to at all I can see how one could stick with that preconceived idea.

Me too. Though it might be worse when others accuse of bad logic when it isn’t ;)

I just explained that. Actually twice now. Seems simple enough. If Collecting the material and using it to create an AI is deemed fair use then that places no further obligation on them to enforce how others use the ai. This is the ai is a tool philosophy.

Show why that’s a necessity in this scenario. Else it’s just wishful thinking.