Search results

I do not super much care which system they use. I would by a small margin prefer D&d, as I don't care for Daggerheart nor I am very familiar with it, but the appeal of the show is not about the system anyway, so it doesn't matter that much. Not having Mercer to GM is a big change and will have...

Certainly.

I am not talking about effectiveness of the class. I am talking about representation of a dragon. Dragons are among the most fearsome monster in D&D. What the PDK had was utterly pathetic as a dragon. And yes, I obviously understand that having a subclass give you control of a fully powered...

It is super feeble for a dragon.

Well, people who want to have a knight with a feeble dragon pet can just use the UA version.

And I think part of play in such game is for player to "engineer" situations where such things can happen. And I think this get pretty solidly into author stance.

I see. How it is then determined whether the runes are something neither desired? Is it a separate roll and based on what? Also, how would it work in Burning Wheel? Regardless, the dissonance between the reality of the rules and reality of the fiction remains. Most unambiguously it is present...

Right. But the thing is, in a game where conjectures have habit of becoming true, there is a pretty strong incentive to not make conjectures like this, but instead make ones that are beneficial, possible even weirdly specifically and conveniently so. And these are incentives the character does...

But, they are an expert, just a pessimistic one! So they say "This is an ancient dungeon, so it it likely that these runes are some sort of a curse. I have a look to be sure." And like @pemerton has explained, them being expert means that their conjectures have higher chance of being true, thus...

I mean it matters once it is codified mechanic and the players know of it. Now generating high priests via diplomacy rolls becomes a valid tactic.

This is a non sequitur. Yes, but the causality of the correlation is reversed between the fiction and the rules and this is not a trivial difference. Like how on Earth you cannot see this? Character A is not an expert, they want treasure, and their hope is that the runes reveal location of...

There is nothing degenerate about it. It is just that the game has more elements of collaborative storytelling and that not all actions are made purely in actor stance as the players are invited to take on author stance from time to time. And that is perfectly fine, it is not an attack, it is...

That making conjectures and having hopes etc significantly increases the chances of those things becoming true, and more generally that actions can have effects and consequences causally unconnected to them and that those acausal effects nevertheless are tied to the "skill" of the character...

That actions can have acausal effects/consequences. I have not read TB, I have read the two others. I have not played them. But it seems you do not have an actual counter argument.

None. But Blades has somewhat similar ones, albeit to lesser degree. People well-versed in game design can read rules and see the incentives. I certainly can. It would be more convincing if instead of going nuh-huh, you explained why the game does not incentivise things I say it does. Like I...

This is what they were unless the GM adds a lot more structure than the rules suggest.

Right. This is what I've asked @pemerton couple of times. In his game are that players supposed to try to ignore the meta knowledge when making decisions for their or embrace it? Because I think it is pretty important distinction here.

Yes. It would be a lot easier if you did though, and it would benefit you as I am usually right! It would be too strong to say that I do not like it. It is not my favourite. I can play that way, I have played that way. I understand how it works, I understand what it does and what it doesn't...

The issue is that @pemerton cannot accept your reason for not liking it. Thus all the desperate arguing that red is blue and that actualisation doesn't change the decision space. Because if he admitted that it did, you would have a proper reason for not liking it and it wouldn't be because you...

Because it creates different incentives. Given how you supposedly are well-versed in game theory, it is rather surprising how blind you are to the incentives the mechanics create. That the players know that the mechanics mean that conjectures have good chance of becoming true and that chance is...