Search results

And I’m saying it’s not a no true scottsman because there is a simple deciding line that differentiates the true scottsmen. To do this 1 of 2 criteria must be met 1) the thing being narrated must be below the level of abstraction, making it mere color to introduce its existence after the...

I’m not sure what you mean here. I think I’m pointing out that the specifics of the example can place the crumbling rocks either above or below the level of abstraction? Depending on the specific details the defense is either, ‘it’s color’ or ‘the crumbling rocks were already established’.

Sure, but in that case he probably isn’t having you fall on a failed athletics check either.

On the crumbling rocks… Consider what’s been established. The pc is climbing a rocky cliff. A failed climb check need not mean you fall off the cliff. So I’m already a bit puzzled with why the result of the failed check is falling. Now suppose we had fictionally established the detail that...

Why is it unhelpful and confusing to analyze play from the perspective of an independently real world?

I’d suggest those are different people.

In our playstyle it would be against our unwritten (see social contract) play principles for the DM to just arbitrarily decide such details. He should be basing them on the already established fiction.

I don’t know how many times I have to say the representation/map of meaning/thing being simulated matters and not just the structure. You are solely focused on the mechanical structure.

Let’s focus on this aspect. How is the GM deciding the orcs are sneaking? Presumably he accounts from the already existing fiction that there is suitable terrain and lighting to do so, that the orcs have spotted the PCs (that is the PCs weren’t trying to be stealthy or if they were that they...

No issue with player rolls or dm rolls. I think I’ve been very clear about that. And here I thought we were talking about miss for half damage. That’s a different fictional outcome than miss for no damage. Miss has a semantic meaning. That is important. If Miss ceases to mean Miss then...

I’m not following this at all.

I think the key there is ‘for you’. Not for everyone.

There is no surprise roll. There was a stealth roll. Doesn’t sound like it. It’s the same for NPCs and PCs. The DM must establish the creature is trying to be stealthy and have it roll stealth. Then when combat is initiated there is no roll. If the creature wasn’t trying to be stealthy...

To clear the apparent confusion. There is a previously rolled stealth check that gets used to determine surprise but no rolls are occurring to determine surprise. Example. PC rolls a 15 on stealth long before combat starts. The PC is trying to sneak through hostile territory. Combat begins...

I think the question, what if the game you were playing did have a burglary skill. Would there be issues around that skill?

Ummm. You don’t roll to determine surprise in 5e at all. Like I’m not going to make fun of you for not knowing this. Some earlier versions of d&d had the surprise roll from my understanding.

Assuming it is just an ‘intricate countdown clock’, does being that preclude it from simulating something?

5e surprise is determined purely fictionally???

Fair enough. I assumed more nuance to you position than exists. That wasn’t on my bingo card. So what would you call a style where the GM creates the fictional world but doesn’t guide the fiction? Half GM driven?

The fireball can have save for half because it’s not calling that a miss. I’m not opposed to adding glancing blows that deal some damage in. I’m opposed to calling such things misses. On the same token I would call a glancing blow that doesn’t cause any damage a miss. So yea, glancing blow...