Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7341498" data-attributes="member: 82106">But I think you were saying they CANNOT really know, that there are too many unknown factors, or at least that unknowability is an option. I don't believe that is an option. I might make the players resolve the odds by actions of their PCs as a concomitant of the wager (and I guess that opens up the possibility they could deliberately choose a 'blind wager' if they really want to).Here we will simply have to fundamentally disagree. I don't think it is the GM's purview alone to know this (and the GM will, necessarily decide it in this case). That's the GM deciding what wagers are worth taking and depriving the players of agency. What meaning do decisions have when you have no way of understanding the consequences? In the real world that might be how it is, but the real world isn't a game and lacks drama or narrative (except where we impose such after the fact). This is where our agendas part ways, apparently. I'm not going to dig into my notions of whether the concept of 'world simulation'  is even valid in terms of its feasibility in RPGs, but I do propose that it isn't part of my agenda at all. I think there's a certain core 'base and ground' of essential cause-effect relationships that needs to mostly hold true in order to play, like gravity works pretty much like in the real world, etc. However I'm not interested in 'simulation' per se.</blockquote>