Search results

The real question is, who controls the bugs? Ah, who am I kidding, it's pixies. It's always pixies.

Sadly, with WOTC versions of D&D dexterity is king. You can have nearly the same damage potential and AC with a high dex fighter as a high strength fighter. It's something I don't care for but nothing is perfect.

As far as I can tell the only reason we "need" to do it is because people feel compelled to tell others that they're wrong. No game can define every possible reason for every possible success or failure unless they abstract it to a meaningless level. No chart, set of rules, predefined number...

All ability adjusting items use the 3e rules. They don't replace, they add up to a certain number. So gauntlets of ogre power add +2 max 20, belt of hill giant strength add +2 up to 22, frost giant +4 up to 24 and so on. I've always thought it was dumb that someone could have strength as a...

I think that the runes meaning what they hope for is not affected one way or another by their knowledge of runes.

As many as they want and can afford. I don't really care about regular potions of healing, any decent sized city is going to have them and they can always craft them. Greater healing potions are available in larger cities. I really don't worry about things like this, I rarely provide magical...

What it actually says is "An ability check represents a creature using talent and training to try to overcome a challenge, such as forcing open a stuck door, picking a lock, entertaining a crowd, or deciphering a cipher. The DM and the rules often call for an ability check when a creature...

If people could perfectly replicate technique and clearly observe every variable, everyone could bowl 300. We can't, there are miniscule variations including how we hold the bowling ball, the skill we have, the exact moment the ball leaves our hand, the spin we put on it, correctly assessing...

It doesn't say what you claim it does. Not sure what else to say that hasn't already been said a dozen times.

Nah, it's yours. Simulation does not require every abstraction and input to have an explanation.

You've made criteria nobody else supports. If there is support provide links.

Ah, back to your personal pet definition. Good luck with that.

I am assuming good conditions and not playing at some dive bar with a crappy table. I also have my own pool cue. But even if I didn't you're just adding a bit of extra randomness into the results. But no matter what the reason I miss will never be something I can ascertain with 100% certainty.

I was assuming the perfect table because it avoids the whole "The GM invented that loose rock after the failure so it's not a simulation!" argument. But in my experience there are a lot of shots that are nearly identical setup that I make 9 out of 10 times. As much as I would like to blame the...

If I don't get the 8 ball in the corner pocket while playing pool, I can look at the result and narrate where I went wrong. No time running backwards required. Interrupts are a bit weird, but that's just because of the nature of play at the table and compromises made to keep the game flowing.

My last main campaign lasted for 4 years and went to 20. My current campaign has been going for a 1.5 years and is still going strong. Looking back at a couple others, I'd say the campaigns I run tend to average 3-4 years. We generally spend 4-6 hours playing per session, and lately we've...

Yes, really. There are a couple other variables of course like the friction imparted because of the amount of chalk on my cue tip and how fuzzy the tip is. But as far as the 8 ball going in the corner pocket? It all comes down to that momentary connection of cue tip and the cue ball. How well I...

This tangent was taken from discussions of fail forward techniques. There's nothing wrong with those techniques (even if I don't really take them into consideration) but it's basically that if a character fails at the task and the fiction of the world changes so that something happens other...