Search results

Mod Note: Two threads on the same topic merged.

I think I have a different point to make than the speaker you were responding to.

Maybe we are stumbling over the word "process", and I am using that word for things that you have not considered a "process" in the past? If some stuff has to happen to get from one state to another, that stuff is a "process". F'rex, to get from having our teeth be kinda fuzzy to being clean...

Note, the distinction that makes the difference isn't whether the mechanic exists, but whether the mechanics are directly associated to and simulating processes that exist in the narrative.

I agree in part - I don't know that being simple for the GM is all that new, or will ultimately be seen as the focus of today's games. But i think he gets muddy about 4th generation, and that i cannot lay on how 5th generation is still going on. It reads more like a pile of his personal gripes...

So, with respect, simulation in general does not require that association. That association is specific to what is usually called "process simulation" - it is an added requirement that may not be relevant to all folks who want simulation. For example, folks looking to simulate a fictional...

For generations 1-3, I suppose what he says is fair enough. At 4th generation, he gets very muddy, and unfortunately the change to his supposed 5th depends upon it. I am not convinced he grasped the middle spans there very well.

It isn't clear if "starving hysterical naked" is supposed to apply to the best minds of your generation, or the bards...

Sure. And there's courtly love, friendship, etc. Or maybe the dragon becomes a rabid fanboi of the bard's beat poetry... Folks are just so limited in how they think about these things...

Wait a sec. When you were GMing before, and a player tried to do something, you didn't know what success would look like?

Well, the point i was leading to is that the question is really only moot in a game like D&D as written, that only has simple success/fail mechanics. In games with other mechanics, the failed attempt can have other impacts, so the choice of whether to allow the attempt can matter. Like, in a...

Humans are not known for their rationality, though. And, damage is not the only contributor to even a purely rational analysis.

Not all love or seduction is sexual, folks.

Note that I didn't mention rolling. I am asking about allowing the attempt or not. How we mechanically resolve the attempt is another question, and may be ruleset dependant. The question is whether the resulting fiction contains the attempt that fails, or not.

Who makes the error does not change the damage done by the error. Human crash or auto-driving crash, what matters is that someone is injured or killed.

I would say that the social status of the domicile implies the presence of servants. Like the owner maintains the large building and does all the cooking themselves? Also note the granularity difference between the cases: To get parity between 1 and 2, my first case actually needs two action...

So, there are two different things that could happen here. 1) Disallowing the action -the PC cannot even attempt it. 2) Allowing the PC to attempt the action, but noting that the DC (or mechanical equvalent) is so high that the PC cannot succeed. Note that the resulting narrative is different...

So... Imagine two action declarations: 1) I want to quietly pick the lock, by using my lockpicks. 2) I want to enter the kitchen unnoticed, by quietly picking the lock. Absent a specific rules system, both of these are cogent enough action declarations. Both have goal and approach...

I can haz Holy Avenger?

It is as if you made statements about my approach to play without knowing my approach to play. Your entertainment isn't my priority. If you stop defending it, I will have no need to speak to it.