Search results

Right...you mention the license test, then another cause, then several others buried in "so on"... You see how this is A --> B --> C, not A --> B? Colloquially, you'd say "I failed my license test and couldn't pick her up". Precisely, it would be "I failed my license test, she couldn't drive...

I disagree. The events you listed were of the form A --> B --> C, or even A --> B --> C --> D. "You fail the license test" --> "you don't get a license" --> "you can't pick up your date" --> "you don't go on the date". Or: "you are unable to drive" --> "you can't drive yourself to the...

Yes in game terms you might have disadvantage on charisma rolls. Note how this treats the events as independent.

I guess we're at an impasse then. I think the only direct consequence of you driving exam is that you didn't get the license. The decision not to go on the date is indirectly connected but it is an entirely separate event. You could have made different plans. The failed exam does not dictate 'no...

Yes--because I don't think you're right. This example is a case of "you fail and nothing happens". You failed and didn't get the license. Because you didn't achieve your goal, another plan that was already in motion and which required success failed. That's different than--you failed and we...

I think this is a very good point. I'll wager my new racing pod against, say... the boy and his mother.

I am very curious what example you have in mind here.

Yes.

I think everyone is in agreement about this point. And indeed I don't think anyone has ever disagreed. Respectfully, given that you keep using this example when you've been told explicitly that we understand this difference, and given that you didn't get my statement about reality and told me...

I know--this is exactly what i said in my previous post: At least it seems we're now on the same page about what I am claiming.

They changed from a state of uncertainty (helpful or unhelpful, map or spell or secret passage or...) to a state of certainty (helpful map).

Not in the fiction, but in reality, yes, it does cause that...it is a partial cause, the imposition of chance doesn't stop that. Now, the rest of your post seems in line with what we're saying about the distinction between past and future and the ability of the player to author fiction. I...

Yes...the extent of my comment is that the way the player changes the fiction is different from how the declare they attack an orc. This difference harms verisimilitude for some players, myself included.

In character, it is reasonable to change things happening now or in the future, but not in the past. So the character's hopes changing fiction which ocurred in the past (when the runes were placed there) is nondiegetic. While their actions changing present and future (whether the orc lives) are.

You're right on a lot of counts. I want to add though, that despite the increase in energy use, CO2 emissions per capita in the US is about 50% below its peak, which was in the 70s. Its now about the same as in the 1960s and, surprisingly, the 1920s. But that is just a part of the story, and it...

I disagree. I'm saying it does so because it is fundamentally different from other processes, like declaring "I attack an orc".

No.

Ok, this has been addressed at length and there is nothing new to add. By decide we mean set the stakes. Whereas this is just wrong. In universe the runes had some cause in the past. The players don't know what it is. Maybe the GM doesn't. But there was a cause. The players are modifying the...

Part of the anthropic case was books that they purchased and scanned.

Seems reasonable in the case where they bought all the books rather than pirating them.