Search results

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...

No, we all understand that the character didn't cause that. In fact, that is the cornerstone of the whole objection! That the player caused something the character didn't!

@pemerton are you seriously claiming that the player decision of what their character hopes is not affected by the knowledge that the mechanics has the power to make that hope come true? Are you claiming that decision of who examines the runes first etc is not affected by the player knowledge...

No mate. A player has an ability to shape the fictional reality in a significant way that the character doesn't. These are different decision spaces. This is just a fact. You stringing here big words together in attempt to argue that red is blue. The player has knowledge, that the action...

In a colossally stupid way. If anything, a retcon would be less stupid. "We are called Purple Dragon Knights for unrelated reasons, but then start to ride purple dragons so that the name fits," is painfully stupid in a way "We are called Purple Dragon Knights because we ride purple dragons,"...

I mean I don't really care, beyond making me doubt the competence of the writers even more than I already did. I was not going to touch the FR with an eleven feet pole regardless.

I mean knights originally named Purple Dragon Knights because they killed a purple dragon starting to ride purple dragons is objectively stupid even by Forgotten Realms standards. It sounds exactly like a writer got confused about why they were called that.

If there was some "dragon warrior" subclass that was about befriending a dragon, then don't make it about one specific type of dragon, that is bizarrely narrow. The subclass can have some minor customisation within itself, so that it can represent alliance with the dragon type of the player's...

I assume this is some sort of sarcasm, but I do not know or care about the old or new FR lore enough to quite understand it... :unsure:

Hatshepsut, Cleopatra VII, Sobekneferu? There are more; Egypt had several female rulers. There were many female pharaohs and regents some were co-rules, whilst some ruled on their own right.

Yeah, agreed. But my point is that you cannot really get fully rid of adjudication thus the rules cannot ever be "complete" in manner you described earlier.