Search results

Not sure your point?

I’m tired of answering questions I believe you know the answer to, or at least enough of the answer to meaningfully converse on the subject.

As an example: ‘Acting under fire’ is a name for an approach not for an intended goal. As I said, Terribly named.

There’s another solution as well. Amend ‘fair use doctrine by judicial interpretation to include all content used to train AI and put the onus on the users of AI to not reproduce copyrighted works with it’.

The issue with the sim agenda is that 'hoping for an encounter' shouldn't change your probabilities of it occurring.

My sweet summer child. It's actually 1357 pages. :)

Maybe. But, I don't see that occurring at all in the 'differences in failforward vs random encounter tables' part of the discussion. It's repeated again and again, 'there is no difference there'.

The same issue applies. If it's my skill to be 'cool under fire' then it shouldn't influence my chance of someone coming in at that particular moment. Based on the name alone such a skill should be influencing a characters skill to be cool when some pressure is already occurring. One pet...

I mean, we've already demonstrated we are fine with cooks on random encounter rolls, we are fine with cooks in the kitchen at dinner time. There's nothing to disagree with there, unless you just don't believe us?

Right. Past experience tells me that the only way this particular discussion ends is by mod intervention.

I think it's less to do with accurately describing and more to do with simply acknowledging the differences instead of denying their existence.

This breakdown is absolutely fascinating. It's exactly the kind of post explaining the actual rules of burning wheel that gives me enough detail to meaningfully engage without being told that any of my counterpoints are contradicted by some other hitherto unknown rule. It's also is reminiscent...

Exactly this. The part that conflicts with the sim agenda is that the represented skill at lock-picking (or whatever skill) influences the probabilities of outcomes other than picking locks. It’s such a trivial observation that I don’t understand why there’s such denial by so many about the...

I think earlier we teased this apart as if the theif broke in at dinner time there’s probably a chef around so no issue. If the thief broke in at 2am then there’s probably no chef around. In your mansion as opposed to a house though, there’s probably guards. But yea. Depending on the specifics...

I’d suggest it’s a bigger problem. I mean at some point you get a feel for your DMs style and so in a sense learn this aspect for your given table. But making tactical/strategic decisions before you’ve ’found the pattern’ makes this nearly impossible. In practice this ‘unknown’ means players...

Okay, but telling them what they notice seems similar enough to me?

@pemerton I think your perception example is good. I’ve not got a good response for it yet. The closest counterpoint I’ve seen in the thread was @AlViking’s, but it seems to justify the use of any mental mechanic which is generally unacceptable.

I don’t propose anything at all on the subject of how babies learn to communicate.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of @pemerton’s point about multiple descriptions for a single action. The irony here is that this is precisely the same complaint levied against fail forward.

for (iii) a player can hope for anything, perhaps not reasonably but reasonably wasn't an original requirement. I'm all for saying it should be part of the requirements, but let's first tackle what you actually said before we go modifying it to make it correct. for (ii) being a possible...