Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2747869" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>Ok this will rapidly become a threadjack so i dont see much point in continuing the railroading redefination debate. As i stated before, your definition is too broad, too all inclusive.&nbsp; and here is where we differ greatly. and here we are again at the oft repeated and still not valid position of &quot;ino reason to roll if you wont accept the worst outcome&quot;.see above, been discussed already ad infinitum.&nbsp; in short, there are &quot;degress of success&quot; and &quot;degrees of failure&quot; and useful bits that can be gained from rolls without accepting to take the worst result.When i step up to the burger king soda machine, I KNOW it might give me on a fluke chance carbonated slop. The fact that i stick my cup under that nozzle doesn't mean I am bound to drink it if that happens. The fact that i will pour out the slop and draw another beverage DOESN'T mean i cannot get anything of value from the process.he is not choosing this action or making this decision in order to fail. he is making this decision in order to try and succeed. If in allow that to happen, i am not denying him &quot;decision making power&quot;. If instead i decided to fudge against him, so that regardless of his decision he would fail, that would be &quot;denying him decision making&quot;. &nbsp;it will fall within an acceptable range. Not necessarily the same thing. failure, say on a jump check, can be falling way short or can be falling a little short and being able to grab the ledge or maybe if we are not talking a perfect straight verticle drop then a little short means a little falling damage while falling wway short means a lot of falling damage, etc etc etc.Again, there is a lot of potential info out of a roll that has value other than that worst case bad lethal result.back to the dirty little secret approach...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="swrushing, post: 2747869, member: 14140"] [/QUOTE] Ok this will rapidly become a threadjack so i dont see much point in continuing the railroading redefination debate. As i stated before, your definition is too broad, too all inclusive. and here is where we differ greatly. and here we are again at the oft repeated and still not valid position of "ino reason to roll if you wont accept the worst outcome". see above, been discussed already ad infinitum. in short, there are "degress of success" and "degrees of failure" and useful bits that can be gained from rolls without accepting to take the worst result. When i step up to the burger king soda machine, I KNOW it might give me on a fluke chance carbonated slop. The fact that i stick my cup under that nozzle doesn't mean I am bound to drink it if that happens. The fact that i will pour out the slop and draw another beverage DOESN'T mean i cannot get anything of value from the process. he is not choosing this action or making this decision in order to fail. he is making this decision in order to try and succeed. If in allow that to happen, i am not denying him "decision making power". If instead i decided to fudge against him, so that regardless of his decision he would fail, that would be "denying him decision making". it will fall within an acceptable range. Not necessarily the same thing. failure, say on a jump check, can be falling way short or can be falling a little short and being able to grab the ledge or maybe if we are not talking a perfect straight verticle drop then a little short means a little falling damage while falling wway short means a lot of falling damage, etc etc etc. Again, there is a lot of potential info out of a roll that has value other than that worst case bad lethal result. back to the dirty little secret approach... [/QUOTE]

Verification