Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9229457" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Pretty good, actually. I think that people are generally better at this than is claimed in these kinds of discussions. Especially highly trained people. I used to play soccer a lot. I could tell you with reliably well what was within my capabilities and what was in doubt and what was impossible. I could assess my skill compared to that of other players. I knew my weaknesses and my strengths as a player. I also used to ski quite a bit. I knew what I could handle on a mountain. I recognized when my skill level increased and I became more comfortable tackling tougher slopes. I think that generally speaking, trained people have a solid understanding of their skill and the challenge posed by an obstacle. Enough to portray that with rudimentary math and a randomization method, for sure. Sure. If only there was some tool we could use to randomize the results to allow for this. It would be ideal if the tool was small and could be held in hand and cast onto a table so that the results could be easily seen by all participants. If only!Numbers don't break immersion nearly as much as not being able to accurately understand the scenario. When that happens, I'm immediately reminded that I'm removed from the situation. A mistake in perception can be represented by the dice. This is why your whole idea of &quot;certainty&quot; just doesn't work for me... it's not certain because we still have to roll the die, and none of us can predict what the roll will be. What is it that's shared that's not based on what the character perceives?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 9229457, member: 6785785"] Pretty good, actually. I think that people are generally better at this than is claimed in these kinds of discussions. Especially highly trained people. I used to play soccer a lot. I could tell you with reliably well what was within my capabilities and what was in doubt and what was impossible. I could assess my skill compared to that of other players. I knew my weaknesses and my strengths as a player. I also used to ski quite a bit. I knew what I could handle on a mountain. I recognized when my skill level increased and I became more comfortable tackling tougher slopes. I think that generally speaking, trained people have a solid understanding of their skill and the challenge posed by an obstacle. Enough to portray that with rudimentary math and a randomization method, for sure. Sure. If only there was some tool we could use to randomize the results to allow for this. It would be ideal if the tool was small and could be held in hand and cast onto a table so that the results could be easily seen by all participants. If only! Numbers don't break immersion nearly as much as not being able to accurately understand the scenario. When that happens, I'm immediately reminded that I'm removed from the situation. A mistake in perception can be represented by the dice. This is why your whole idea of "certainty" just doesn't work for me... it's not certain because we still have to roll the die, and none of us can predict what the roll will be. What is it that's shared that's not based on what the character perceives? [/QUOTE]

Verification