Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Someone" data-source="post: 3039886" data-attributes="member: 5656">Yes, because it requires additional assumptions. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem; if the milk in a dish dissapeared and you have a cat, there´s no need to posit the existence of a second cat or a milk fairy. In the same way, a moronic builder´s existence is simpler than the existence of said moronic builder and a tribe of orcs who go great lenghts to make the trapped room appear as they are.Since you obviously don´t know what an ad-hoc hypothesis is, and this thread´s purpose isn´t to enlighten anyone, I´ll abstain from further commenting on that, at least until I replace the keyboard.It´s the most likely and rational explanation in abscense of more evidence, though, the same way that if you see IRL hoof tracks you think on horses, not centaurs.How can you possibly think that? The party got the McGuffin! This game isn´t challenging: It just requires spending a lot of time testing every possible danger in any possible way. It´s as challenging and boring as putting a puzzle together by brute force: does this piece fit? No, next piece. Fits? No, next piece...Mousetraps don´t kill mice? You must have sturdy mice over there. And for god´s sake, the lever disintegrated the monk. I think that´s quite aggresive; even nasty, if you allow me. I´d say that the trap´s purpose was to kill, judging by what was left of the monk.The party got the McGuffing before finding the lever. Therefore they didn´t have the opportunity to interact with the lever before accomplishing their goal.They cleared the dungeon, and the lever-pulling monk is alive. Big clue that says us that the dungeon wasn´t so tough after all, in fact less tougher than the deadly lever.Great insight on your way of thinking. But, have you even read what I´ve been writing in this thread?</blockquote>

Verification