Search results

The same issue applies. If it's my skill to be 'cool under fire' then it shouldn't influence my chance of someone coming in at that particular moment. Based on the name alone such a skill should be influencing a characters skill to be cool when some pressure is already occurring. One pet...

I mean, we've already demonstrated we are fine with cooks on random encounter rolls, we are fine with cooks in the kitchen at dinner time. There's nothing to disagree with there, unless you just don't believe us?

Right. Past experience tells me that the only way this particular discussion ends is by mod intervention.

I think it's less to do with accurately describing and more to do with simply acknowledging the differences instead of denying their existence.

This breakdown is absolutely fascinating. It's exactly the kind of post explaining the actual rules of burning wheel that gives me enough detail to meaningfully engage without being told that any of my counterpoints are contradicted by some other hitherto unknown rule. It's also is reminiscent...

Exactly this. The part that conflicts with the sim agenda is that the represented skill at lock-picking (or whatever skill) influences the probabilities of outcomes other than picking locks. It’s such a trivial observation that I don’t understand why there’s such denial by so many about the...

I think earlier we teased this apart as if the theif broke in at dinner time there’s probably a chef around so no issue. If the thief broke in at 2am then there’s probably no chef around. In your mansion as opposed to a house though, there’s probably guards. But yea. Depending on the specifics...

I’d suggest it’s a bigger problem. I mean at some point you get a feel for your DMs style and so in a sense learn this aspect for your given table. But making tactical/strategic decisions before you’ve ’found the pattern’ makes this nearly impossible. In practice this ‘unknown’ means players...

Okay, but telling them what they notice seems similar enough to me?

@pemerton I think your perception example is good. I’ve not got a good response for it yet. The closest counterpoint I’ve seen in the thread was @AlViking’s, but it seems to justify the use of any mental mechanic which is generally unacceptable.

I don’t propose anything at all on the subject of how babies learn to communicate.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of @pemerton’s point about multiple descriptions for a single action. The irony here is that this is precisely the same complaint levied against fail forward.

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...