Search results

Nope not going to happen. We weren’t talking specifically about Burning Wheel despite you bringing into the conversation as an example at an earlier point.

Shouldn’t there be some kind of roll to detect the guards? Or is that not how DW works?

I realized the irony about halfway through, but just like in d&d retreat is never a good option ;)

The disengage issue doesn’t even need a rule change. Just never have an enemy move 5ft away and then disengage. By and large I feel Sentinel and PAM were both buffed independently due to being able to combine them with super high accuracy and weapon masteries like push or topple. It’s just...

It is, but that's okay. We apparently are not going to make any headway here.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/webpages.cgi?/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority 'Appeal to Authority argumentum ad verecundiam (also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit) Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the...

Whatever your source is incorrect as well.

You are so mistaken here I don’t think I will be able to unpack it for you. Appeal to authority isn’t when a non-authority in a particular field makes a claim, it’s when an authority in that field makes a claim. Look it up. By all means validate my claim independently, I don’t want you to take...

In the real world people take substantial risks to their life for money all the time. Oftentimes they also choose leisure time activities that are a lot more dangerous than necessary as well. So yes, I can imagine all that from the real world.

Most everything bad that happens in an RPG is random crap coming about due to die rolls. Thus, I think it’s something more than randomness that’s the underlying issue here. I’d also suggest that if character death wasn’t high stakes that it’s hard to make sense of why something low stakes...

Right. It’s not so much that experts aren’t useful. It’s that experts can be wrong. Which is why appeal to authority is a fallacy in the first place - being an expert/authority doesn’t mean you are correct. The second issue is, who decides what makes a person an expert/authority?

The key words - ‘the judge and jury make a considered decision on their relative credibility’. Sounds to me like this statement contradicts the notion that we should simply rely on testimony coming from a supposed expert.

Yea, success with complication is just one implementation of fail forward. Probably the most common though.

I look at clocks in Blades in the Dark. They tick, but they do so at the DMs whim because he can always choose a non clock tick consequence for any roll. IMO, that’s an invisible finish line masquerading as something more objective.

Huh? So what happens when my authorities say yours is wrong?

@clearstream But also for others, I very much like your perspective on the contrast between scenarios and what is gameful in each. One thing you’ve got me thinking about is the sheer number of rolls involved using a fail forward resolution system. If players aren’t told of the potential...

I’ve never understood this and it’s from 2 perspectives. 1. You advocate for a technique where any 1 of hundreds of die rolls could just as easily allow the DM to create the consequence of ‘your supply is cut off’. Can you explain why you are okay with that but not a GM generating similar...

Presumably it’s a concession for G over S in this particular instance if I understand basic forge speak

I think stop motion is the valid critique here and that your 6 seconds in the past rewinds per turn doesn’t hold up to any kind of actual scrutiny. (See the death critique). But I think there’s a third option. Players can actively avoid declaring any actions or making any interpretations of...

No it doesn’t. If they occurred on A’s turn then they occurred before anything that happened on B’s turn.