NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9715986" data-attributes="member: 6795602">But using conjecture even more highlights the difference between d&d and the runes because we can easily spot the differences from conjectures in d&d and the runes conjecture.A conjecture in d&d is either supported by actual fictional details or not. If not (as in the runes example) then the single detail that the conjecture was made by a supposed expert isn’t the relevant fiction, it’s that a supposed expert made a wild guess based on no evidence at all other than a gut feeling.  In this case the expert status of the conjecturer is unrelated to the truth of the conjecture. In the case where the conjecture is based on relevant fictional facts, then an expert is more likely to form the appropriate conjecture. But it isn’t true that whatever conjecture he makes is more likely. The mechanics in the runes example would simulate the later (whatever conjecture he makes is more likely true, as evidenced by the notion that he could have declared any number of other conjectures). That’s a subtle but important difference.  In 5e d&d the investigation check would simulate the former, having relevant facts and forming the appropriate conjecture based on them.Important note: if it actually is true in the fictional world that no matter what an expert says it’s more likely true, then I’d agree that the runes example was simulative in such a world, but that’s not the case in the runes example and thus why it’s not a simulation of the fictional world.</blockquote>

Verification