D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Umbran]

Well, I'm certainly no expert on QM, but my understanding of the state of the field is that Einstein's reservations have yet to be effectively addressed.

This thread is not about quantum mechanics, so I will keep my rebuttal brief: As an example - Einstein came up with several things he felt would be absurd results of quantum mechanics - quantum entanglement being a major one - that experiment has shown to actually happen.

And there are, in fact, a number of quite competent physicists who take them seriously and have worked out interpretations of QM which, like Superdeterminism, both satisfy Einstein's objections AND are consistent with all experimental evidence.

That, of course, is not sufficient. To prove correctness, a competing theory must also make testable predictions other theories do not. However, superdeterminisim 1) so far is only represented by what we'd call "toy models", that don't handle meaningful calculations, 2) violates falsifiability, and so cannot actually be tested. In essence, superdeterminism isn't science.

Also 3) It would mean there's no such thing as free will. This is not a technical problem, but it is philosophically troubling.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because it often doesn't happen. Assuming something that will often be wrong is a very faulty assumption to make.

Who says it often doesn't happen? Have you been on many overland expeditions? I haven't. My experience with them, such as it is, comes mostly from fiction. And in fiction, when people travel great distances by foot or horse or wagon, they tend to hunt and forage along the way.

So your solution was to agree with me that you can retcon it and it's not like what we do, and then announce that you solved a problem. What was the point of that?

No. No you didn't. You completely failed to show how you can do it in the moment like we can.

And then. I said it from the beginning man. It's not a new revelation that I'm "springing" on you.

No. We're talking about two different approaches, right? So why would you think I would use your approach to solve the problem. The problem, as I saw it, was you said my method doesn't allow a character to search for herbs and yours does.

This whole "like we do" seems more a semantic cover than anything to me. Why would I ever claim to be able to do it like you do it? I literally don't want to do it that way.

All I was showing is that foraging for herbs can be done in either method. Hence, the problem, as I see it, is solved.

You're now pointing out that my method doesn't allow it "in the moment"... yes, I know! I didn't claim it did nor would I. It makes no sense.

Ours: Happens in the moment and fixes the fiction from then on out. And we get herbs.
Yours: Retcons something into the past which alters the fiction retroactively. And you get herbs.

Getting herbs isn't even most of it, let alone enough to be "far more in common."

No, you're right. The possibility that something interesting could happen during the search for herbs versus the certainty that something interesting will happen by skipping past that.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, it isn't. And as for 'pretty much every topic in existence' being in dispute, I heartily disagree. Most things are settled matters, or else fall into the category of the unknown. Some things are known to be unknown, others are unknown unknowns, but very few things are thought to be known, but are actually unknown.

You are falling for the tactics of cheap rhetoriticians and populists here, who thrive on the creation of a false sense of doubt in their audiences, and then ironically themselves pose as a source of expertise! I won't go into any examples as they're both obvious, too numerous, and inflammatory.

Ah, you might think so, but that's not the case. Certainly no expert will testify contrary to a position which can be colored to be defensible. Perjury is a very high bar. Beyond that, most testimony is itself examples of various forms of fallacy (or to view it another way, rhetorical tactics) in action. Having an expert testify to something which sounds impressive, but is actually irrelevant, is for example quite common. Also, remember, a decision in a court of law requires a high bar, even in civil cases. All an expert need do is sow any seed of doubt to be effective with a jury.

Again, law and legal testimony by experts bear very little resemblance to scientific process or standards. I once helped assemble MANY cases for the EPA in superfund litigation. As chemists we could show facts with essentially 100% certainty, yet industry had other chemists, sometimes ones that also worked for us, who would happily testify to the opposite. Everyone KNEW they were wrong, but no court is going to waste its time trying to prove that.

I mean we can't even agree on what the appeal to authority fallacy actually is...

 

[Umbran]

They are paid to testify truthfully under oath with their expert opinion on the matter. Being paid doesn't(or at least shouldn't) matter.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics," sir.

If the testimony is paid for by someone who has a vested interest in the result, that's a problem - it introduces a survivorship bias, as any testimony that contradicts the preferred narrative will be filtered out.

 

[Pedantic]

That seems a bit odd to me. Like, an SC could be a 500 mile overland trek, or it could be haggling with a dragon. Like, granted larger scale SCs generally have more scope for different skills to be used and whatnot, but there's no inherent level of detail/granularity. Interestingly, the other issue that people often had was that the resolution process got out of step with the story. Narrativist 4e play makes that issue irrelevant, there IS NO preexisting set of things/situations/terrain that needs to be addressed by the SC in most cases. It also has an impact on the scale/granularity thing, as you can kind of transition. Like, I had an SC where the starting part was stocking up on supplies, maps, etc. and the 2nd half was a journey. That hung together fine, even though the first part was 5 or 6 checks that were fictionally taking place in a small area over a day or two, and the next dozen checks was 2 months worth of traveling and exploration. In a dramatic sense, though, the two pieces had pretty similar weight, and it was quite easy to make the fiction work; "yeah, that water you procured on that failed check, contaminated! You all drank some, that'll be 1 HS apiece..."

Hardly news to you, but I've been banging on for a decade now that skill challenges are a terrible game. Great narrative pacing mechanism, terrible gameplay. Same issue with fail forward mechanism manifested differently; they take situations that have the potential for strategic decision making, and turn those decisions into story prompts instead of evaluable gameplay. The best case scenario always seems to be yet more negotiation.

 

[Faolyn]

That is an enormous difference to some of us. The big one, as it were.

What is? That it's baked into the rules?

 

[Micah Sweet]

What is? That it's baked into the rules?

Yes. It means if you want to play the game "correctly", you have to do it their way and abide by their constraints. There's no GM discretion on what to do, just on how. At least, that's how it's always read to me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Hardly news to you, but I've been banging on for a decade now that skill challenges are a terrible game. Great narrative pacing mechanism, terrible gameplay. Same issue with fail forward mechanism manifested differently; they take situations that have the potential for strategic decision making, and turn those decisions into story prompts instead of evaluable gameplay. The best case scenario always seems to be yet more negotiation.

Not sure that's true.

Seems to me if you have something like the Chill 3e fail-forward (strong success/moderate success/weak success/mixed success) it doesn't change the strategic decision making that much; it weakens the consequence of bad decisions, but it doesn't actually change the tradeoffs presence. It just sort of resets the rest state.

 

[Maxperson]

Who says it often doesn't happen? Have you been on many overland expeditions? I haven't. My experience with them, such as it is, comes mostly from fiction. And in fiction, when people travel great distances by foot or horse or wagon, they tend to hunt and forage along the way.

Many games played, many fantasy books read, many fantasy shows watched and many fantasy movies watched, the vast majority without herb foraging.

No. We're talking about two different approaches, right? So why would you think I would use your approach to solve the problem. The problem, as I saw it, was you said my method doesn't allow a character to search for herbs and yours does.

I said it doesn't allow for what I do, and it doesn't. What I do isn't simply forage for herbs. The how is also very important.

This whole "like we do" seems more a semantic cover than anything to me. Why would I ever claim to be able to do it like you do it? I literally don't want to do it that way.

What you want isn't relevant. I'm comparing styles, not asking you what you want.

All I was showing is that foraging for herbs can be done in either method. Hence, the problem, as I see it, is solved.

You're now pointing out that my method doesn't allow it "in the moment"... yes, I know! I didn't claim it did nor would I. It makes no sense.

If by "now" you mean always, then sure. From the get go. Stop acting like I'm moving the goal posts.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Many games played, many fantasy books read, many fantasy shows watched and many fantasy movies watched, the vast majority without herb foraging.

I said it doesn't allow for what I do, and it doesn't. What I do isn't simply forage for herbs. The how is also very important.

What you want isn't relevant. I'm comparing styles, not asking you what you want.

If by "now" you mean always, then sure. From the get go. Stop acting like I'm moving the goal posts.

Stop acting like you meant “like we do” to mean something I’d never have claimed.