Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arch-Fiend" data-source="post: 7842934" data-attributes="member: 7016641">How does the model argue that its certainly true that these doors and npc's are differentiated? Is the 10% of doors or 10% of npcs where the result is different ment to represent determinant differentilization or is it meant to represent temporary differentalization? Is the module there to predict that 10% of doors will open easier? No because the chance hasent changed, is it to predict that 10% of npc's are different? No because the npcs arnt different. This means that the module is representing something that isint a permanent difference between entities in the universe but instead one that is temporary bound up into the abstraction of the action being used to open the door, that action can mean anything that the dm permits to being attempted as breaking the door open. though that could be your point and i just havent reached it yet.The issue of bringing a different skill into the equation of breaking a door is not that it brings an outside element to breaking the door when the original equation was strength vs door. The issue is how it is used, in your example you break a fundamental concept to the argument that i dont think you intended which is noticing a fault in the door, to notice such a thing means that you've now changed the context of the experiment by introducing an element that changes what the doors are from their pre existing state without that change being from "closed without opening" to "open". you also have to describe how noticing this fault allows the door to be opened, the door is still not opening just because you find a fault in it, does that give you a bonus to your strength check to open the door? Do you automatically succeed a strength check to open that door? Either case you've changed the door, but perhaps your argument is that through other means we can still achieve the 10% probability of opening a door without relying on strength, if we use a different skill that the dm's reaction to changes the circumstances of the encounter, but a dm doesent have to do that, you could roll any number on your check to fail to succeed in the answer isint there for you to succeed with. This is the impossible natural 20 houserule but simply applied to a lower number. What the impossible nature 20 houserule is, is also a bit of a psychological fallacy we as dms can get into when conceding to the attempts of players to allow them to do anything if they successfully roll high enough regardless of what it is that we do. often as a result of them rolling a natural 20 but also we may do this simply because they attempt to make a check that we didnt predict to try and solve a problem in a way we never thought with a logical argument for doing so that appeals to us. However, in this specific case we the dm are changing the fabric of the universe to reinforce the idea that these checks can possibility give a result, specifically in this case trying to adhere to the idea that there should be a 10% chance, but that 10% chance doesn't mean there's a 10% chance that ANYTHING can work, including up to a performance check or diplomacy check. Doing so changes the qualities of the door, remember its not 10% against any door, its a 10% against a door whos properties are clearly defined.</blockquote>

Verification