Search results

What is happening that there is a die roll that determines whether the thing succeeded or failed followed by description of the event of success or failure. Almost all skill checks and similar work like this, and there is not anything retrocausal about it, the narration and the dice roll are the...

You break the sim by drawing acausal odds from stats that supposedly measure diegetic things.

Yes there is. But the player deciding what their character hoped, made that decision based on information that the mechanics can make that hope to become true even though the character in the fiction has no power to cause this. The specific knowledge is not just that the fiction is authored...

Anyway, the topic. When designing rules for a game and wanting to keep them simple, one needs to identify when making something more complicated is "worth it." I was recently contemplating D&D variant that had less HP, AC was just evasion type defences (avoiding to getting hit) and armour was...

Sure. They're only boring. Though I have to say, whilst I like tieflings, over-abundance and normalisation sorta threatens to make them boring as well. Like one Hellboy is cool, but if the literal devilspawn are just common and unremarkable part of life in the fantasy world they have lost the...

Sorry, still not seeing it. Obviously the test can establish whether the character was distracted, at the moment of the test. There is nothing retrocausal about that. The causal disconnect in the rune case is massive and quite impactful, like I have explained several times. It literally makes...

Yes, you can easily be both iconic and boring. Like Superman.

I am not quite sure what sort of retrocausality you see happening here. I don't see it. The events that could be noticed, the noticing (or lack of it) and the roll all happen basically at the same time. That we cannot practically do and describe all of them at once doesn't indicate any...

Yeah, kinda same for me. It is frustrating how these discussions go: "I think I'd prefer a tad more simulationism than a game X offers" "How curious you play game Y then, which is not perfectly simulationistic in all aspects. You hypocrite!" It might be the Edwardsian fallacy of incoherence...

Yeah, it gets muddy if you do that, so I don't. Hit is a hit that connected and caused some harm. Damage is actual injury, though it might be very slight. HP are still weird, but it at least we can maintain some level of coherent connection between the fiction and the rules this way.

How are you going to measure this happiness percentage and how high it needs to be to be acceptable you? Like is 95% happy good enough? It the players chose to play, then the campaign was successfully "sold" to them.

Well, if they have enough players for the campaign, they obviously sold it well enough!

Do what?

I think it is rather obvious that the frequency of character death is pretty significant contributor to how annoying a player having to sit out a session or two until the new character is introduced is. If it is something that might happen once in a campaign if you have bad luck it is fine. If...

Yeah, I said pages ago that for rules to be sim, it requires that "the operator" (usually the GM) actually uses them that way, and you absolutely could drift 5e into narrativist direction this way if the operator chose to use narrativist logic instead.

Yes. What is not the same is the causality. Why you keep ignoring this? I absolutely do not understand why you always champion narrativist ways to play, but then adamantly refuse to accept that they are any different from trad methods. Presumably the difference is actually why you like to do...

This is just your strawman scaremongering you always resort to in these discussions. Of course the GM needs to sell their premise to the players, otherwise they have no players and no game. And there can be discussions, but ultimately the GM needs to run a campaign they want to run and the...

Here I agree with you. I think it is perfectly fine to say "only one of X" or even "only one from group of X+Y+Z." I find it is unlikely that several people want to be the same rare thing anyway, and if they do, they can work between themselves who plays it. It is already pretty common to do...

Yes, some of your original sets did not include dragonborn. However, in the later example a GM has chosen a set, and the difference between jerk and non-jerk GM to you is which of them is willing to alter their initial set to include dragonborn. And ultimately the question is whether the GM is...

So people who allow dragonborn no matter what are cool whilst those who don't are jerks. Also people with who create settings with traditional elements are just mindlessly copying whilst those who do not do that have proper reason even though they might be just copying Greek myth or something...