Search results

The bolded portion is key. A lot of folks here think that to simulate something, it has to mirror reality. It doesn't. In fact, it doesn't even have to come close to mirroring reality. All a simulation does in order to simulate something, is make an attempt to simulate to any degree...

Gygax said in the 1e DMG that if it didn't interfere with game play, his goal was the highest level of realism(simulation). He just didn't let realism bog things down and make the game boring.

Other than one is a rule and the other a house rule. The uncertainty rule is for setting skill check DCs, not determining if cooks are behind doors. That is an actual difference.

The bold portion is simply untrue. If the DM places it in the world, it exists in the game world at that moment, not when the PCs first get there. Random encounters don't change that fact. In fact, random encounters aren't even an example if what you are saying. You aren't going to go into...

This is blatant One True Wayism. There's nothing holy or inherently better about play that involves deep introspection or a narrative approach. It's just how you prefer to play. It's an opinion and nothing more, so people who don't play that way who have other opinions have opinions just as...

We know that it clearly not errata. It's just in normal type, but if you turn the page there is a section that is dark that is labeled errata for DL 1-4. In the errata it doesn't say to add this language to prior modules. It's just language that they added in later that does not apply to DL...

Not quite. Why is stuff in DL 5 relevant when PCs would have been dying for 4 modules before the DM ever read that? Half the heroes of the lance could dead by then.

That would also be cheating, so... :p

You certainly cheated us out of knowing what a single asterisk means. :unsure:

As I said in the other post, I looked into DL 1 and the first 4 modules in that grouping release and nothing in there that I saw said death wasn't part of it. Nothing said that Raistlin couldn't die before he got to Xak Tsaroth. What are you referring to when you say that the Dragonlance...

That's fair. I wrote those examples in a bit of a hurry and flubbed that one up. Shall we say a sandstorm instead? :p

Oh, well you've totally convinced me. Now I can trust that there will be no hallucinations about basic things, especially important ones. I'll use AI for everything! Oh, wait. Some new AI models are less accurate than their predecessors...

How about just a bare level of competence. Call 1000 pizza places and see how many suggest glue.

https://www.calphalon.com/product-recalls.html AI isn't working right. AI is faulty at the moment. For God's sake, forget law for a moment and realize that it recently suggested that someone put glue on a pizza to keep the cheese from sliding around.

When one of those tools is defective, it gets recalled so it stops harming/killing people. So we do forbid those things from being put out at a low quality. And low quality is what AI is right now.

Is it human? Or is it a dancer?

If a pharmaceutical company released a medication for testing on the public, that had major side effects that occur as often as AI hallucinates, how long do you think it would stay out for public use? And do you think the company would survive all of those lawsuits? I'm sure there has been...

MSINAL(My Son Is Not A Lawyer). He's 11, though, and getting ready to go into middle school. He wouldn't have had any issues understanding that warning.

It sounds like you're saying that for there to be a rising conflict, there needs to be some sort of sacrifice in both options. If that's the case, then what I'm describing qualifies, since if sacrifice was only on one side of it, there wouldn't be a conflict between the two choices. You just...

Sure. I was just pointing to a type of game that I don't think I'd like, not saying you are narrative. :)