Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 6989552" data-attributes="member: 6857506">Ok, I found and read through some of the thread on Baker's page.  I think I understand a bit more broadly what is going on here (or at least I have an opinion <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />).  First of all, here is a cut and paste of Baker's first (I think) description of the two part example you have cited.Note that in his Case 2 (your A) he makes no distinction in significance between the two arrows ("boxes to cloud" and "boxes to boxes"), noting only that they are "simultaneous".Later in the thread, there is this exchange.I assume this is your source for characterizing the boxes to cloud arrow as an "incidental tangent".  However, I think you have misconstrued this.  The context here is a dispute over where the arrow representing the coming into being of "the -2" in the cubes should originate.  He is using "incidentally" because the boxes to cloud arrow is incidental to the point he is trying to make, not because that arrow is "incidental" in some broader sense.Second, I think I (finally) understand what you mean by "Nothing changes in the fiction that matters to the resolution."  That way of describing the situation, certainly made me think I disagreed with you, when in fact I think that is not the case. (And the way in which several other posters have phrased their responses makes me think they are probably in the same boat.  But whatever.)  It appears to me that the difference in point of view hinges on a hard to describe, but very consequential distinction in the meaning of "the fiction".  If by "the fiction" one means "the fictional universe that we are all imagining", then your statement is nonsense. To put what others have said in slightly different words, the cubes are an abstraction of part of the fiction so they are inextricably linked.  If the cubes change, then the fiction must be changing and the resolution is an abstracted reflection of a process taking place in the fiction.  The change in the cubes and the change in the fiction each matter in their own domain. However, if by "the fiction" one means "our (very real) imagining of the fictional universe", that is, a portion of the state of our brains, then your statement makes perfectly good sense. The state change in our brains occurs after and is dependent on the change in the state of the cubes.  And it is the state of the cubes, not the state of our imagination, that is input to further changes in HP, possibly ending in a creature reaching 0 HP. (*)  Put slightly differently, despite containing the words "the fiction", it appears to me that your statement intends to describe a process totally contained in the real world.  Now if that is correct, it is probably obvious to you and you are wondering why I am going on about it.  Suffice it to say, it took a while to wrap my brain around it.  On the other hand, if that is not correct, then I guess it was an interesting exercise, but I still have no idea what you mean.  Oh well, tomorrow is another day.*) Although the situation after a creature (particularly a PC) reaches 0 HP seems more complicated.  Being at 0 HP (a cubes condition) drives further cubes activity such as death saving throws.  However, an opponent noticing that the PC has slumped to the ground and taking some action based on that is not something that is modeled in cube land - it is going on in the DM's brain.</blockquote>

Verification