Search results

For the cleric example to be the same the following would need to be true 1) the fictional constraints on the cleric (who he is, what he can do, what level he is, which god he serves, what they are a god of, what kind of people will the cleric or his god help, what’s his position in the church...

There’s not really much to say if you can’t be specific about what is inaccurate.

Technologically speaking I wonder if the shadow banning is easier to reverse in the future than outright removal.

I find it amazing you are jumping to egregious narrations. I guess my question is outside things contradicting genre or the very thin bit of established fiction in the runes example, what could possibly make whatever the player wants the runes to be egregious. It’s basically a blank slate as far...

What sort of reaching? I thought the whole point of the runes was that the player could attempt to author them by having his character say I hope they are X. Is that now incorrect? Practically speaking, what isn’t allowed given the fictional details we’ve actually been given in the example?

Or there were legitimate ones and illegitimate ones. Seems to me they didn’t replicate some of the major details of some crop circles encountered. But what do I know?

There is no more fiction to measure the runes against. We’ve got some runes on a wall, we’ve got a cunning expert and some genre constraints. In the practical sense the fiction established is just enough that the player can say the runes mean anything.

No. They do not. They cannot say priest give me all your churches riches, that is the thing i want. Or priest I want you to cast foresight on me for the upcoming battle (making the priest a 9th level caster). The priest and his abilities are established independently of the persuasion roll and...

The paramount question is ‘how are they wanting to overcome said obstacle’. In the runes example the player must decide what he wants to runes to be on a successful roll. The character must never decide that. Not only is that a different decision, it’s a completely different decision space. The...

l I’m confused here. The runes don’t have dynamic features?

Yea I didn’t notice that at first. In my games the persuasion check wouldn’t mean the priest has remove curse memorized or even that he is at a level he can cast it.

But that’s not the full decision space in context is it? You’re eliding a bunch of important decision space details by leaving it there.

Then let’s not publicly discuss, review or critique mine either :)

Well start by defining the decision space separately for the player and for the character. What is at stake in the players decision and what is at stake in the characters decision? What is the basis for each? Etc. The characters decision is can I interpret these runes. The players is, if I...

As a wise man once said, ‘Okay, So what?’

Just curious, what’s your goal with the ‘so what’? Why are you engaging here?

Hold my beer!

I’d meant to say thanks for giving the needed background detail on the mechanic.

I thought I’d jump off here. Perhaps the elements I most consider ‘good sim’ or essential for sim from an rpg perspective aren’t granular mechanics governing combat, climbing, runes, etc, (I think those things can be described as ‘more sim’) but the essentials are world independence (the runes...

Are you saying it’s not happening at all or that the amount @Crimson Longinus suggested it’s occurring was hyperbolic?