Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6991661" data-attributes="member: 996">I see no case of a step being labeled cloud-to-cloud because whether to impose a modifier was left up to the DM.&nbsp; Latitude shouldn't be equated with non-existence, IMHO.&nbsp;Afraid, resistant, whatever... labeling a mechanic that explicitly gives players latitude in how they imagine the fiction 'cube to cube' strikes me as off.Ah, but it wouldn't play out the same, because those imaginings are different.&nbsp; It might use the same cubes, but rolling against a DC of 15 with a bonus of +6 is using the same cubes whether it's a diplomacy check, attack roll, or save.So just as wrong, either way.&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; Obliviax (1e MM2) could suck the spell out of his head, though, if that helps.&nbsp; ;P&nbsp;&nbsp; Seriously, though, memorization was kinda awful because it was so contrary to genre, but, it impacted the 'cloud' it generated, however repulsive the miasma of that cloud may have seemed.I should hope not.&nbsp; You've got a fairly knowledgeable RPG designer dreaming up a model to describe RPGs, one would hope he didn't create a model inimical to them.So why bother with such a proviso?And, really, I'm still not convinced cube-cube is legit.&nbsp; Take the first example of it, marking off hps.&nbsp; As abstract as D&amp;D combat has always been (and clearly, 2e AD&amp;D is the example game in question), drawing a line between the hit and the damage roll like that is just odd.&nbsp; Concluding that one has a cloud effect and the other doesn't is even stranger.&nbsp; You're far to magnanimous.Well, that'd be a fault, then, wouldn't it?&nbsp; Fault found.&nbsp; Though, honestly, I'm still not convinced by either cloud-cloud or cube-cube.&nbsp; Both strike me as abnegation.&nbsp; Cloud-cloud means the game has rejected the situation - it declines to address it, so there's no mechanical resolution.&nbsp; Cube-cube means the cloud is simply being ignored by the players (including DM).&nbsp; OK, sounds like 'rationalizing failure' may have been a tad harsh on my part.&nbsp;&nbsp; Analyzing failure, then.But also for abstractions like hps, which I'm also not too sure about...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6991661, member: 996"] I see no case of a step being labeled cloud-to-cloud because whether to impose a modifier was left up to the DM. Latitude shouldn't be equated with non-existence, IMHO. Afraid, resistant, whatever... labeling a mechanic that explicitly gives players latitude in how they imagine the fiction 'cube to cube' strikes me as off. Ah, but it wouldn't play out the same, because those imaginings are different. It might use the same cubes, but rolling against a DC of 15 with a bonus of +6 is using the same cubes whether it's a diplomacy check, attack roll, or save. So just as wrong, either way. Sure. Obliviax (1e MM2) could suck the spell out of his head, though, if that helps. ;P Seriously, though, memorization was kinda awful because it was so contrary to genre, but, it impacted the 'cloud' it generated, however repulsive the miasma of that cloud may have seemed. I should hope not. You've got a fairly knowledgeable RPG designer dreaming up a model to describe RPGs, one would hope he didn't create a model inimical to them. So why bother with such a proviso? And, really, I'm still not convinced cube-cube is legit. Take the first example of it, marking off hps. As abstract as D&D combat has always been (and clearly, 2e AD&D is the example game in question), drawing a line between the hit and the damage roll like that is just odd. Concluding that one has a cloud effect and the other doesn't is even stranger. You're far to magnanimous. Well, that'd be a fault, then, wouldn't it? Fault found. Though, honestly, I'm still not convinced by either cloud-cloud or cube-cube. Both strike me as abnegation. Cloud-cloud means the game has rejected the situation - it declines to address it, so there's no mechanical resolution. Cube-cube means the cloud is simply being ignored by the players (including DM). OK, sounds like 'rationalizing failure' may have been a tad harsh on my part. Analyzing failure, then. But also for abstractions like hps, which I'm also not too sure about... [/QUOTE]

Verification