Search results

But all those prior things were done the same way. It's not like these games are mysterious to me. I've played them. I know how they work. I know that I regard them as GM driven.

If the dispositions are identical than, by definition, they will. @hawkeyefan and I are not making any assertion about how common such dispositions are. We are saying that if someone has a disposition such that they tackle the puncher, then the puncher throwing their punch was a cause - an INUS...

But why did the PCs fail to see them? There's no rule in D&D that you can only surprise someone if you are invisible or camouflaged. As Gygax noticed, surprise can result simply from someone not paying attention, eg because they were fixing their armour or checking their gear or relieving...

But this can't literally be true, once we get beyond the most austere sort of map-and-key resolution. For instance, suppose that you're playing a fairly conventional D&D game, and the player declares that their PC wanders through the town at night, singing. The town is a typical fantasy one...

Don't worry, I know the maths.

Here is the approach I was posting about: At step 2, the GM thinks about the scenario and decides what will happen. That is why I regard it as GM-driven.

I didn't say they fully model reality. But they avoid D&D-style stop motion. Which, as I posted, refutes your claim (post 13,269) that stop motion is a "necessary evil". To repost:

Correct. That's why the punch, as I said, is not a sufficient condition. It is an INUS condition. As I also posted, the sufficient condition, of which it is one necessary but insufficient component, is the fact of the punch together with the disposition of the tackler.

The strike ranks in RQ are meant to try and push towards simultaneous resolution, without quite getting there. RM has so many different published initiative and action systems its hard to generalise about it, but they also aim to get things towards simultaneity. BW Fight! uses blind declaration...

I rounded off: 0.98 ^ 10 = (approx) 0.82. So the chance of succeeding on 10 rolls with 2% failure is actually a bit more than 80%. The issue I pointed to - ie that 10 rolls at 98% success chance is more boring than 1 roll at 80% success chance - is one that comes up in RQ combat. The player...

In my view, there is not much point in trying to discuss the (actual play) guard, or the (imagined play) cook in the context of Burning Wheel, because the discussion appears to be proceeding in complete disregard of BW's principles for framing scenes, declaring and resolving actions, and...

If you look at step 2 of your approach, you will see why I regard it as a GM-driven approach.

I don't know what you mean by an "independent action roll". At the table, the GM's decision is not independent of the roll - it is the result of the roll that requires it to be made. And in the fiction, the guard harassing the character is not independent of the action the character is...

I largely agree. That is why I call one approach a GM-driven approach, which I tend to find rather railroad-y, and the other not. Ditto.

This claim is refuted by the existence of RM, RQ and even Burning Wheel. As per what I posted upthread, the 5e D&D 2014 surprise rules are the same in the relevant respect - the roll of the dice determines an event in the fictional now which then requires retrofitting on a prior fictional cause...

An INUS condition is not a sufficient condition. It is an insufficient but necessary component of an unnecessary but sufficient condition. In the punch example, clearly there is a sufficient condition for the witness punching you - if there wasn't, they wouldn't have. Your provocative action is...

Yes, this is one reason for adopting closed-scene resolution. Or for adopting the AW approach where "nothing happens" is not an outcome of a roll.

I'd add to this - if the probabilities are adjusted so that the overall outcome is not punishing, then each individual roll becomes pretty anticlimactic, even tedious - for instance, 10 rolls with a 2% chance of failure are simply not as exciting as 1 roll with a 20% chance of failure. And this...

No, not until now: What if the guessing represents the "fog of war"? Some versions of D&D uses blind declaration (eg spell casting in AD&D), and it's not obvious to me that the manifesto is meant to exclude them. It's also not clear to me that, and how, the manifesto rules out "vanilla...

Can you provide an example of a RPG that doesn't satisfy your principles? I can't think of one. I think that the intention of the author of the manifesto is to specify a much more narrow range of games.