Search results

I'd go so far to say conceiving of LLMs as a "source" is using them improperly. You're not supposed to ask a question and read the answer as if it were a published document. Find the part that is interesting. Ask it to expand on that. Ask for documentation with links to the primary sources...

My point wasn't that Wikipedia is 100% reliable. But it is clearly reliable enough to be useful. As are LLMs. The problem is less with the tool than in poor use of the tool.

It seems like most of the issues people are encountering with the technology are with misuse, not the technology as such. If you're the first lawyer to get a fake case from a LLM, not your fault. If you're the 50th, it's on your lack of due diligence. There's an interesting case from a day ago...

-

It is about degree. Yes, we all know we are rolling to see if we hit. But if we also get to rule to decide what the runes mean or whether the cook appears, we've taken a step further from the character. Greater distance leads to less immersion. For example, when I create a world as the GM, I...

I'll emphasize again--my preferences are not due to a lack of ability to engage collaboratively full time. Heard this one a few times now. I've played and run games where the players had more control over the world. I do well as a player and GM in them. It is just a preference. It is a little...

It's ok if you don't have this experience. Some of us do. Some of us don't. That scenario doesn't go particularly far. But I would prefer the GM not use established characters in that way because it doesn't demand the same PC/player separation. I, of course, have created things...as I'm sure...

The post you were quoting does not set down a standard of no player (not PC) control over the world. It explains one way why that kind of player controls results in less immersive play. I think you are reading into it "therefore it should never happen". But I didn't state that. I don't believe...

Read the last few posts I exchanged with pemerton and get back to me if you still have these questions.

The PC/player distinction I brought up earlier. If the player is clearly different than the PC because the player is exercising control over the fiction in a way the PC couldn't, then it feels less immersive.

Yes

It wasn't.

RM and RQ aren't too much sim. I just don't think you need to have the player make all the dodge rolls for "the player controls the PC to hold as a general principle". We have had a discussion about knowledge checks work. The methods you're suggesting fall on the far side of the line for us. I...

That's not been my reading of the thread. You are allowed to take umbrage with it. Just clarify that the criticism is about semantics, not substance. "They are using the word quantum to apply to method when I think it should apply to metaphysics" rather than "they are equating differences of...

I think this is troublesome because you are treating "The GM controls the world, the player controls the PC" as an absolute with clear boundaries. But its more of a continuum. We can go on forever about if 574 or 575 or 576 grains makes a heap. But 10,000 grains probably is. 1 grain probably...

I don't think your description of knowledge checks is accurate. When I wrote down 'proficiency: religion' on my character sheet, that already establishes my character is knowledgeable about religious matters. The check doesn't establish specific other details about the past--i.e., 'in year 3 at...

I think you are misunderstanding the argument. The use of quantum in this thread encompasses method--'things are quantum for the players but not for the GM' is a meaningful statement. People are not just using quantum to mean 'authoring here and now because of a real world prompt'. Also, the...

But they differ in the method of authorship, which matters. In the confirmation case, the method gives reference to the GMs plans or perhaps to aspects of the world ('a town of this many people should have a farrier'). Making it up doesn't. The implication is instead "oh Bob had a nice idea...

I don't think I understand this post--or rather, I understand all the words and the claims and everything, but I don't understand what you are asserting when you say 'not grappled with the tension'. Are they not aware of it? Are they aware of it but deal with it poorly? Perhaps the problem is...

We've talked a lot about simulationism. But really I think it grates on me the most from the gamist perspective. If I as a player can introduce new things into the fiction that help my PC win, or if complications that I couldn't have planned for occur to help my PC lose, then it is harder for me...