Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9678765" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think because you aren’t refuting the idea of only rolling when something interesting will happen. I expect that’s not a rule you play by. You likely call for rolls with some other criteria… like “only roll when the outcome is in doubt”, maybe. If that’s the rule about rolling dice, then sure, it may be implausible that every outcome would be interesting. But what people are saying is that if the rule is “don’t roll unless the outcome will be interesting” then it’s not implausible for rolls to produce interesting results… the rule says they must! Now, perhaps such a rule wouldn’t work for you… you may feel that having interesting things occur as frequently as such a rule would dictate to stretch believability. That’s my reading of what you’ve said… but it’s not entirely clear. I don’t think it stretches believability… it’s probably that rolls will be less frequent, but individually more weighty. But really, this just seems like another instance of judging one approach through the lens of another. Like you’re assuming the frequency of rolls to be similar and so you’re assuming implausibility based on that assumption.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 9678765, member: 6785785"] I think because you aren’t refuting the idea of only rolling when something interesting will happen. I expect that’s not a rule you play by. You likely call for rolls with some other criteria… like “only roll when the outcome is in doubt”, maybe. If that’s the rule about rolling dice, then sure, it may be implausible that every outcome would be interesting. But what people are saying is that if the rule is “don’t roll unless the outcome will be interesting” then it’s not implausible for rolls to produce interesting results… the rule says they must! Now, perhaps such a rule wouldn’t work for you… you may feel that having interesting things occur as frequently as such a rule would dictate to stretch believability. That’s my reading of what you’ve said… but it’s not entirely clear. I don’t think it stretches believability… it’s probably that rolls will be less frequent, but individually more weighty. But really, this just seems like another instance of judging one approach through the lens of another. Like you’re assuming the frequency of rolls to be similar and so you’re assuming implausibility based on that assumption. [/QUOTE]

Verification