Search results

Irony is ironic. Complaining about responses to a post that was jumping into a conversation that apparently you were not bothering to read. If you weren’t interested in the conversation why did you provide a definition?

Ahh, I see. You didn't bother learning the context of the conversation and jumped in with a completely uninformed opinion in order to quote a dictionary at me? Good to know. Considering the conversation was about the art being "twee" I'd say that's kinda the important point.

Ok, let's see how this would work in actual practice. Presenting slavery. It's DS, so slavery is part of the setting. But, if you thought people lost their poop over the Hadozee picture, imagine the reaction to a full color spread of a slave owner beating a slave. Or a slave market. Or...

Sigh. That's not the point. It's not about differing opinions though, is it? It's about using a term that in no way actually applies, to describe something. The only reason the word is being used is because it's vaguely negative in the mind of the user so, it's a justification of "this is...

I'd say his difinition is pretty solid to be honest. I'd pretty much agree that there is only one image of the first ten non-dice images in the PHB that could even remotely be called "twee". But, hey, we're not about evidence or actual facts anymore. Let's be brutally honest. This is about...

I know this sounds snarky but what exactly do we mean by complex vs simple? To me, rules complexity is defined by the number of places where rules need to be applied in order to resolve the task. Adnd combat is a great example. You need to go through about ten or so steps to resolve each...

Believe it or not, this is actually a fairly close image of the final scene of my last session. And the blue giant is actually our PC warlock after a rather unfortunate wild surge due to the phaesress (sp) of the Underdark. (He rolled a 97, then a 6 which triggers all the following effects...

ROTFLMAO. Weapons and armor are simulated? In what way? How? Exactly how are weapons and armor simulated in D&D? Worlds are not simulated BY D&D in any way. The worlds are virtually system neutral and do not rely on the mechanics in any way. Heck, often the world building contradicts the...

That's my point. The "fluff" is 100% generated by the DM. The Dm could easily not mention the crumbling rock and it would make no difference. In other words, the system is not informing the narrative at all. Thus, not a simulation.

Really? 1 in 6 chance is "fixed" world? How? The presence of the guard is totally arbitrary. It's a 16 percent chance. Doesn't matter what the players do or what's going on in the world. It's totally arbitrary. So, how is it that any different than the percentage chance of a failed check...

It doesn't. The system has to be the one doing the lifting in order to be a simulation.

Nope. You could fall because fairies popped out of the ground and pulled you off the hill. The rules in no way contract this. Now, granted, the group probably wouldn't be very happy. But, the system? Not a problem at all.

Again, there's a huge excluded middle here between fill in all the details for everything and provide ANY details at all. I'm not deciding which details are important because D&D provides absolutely NO details to compare. All the details are generated by the DM. Which is perfectly fair. You...

But, again, it's not even "fixed world". Not as soon as you use random encounters. Or you add details like "crumbling rocks" causing falls. The second you add a detail in response to a failed check in order to narrate why that check failed, you no longer have a "fixed world". How about...

Then you don't want a simulation game. Which is fine. I get that. Lots of people don't like sim games. But, since you're claiming to actually WANT a sim system, that's pretty much at odds with the idea of not wanting the rules to inform the fiction. That's what I keep pushing back...

That's not what the narrative said though. The character fell because the rock crumbled. It's not "flair", it's the direct cause. It's no different than the cook being there because of the failed check or the random encounter poofing into the area of the PC's because of a random check. These...

Then give me a definition of simulation that explains how a simulation is a simulation while at the same not not providing any information in regards to whatever it is it is supposed to be simulating.

That's not quite right. There's no problem in the DM adding in the narration. That's perfectly fine and totally understandable in the case of D&D. I'm arguing against the idea that the D&D rules are any sort of simulation. Since the mechanics don't inform the narrative in any meaningful way...

But, again, that's my point. The DM narrating that has nothing to do with the system. That's the DM ADDING verisimilitude. The DM could narrate anything and the system does not contradict anything he says. Unless the system is providing some information about the narrative, it's not...