Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9203217" data-attributes="member: 7025508">So are you now arguing that the test was to establish how long it took to cook the meat, and that the causal connection for the bandits arriving is that it took long? Would the same have occurred had the PCs took the same time to do something else? Perhaps something that did not involve a check. Furthermore, you earlier argued that the test was not to establish how well the character cooked, but like I have said already, if cooking fast is the goal then cooking slowly is cooking badly.But I doubt this is what you mean, as I remember from our previous &quot;documents in the safe&quot; discussion that you don't care whether a causal connection exists.In any case, the comment about lack of logic is not judgement about your playstyle, but about the specific resolution approach. It seems illogical to me to use values that represent character competence and difficulty of the task in the setting to establish the odds of failure unless that failure is related to the aforementioned things. Using them to establish the likelihood of causally unrelated thing is illogical.And that the resolution framework might contain such lapse in logic, doesn't necessarily mean it is bad. For example here the goal is to have mechanism for introducing complications in a manner where their timing does not rely on GM judgement. And if one considers this a worthwhile trade, then the resolution framework is fine. But I think it is valuable to recognise that such a trade-off is happening. For example if one wanted to have causally logical resolution framework and disclaim GM decision making at the same time they would need to search for other approaches.It is not same thing at all. AC represents person's capability to defend themselves, so of course failing to hit it can be narrated as the defender blocking.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crimson Longinus, post: 9203217, member: 7025508"] So are you now arguing that the test was to establish how long it took to cook the meat, and that the causal connection for the bandits arriving is that it took long? Would the same have occurred had the PCs took the same time to do something else? Perhaps something that did not involve a check. Furthermore, you earlier argued that the test was not to establish how well the character cooked, but like I have said already, if cooking fast is the goal then cooking slowly is cooking badly. But I doubt this is what you mean, as I remember from our previous "documents in the safe" discussion that you don't care whether a causal connection exists. In any case, the comment about lack of logic is not judgement about your playstyle, but about the specific resolution approach. It seems illogical to me to use values that represent character competence and difficulty of the task in the setting to establish the odds of failure unless that failure is related to the aforementioned things. Using them to establish the likelihood of causally unrelated thing is illogical. And that the resolution framework might contain such lapse in logic, doesn't necessarily mean it is bad. For example here the goal is to have mechanism for introducing complications in a manner where their timing does not rely on GM judgement. And if one considers this a worthwhile trade, then the resolution framework is fine. But I think it is valuable to recognise that such a trade-off is happening. For example if one wanted to have causally logical resolution framework and disclaim GM decision making at the same time they would need to search for other approaches. It is not same thing at all. AC represents person's capability to defend themselves, so of course failing to hit it can be narrated as the defender blocking. [/QUOTE]

Verification