Search results

No, it isn't. I'm sorry, it's just not. I have no interest in continuing this conversation if this is the kind of pure-semantics nonsense you're going to engage in.

Opening a prison door so you can escape said prison is also a direct effect. There is no difference. It's quite rich seeing you accuse others of strawmen, when your own argument here IS A STRAWMAN as people have repeatedly told you.

No example I could ever give will ever satisfy. I already know this coming right out of the gate. There will always be some new flaw in it, some imperfection which will be used to ruin it completely. If you are willing to agree that no example can be absolutely perfect, I'm willing to attempt...

Perhaps you would do that. But that doesn't mean literally any benefit you could phrase in the English language is now open to you! Why would a player--for example--ever do anything "CvC", as you put it, when doing so is nearly always counterproductive in the long term and at least risking so...

And yet they demonstrably are. "I could not get the lock open, and the consequence was that I got rained on" is very clearly a straightforward causal relationship. The inability to open the lock is precisely why the rain had the opportunity to get you wet. "I didn't get the lock open" causally...

Is it the only safe in the house? Is it a particularly well-guarded safe, where one would expect particularly valuable things to be? Or perhaps very well-hidden, such that one would expect the contents to be more important than a safe just sitting out in the open in the drawing room? Or is it...

Some have. Some haven't. THAC0. Bards as (functionally) a ridiculously over-complicated PrC. Five bizarrely- (and often inaccurately-)named saving throw categories. Skill points. Some things are like coelacanth or ginkgo or sharks, surviving hundreds of million years all the way up through the...

Which is exactly why I have such a dislike for this "game-as-artifact" concept. You can now fluidly move back and forth between discussing the high-level philosophy distinct from every game, making pronouncements about what should or should not be done. But as soon as someone assails the...

The problem is, no one could find a complete Bard so they could follow the guide. All of them were missing a critical piece.

I assume "core" here is being defined narrowly, in the sense of the first three books published for the edition? Namely PHB(1)-equivalent, DMG(1)-equivalent, and MM(1)-equivalent?

Which is not the same as saying it can't happen.

For the love of God, I hope so. It might force D&D to actually ask important questions of itself. Like whether or not the traditions it stubbornly clings to no matter what, are actually productive or not.

So, just to be absolutely clear... Even if every single person at the table, including the GM, agrees that the "truth and veracity of the fictional world" actively and directly leads to an experience all of them genuinely dislike--not even in the "losing sucks but always winning sucks more"...

Lanefan. What people keep telling you--and what you keep stubbornly ignoring--is that if you don't have an established-by-fiction reason for something, you can't do it. You cannot just declare that any hope you might have, no matter how ridiculous, is just...what happens. That's literally...

But the assertion was that "game" is ONLY that last thing. Which means game discussion forums now do not and cannot have any merit. "Game" is ONLY what happens at each individual specific table, completely and totally disconnected from everything else.

I don't know, maybe that you now have access to the thing you have a good, well-founded reason to believe is on the other side? How is this difficult? If you're picking a lock to break out of a prison cell, your hoped-for description when you succeed is that you're free and nobody has noticed...

Agreed on illusionist, not so much on assassin, but that's neither here nor there. There are some things which just aren't quite enough on their own. Were we to start from scratch, in a world that had never been (heavily) shaped by D&D itself, some of the things we currently recognize as...

Per those principles: There is no play--whatsoever--in rules. There is only play in the world. That was explicit: "Abstractions are, by their very nature, mechanistic. Non-playful." I don't understand how one can "step away from play" and yet still be addressing the world. Yes, you are...

I mean, I guess? But doesn't that rather poke a hole in your claim that "game" is something that actually integrates all the stuff? You now have world being genuinely separate from "game", because world gets changed outside of play, and then game--if necessary--changes to match. That seems to...

But again that makes point 7 completely irrelevant. If everyone agrees that making the "veracity and truth" of the world inviolate is what is enjoyable, then point 7 is not only not needed, it is actively antagonistic to point 1. It creates a method by which the players can destroy their own...