Search results

Well, as you said, the bigger issue is being allergic to falling heroes but not dragons. Which is precisely the thing I'm focused on.

Note what you cut out. This is dependent on a person having already accepted the following argument: "It is sometimes better to use what is entertaining, even if it is highly inaccurate, than to use what is accurate." That is the simple, logical summary of the argument Lanefan made (where he...

But that's not at all the sort of situation I'm referring to. I'm referring to the thing we were discussing--someone rejecting some W' because it contains some particular F (or, more commonly, a set or type of Fs), and as a result, demanding that we get W" instead, which will take away anything...

But you would not hide this, as you've said. You would instead say something like, "Oh, I shouldn't have asked for a roll, that just happens." Regardless, what you're saying here is that you made a mistake. I don't see how "very rarely, I make a mistake and thus have to do a thing" makes any...

This was kind of my point...and why I find these conversations so frustrating. Edited to expand a bit on my point above. The problem is that these "the proper ways" for this stuff are never established. Ever. They're never brought up. They're completely tacit. But these rules are enforced upon...

I guess I just don't understand how we can have anything that accepts the "FKR" approach without being full-bore. Either there are no rules, or there are some rules. It cannot be the case that there are both no rules and some rules. I find that what the FKR approach is willing to include don't...

Surely--surely--whether or not a heavy boulder falls faster through the air than a lighter object like a person, could in fact actually matter in many games. Which is why I used the example I gave, and why the intentional obtuseness of ONLY comparing bowling balls and feathers is so frustrating.

Are they? You keep asserting this, but I don't agree. The limit definition of the derivative is a set of instructions for finding a thing. The Sieve of Eratosthenes is an action you can perform. Both of them are abstract, but there is a clear difference between the two. The former doesn't...

For universe-building, sure. But I'm not talking about universe-building. I'm talking about the process of actually playing. Well...I mean, no, not really. It's just that a mechanical device which fits into the kind of space it needs to (a roughly inch-/2.5cm-wide cylinder no more than a...

I think there's a very, very significant difference between "This is how X operates" vs "This is an action which has these effects." The former is an instruction on how to take actions yourself. The latter is an action, which you may or may not actually take.

Really? Players don't have to "respect" rolls of any kind; that's literally not what they're doing. GMs need to, if the player is to have any understanding that the values they roll matter for the results they get. (This is, among other things, why I detest fudging--secretly ignoring the die and...

Thank you for doing exactly what I feared people would do, and which I thought, "Ah, no, I can trust that people will understand what I mean." It's incredibly tedious to be met with things that are obvious technicalities as though those things are somehow clear proven facts that my argument is...

Nes. Yo. Naybe. The question cannot be directly answered with "yes" or "no" because it is in conflict with the fundamental assumptions and structure. It is somewhat like asking if the rules of chess say anything about the referee granting the players the ability to bring fairy chess pieces...

Okay. So...you do actually abide by rules when you GM? You treat certain things as genuinely inviolate?

So the GM should ignore the rolls their players make?

As usual, your jaundiced and frankly hostile descriptions of a game you haven't played, haven't read, and know almost nothing about are completely out of whack with what the actual game says. Yes, there are rules which are binding on the GM. This is also true of D&D. Unless you're now going to...

Okay. Now: How do we then make sense of a claim such as "I reject F because W' is unrealistic."? Because that sort of claim is precisely why, for example, a player might balk at Bastilles & Basilisks 7th Edition, because it contains elements that are "unrealistic". Or why someone might...

So...it's worse in every possible way than the existing spell fly? Assuming you're dropping the spell level to 3rd, I mean, because otherwise then it would be a worse spell in every possible way and a level higher to boot. Because the existing 5.5e fly spell has a duration of "concentration, up...

Okay. My point was, from the beginning, that W flatly is not the real world. It is a model, and that model often differs from the real world in a variety of ways. But two critical problems arise with how people talk and think about this stuff. First, their speech and their actions reflect a...

Such characters are necessarily dramatically weaker than actual 5e characters--and that's not even counting the heavy over-use of Fighter, which is an incredibly lopsided class to begin with. It also throws out the window any sort of flavor being attached to these classes. Class fantasy is...