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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9716922" data-attributes="member: 6790260">And I just see this as, frankly, legitimizing Extremely Lazy Design. I don't really have a whole lot to say to the preceding stuff, because it all ultimately hinges on this specific problem. I think a game that is being sold to people shouldn't be "and now it's your job to actually build a game out of this", unless it is explicitly sold as a build-your-own-game product.D&D hasn't been that since at least WotC editions. I'd argue it hasn't been that since 2nd edition, given certain turnarounds Gygax had that bled into the game design, but whether that's true or not is a philosophical debate I'm not interested in right now.But this just makes the whole thing circular. The narration takes the form it did because of the skills, but now you're saying we know it must be about skill because of how it was narrated--you've inverted the causation to conclude that it did the right thing. That's circular logic.I don't have a problem with this sort of thing. I find it perfectly acceptable.But you, and others, have specifically brought up the problem of retrocausal situations. Hell, it literally just came up in a conversation I had with someone else. The idea that the failed lockpicking roll "creates" the person walking down the hallway to find it. That's exactly what is happening here. The failed perception roll creates the distractedness of the character--but that distractedness had to have been the cause of the bad result, not the effect of it.Such retrocausal resolution is something most offensive to pretty much everyone I've spoken to who advocates vociferously for simulation.</blockquote>

Verification