Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8808890" data-attributes="member: 71699">Pursuing this line of discussion may reveal a lacuna in the OP's framing. Their question can be understood to relate to an index, as [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] summarises it - &quot;three states: impossible, automatic or 50/50.&quot; That index could look like this -<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">GM decides - automatic success</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Heads - success or perhaps as you suggest 15 (which might not be a success)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tails - fail or perhaps as you suggest 5 (which might not be a fail)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">GM decides - impossible</li>
</ul>The&nbsp; OP reads in part &quot;When it comes to a simple does-this-happen-or-not, the GM either knows or isn't sure. If the GM isn't sure, it's probably because the odds of one result or the other are very close to 50%. Why not just flip a coin to resolve it? Is more precision really necessary?&quot; Arms Law doesn't ask simple does-this-happen-or-not questions in combat. For example, how do I split my OB/DB if the check is d2? How do I interpret my attack effect?The lacuna then is that whether or not we use a d2 for simple does-this-happen-or-not questions in an RPG, other questions may emerge that we would like to answer, but that cannot be answered with a simple binary (or trinary, if we include GM-decides). I could for example, concede the OP's central premise - were I confronted with a simple binary then I could use a d2 - without accepting that all my questions even have simple binary answers. One could also observe that who gets to answer the question, and what constraints may be upon them, is also not addressed in grasping our RPG questions as simple binaries answered by GM (which of course isn't what the OP commits to, but worth noting I think.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8808890, member: 71699"] Pursuing this line of discussion may reveal a lacuna in the OP's framing. Their question can be understood to relate to an index, as [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] summarises it - "[I]three states: impossible, automatic or 50/50.[/I]" That index could look like this - [LIST] [*][B]GM decides[/B] - automatic success [*][B]Heads [/B]- success or perhaps as you suggest 15 (which might not be a success) [*][B]Tails [/B]- fail or perhaps as you suggest 5 (which might not be a fail) [*][B]GM decides[/B] - impossible [/LIST] The OP reads in part "[I]When it comes to a simple does-this-happen-or-not, the GM either knows or isn't sure. If the GM isn't sure, it's probably because the odds of one result or the other are very close to 50%. Why not just flip a coin to resolve it? Is more precision really necessary?[/I]" Arms Law doesn't ask simple does-this-happen-or-not questions in combat. For example, how do I split my OB/DB if the check is d2? How do I interpret my attack effect? The lacuna then is that whether or not we use a d2 for simple does-this-happen-or-not questions in an RPG, other questions may emerge that we would like to answer, but that cannot be answered with a simple binary (or trinary, if we include GM-decides). I could for example, concede the OP's central premise - were I confronted with a simple binary then I could use a d2 - without accepting that all my questions even have simple binary answers. One could also observe that who gets to answer the question, and what constraints may be upon them, is also not addressed in grasping our RPG questions as simple binaries answered by GM (which of course isn't what the OP commits to, but worth noting I think.) [/QUOTE]

Verification