Search results

I assumed by roll under you meant roll under your stat or similar. I wouldn’t like that. If it’s just roll under vs roll over and all else the same I don’t care either way.

That framing makes it worse from the d&d sim perspective IMO.

I don’t think that’s nearly nuanced enough.

I’m not a fan.

Because telling people they have a reflexive defense isn’t one of the most offensive things you can do…

Then take mine as challenging the arbitrariness of your comparative class.

Unless the complication is dependent on time or something the experts expertness might impact related to the complication. But otherwise yes.

Yea. There’s alot of nuance here and we are just scratching the surface. And it’s also different for each person. But we aren’t trying to generate a fully unified theory that all sim oriented people are the same so everyone having some differences is okay. We are trying to talk mostly in...

As far as I could tell your statement didn’t include any comparison class.

I think you’ll be hard pressed to find anyone having an issue with those things, though it’s the internet so there’s always 1 somewhere. And here you point to the underlying issue. It’s an issue (edit: for us) when the details are added to make sense of some decision the GM has made.

A living world sandbox compared to a traditional railroad is not very GM driven. There’s more to GM driven than ‘independent of the player’ world.

Right. But that does mean I agree it is a mistake to describe the issue as just ‘quantum’. I think ‘quantum’ is mostly a misguided attempt to explain an actual difference that doesn’t get readily acknowledged. We’ve since teased apart that difference much better so dropping quantum as a...

Yea, I think you are on to something. Framing narrativist games skills as a characters skill at being lucky in some subset of situations makes everything make so much more sense. It may even be acceptable if framed that way to quite a few sim oriented people.

Not sure your point?

I’m tired of answering questions I believe you know the answer to, or at least enough of the answer to meaningfully converse on the subject.

As an example: ‘Acting under fire’ is a name for an approach not for an intended goal. As I said, Terribly named.

There’s another solution as well. Amend ‘fair use doctrine by judicial interpretation to include all content used to train AI and put the onus on the users of AI to not reproduce copyrighted works with it’.

The issue with the sim agenda is that 'hoping for an encounter' shouldn't change your probabilities of it occurring.

My sweet summer child. It's actually 1357 pages. :)

Maybe. But, I don't see that occurring at all in the 'differences in failforward vs random encounter tables' part of the discussion. It's repeated again and again, 'there is no difference there'.