Search results

I cannot possibly be the only person to see an inherent contradiction in these two statements.

No. That's where you are wrong. Good enough isn't the objective. A system that is robust enough to generate results independently of the DM is the objective. To create a setting that functions like a machine (I believe that was the direct quote). To create a setting where the DM no longer...

Again, you're conflating different things. You cannot have logical outputs from completely illogical inputs. Sure, you plonk down 46 lakes and 3 oceans without any understanding of how lakes and oceans are formed will result in something that won't stand up any actual examination.

You keep using this word logic and I don't think it means what you think it means. There is no such thing as logic when you CREATE the setting in the first place. You create every single thing in the setting. Of course it makes logical sense TO YOU. Things that I make up in my head make...

((Note, I left off the accountable to players bit since that's not relevant to my point)) He very much has repeatedly claimed that he is not responsible. How could he be responsible for things that are just "logical results of the setting"? That's like claiming that you're responsible for 2...

Well, if that's true, then @robertsconley's whole methodolgy falls apart doesn't it? Since his entire line or reasoning is that the DM must strive to make the setting as independent as possible.

How is you deciding what goes on that chart not deciding what is plausible? Since anything that is on that chart isn't just implausible, it's flat out impossible, and, even if you weight the table, you are still deciding what is more or less plausible based on your specific understanding...

Doesn't matter. 1e D&D. Rules are silent.

Not at all. I think that there is virtually zero difference between what @robertsconley does and virtually any other good DM does. Choose the options that the players will find plausible and interesting is not particularly unique or unusual. I would argue that pretty much every single DM in...

So, most of your decisions are basically whatever you feel is good at the time. Which, somehow, means that you are basing your decisions on the "Logic of the setting". When do you decide which to use? What is the criteria for deciding that you will use the "logic of the setting" and when do...

But, that's exactly what the whole "internal logic" line of argument is claiming. That the decisions are not coming from the DM, but, rather from the "internal logic" of the DM. The fact that every single element of the setting outside of the characters comes from the DM apparently doesn't...

A miscommunication has nothing to do with what we are talking about though. We're talking about the resolution of events somehow being completely divorced from the DM and somehow being objectively determined.

Ok. So, the DM decides that the King will not talk to your PC's for reasons. You disagree with the reasons because you think they are implausible. How do you resolve this? Or the old chestnut about swimming in armor. Your DM rules that you automatically start drowning and sink to the bottom...

And yet, you have no problems with @robertsconley using chaos theory to base what is probable in his campaigns. :erm: But, are you trying to claim that there was some sort of objective chain of causality that caused you to choose to eat whatever you ate for breakfast? Never minding that when...

You've never thought that the choice your DM made for how something played out was wrong? Not ever? You never thought that their "plausible" wasn't very plausible at all? And every DM should automatically discount every resolution as soon as a player challenges its plausiblity? Yeah, didn't...

I cut out nothing. @Lanefan claimed that both groups should have similar results, which is in direct contradiction to what @robertsconley stated.

I'm still rather failing to see how this is different than what any DM does. I never questioned your methods. Your methods I agree with. Where I disagree is with this idea that your methodology results in some sort of independency of the setting from the DM. Since you are focusing on what is...

And yet you raised nary an eyebrow when @robertsconley stated that he did exactly this and that it was expected that the same DM running both groups would have radically different campaigns.

But, again, it's the DM who determines what is or is not plausible. My DM example way, way back thought it was entirely plausible that the merchant left town without notice just before our heist. If asked, I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she thought that was perfectly plausible. And...

Ok, here's the thing. Two groups start in the exact same space in the setting. Both groups play identical characters. Both groups make identical choices. According to you, if the setting has internal logic, then both campaigns should end up in exactly the same place because the results of...