Search results

I didn't preplan it when I ran the game. I tried it as it was meant to be played. I disliked the lack of preplanning.

More on the IMO Gold Medal. The two models that achieved gold aren't released to the public and many details are not known. However, the authors link to a really interesting article about a third AI demonstrating gold medal performance, which used Gemini 2.5 and a clever prompting and...

How was I misunderstanding it? I described how I played it, which is how the text says. "I didn't like it" is different from "I didn't understand it".

I only have Knock #1. It's got a good one, "Praise the Fallen", in the back. Lots of gold, a fun little cult. I don't think there are many others though. It isn't worth picking up for the mods, but worth it as a general resource.

How so? My comment had nothing to do with how I played the game. It was about how playing the game as written didn't appeal to me.

It's worth checking out Trilemma Adventures. It's a collection of free 1-2 pagers that can be adapted for any system relatively easily. The downside is that they tend to have some theming and might require a little work to make fit your campaign.

No. By the GM before the attempt was made. To some extent. But note--this is the same argument people use for fudging, and subject to the same objections. Edit: should be quoting @Hussar

For you it seems. Not for me.

And what are the important differences with respect to the cook's existence here?

Want it more Blades-esque? Here you go. Problems? Player: "Ok, McSneaky wants to get inside the estate without raising an alarm. I'll be prowling, trying to enter through the back door" GM: "Great. It's dark out and there are not too many guards. But it's a big estate so there is always a...

I used lock picking because that was what we were discussing at the time. We could recast it as something else. It wouldn't change the important elements. This is the only part of this post that gets at the core issue. And I don't think the main claim--that you don't consider success or failure...

The opposite. I did know what success would look like, and it contradicted certain details of what failure would have entailed, like the presence of the cook. I knew the cook would not be present on success but would be on failure.

There are errors humans make that are interpreted as signs of more general failings. E.g., if an engineer deleted your database by mistake, you'd say "this fellow is probably not good at other tasks". Our intuition for these connections is pretty good. But it isn't good when applied to robots...

This was also discussed a month ago:

Ironically I think exactly the same thing. But in my reading the problem is people treating it like a human and judging errors as they would human error.

Cars are a good example. When AI performs poorly at something we find easy, like not stopping forever because someone put a cone on top of your car, it is evidence of how stupid they are. But when it performs well, e.g. decreasing crashes by an order of magnitude, it doesn't fix the initial...

Oh no. This point was also mentioned by @pemerton and @hawkeyefan a month or two ago. I won't type anything out again. Just a selection of what has been said :)

Has the cook's existence been established prior to the roll for case (2)? If not, I find it nonsensical. In the worst case, this kind of play can manifest as the player's action declaration leading to more consequences. What I mean is: if the player had declared (1), the complication may have...

These are clues perhaps, but there is a wide range of abilities here. Michael Crichton is a good acid test. He uses science and technology extensively, his plots often hinge on key details thereof, and big parts of what he presents are wrong in detail. But his novels are certainly stronger for...

For me this approaches the line, but I don't think it crosses it. I'd prefer for the GM to have many of these details fixed. For example, if they had written "the firefly festival occurs at this time and involves this sort of activity". Then the player could say "maybe our characters fought...