Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4590108" data-attributes="member: 54707">Perish the thought SB. But if the front of a building were too engulfed in fire do you think they might seek an alternate way in? Through a back-door, or put up a ladder? Chop a hole through a wall? Do you also think, in the course of their job, if they needed to rescue a trapped person most firefighters would hesitate to risk their own lives to do their job? Of course not. (I’ve seen that happen myself. My old man used to run a volunteer fire dept.) Putting out a fire in an abandoned building is likely heroic to the owner, but not worth the firefighter’s own life if the situation were helpless (I never encouraged entertaining helpless situations). However just because the odds say the risk is dangerous (as opposed to hopeless) doesn’t mean the firefighter wouldn’t risk their own life to save somebody else, odds to the devil. And that’s all I said. Heroes don’t let odds motivate their behavior or impulse to do the right thing.  They do heroic things despite the odds. Jas asked me how do you play such a thing? Heroism? Why you play it just like you would in real life. If it needs to be done you do it because heroism is not odds-determined. It is behavior-determined. I didn’t say it was easy, I said it was simple. And it is. As a matter of fact most of the time you can do the math in your head, even if you’re not real good at math. Alright. I'll bite. What is my normal thought process, and what did I really think it meant was true? I'm just curious in case I ever have to use the phrase again.  I’ll wanna know I’m getting it right next time. Who in God's name ever suggested, even obliquely, that one should shoot for consistent failure? Or any type of failure? The Marshal in my examples won both his fights. Is this another example where you know my thought processes better than I do? Cause I'm beginning to wonder if I've been thinking the wrong way around these things the whole time.  But you know what, even if he had lost his second fight he’d have still been a hero to most folks. Not trying, he wouldn’t have been to many. Is he the guy who had the one about the four legged, the two legged, and the three legged used car salesman? That one always makes me laugh. And if I can make people laugh then I must be doing something right. Alright now, let’s get serious. You raise an interesting point.  You do understand that statistics are created, computed, and compiled as an after action result of action? Statistics are not actions in and of themselves, they are not real events, except to mathematicians, and they get paid to think that way. Statistics are the calculated results of whether men took action (and in this case we appear to be talking game actions), or did not, and what the levels of success they enjoyed as a result of those actions, or what the extent of the level of failure they suffered as a result their actions.  (Or inactions.)I’m gonna posit a theory now. You cannot dissuade a brave man from taking action as a result of the statistical analysis of prior events (statistical calculations can render odds about future behavior, but cannot determine the future), and you cannot encourage a timid man from not taking action by demonstrating to him that statistics are reports of prior behavior. (Meaning you are not automatically condemned to repeat the prior mistakes of others through the operations of statistics, but that doesn’t matter if you believe it is not possible to avoid past mistakes based on a particular analysis of statistical models and what they might imply.)There is however an apparent problem based upon your previous examples. You seem to be implying that dice rolls are numbers only, not mathematical representations of decided [decision] events. Let’s say you need a D20 to hit an opponent. You roll and your attack misses. Now you’ve nothing else to do right? No other decision to make? You’ll eventually hit or you won’t and so will your opponent? But what if, knowing your attack odds with a sword are bad you instead employ a magical item? Throw a spell? Retreat? Set something on fire? Redeploy with bows that have a better chance? Employ a power? Present a feat? Create a distraction so someone can maneuver to a weak point on your opponent? Change your tactics? Or make any other decision(s) based upon any other resource you possess, or that exists in the surrounding environment, that will change the conditions of the battlespace?Even using things that don’t rely so heavily, or maybe not at all, on chance? Then is it still just a matter of die rolls? Then is it a matter of just consistently rolling a 10.5 on a D20? Then is heroism, or success or failure in a venture, just a matter of doing the same ineffective thing over and over again and letting the die roll determine the course of action and the pacing of events? Or do actual decisions then start to modify the outcome value of the die? And shape events despite the temporary vicissitudes of chance? You know why heroes in stories succeed so often, despite the odds? Because when they do one thing that doesn’t work, they try something that will? Because they adapt and overcome, without excuse? Because they do not accept that chance determines their actions and therefore insist on making their own decisions? Because they look for an avenue of advantage while those who deiced fate is their master have given up? Is it also possible that players, while in-game and emulating real heroes, might learn the same skills? Practice the same outlook? Apply the same principles? Even against heavy odds? Someone once told me anything is possible when you trust others to be at least as clever as you are. He didn’t have a fancy name like Sphinx, but he did know something about people. And what they can accomplish if they'll try.But as for me I also never said ignore the odds. I don’t think men should ignore odds. But I also don’t think men should be ruled by them. I said, by example and proclamation, do not let them determine your actions. If you believe that the dice are the primary determinants of your actions in-game (and I ain't saying you do, but that seems to be your implication, but then again it might not be, it could just be a ruse to confuse salesmen), or chance the primary determinant of events in real life for that matter, and will determine the outcome of your every action, then I'd probably suggest that you aren't playing an RPG (and I'm not saying you are - but iffin you were then what does it matter how you play your role if your role will be settled by events beyond your control, by what model of statistical variation is applied in formulating the necessary and operational functions of that particular game’s mechanistic modes of play) but are in actuality playing something very like Russian roulette. Because no matter how good you are at spinning sooner or later, according to the odds you’re gonna pull a hammer that strikes paydirt.) However I'm still failing to see how things like statistics and balance can influence deterministically on either how a character behaves or, for that matter, on how magical items should work. Can statistics control the dice (assuming the dice are all important)? Or do statistics tell you what the dice have reported about prior rolls, about previous events? Or, in the same vein, is balance likely just a game mechanism, like the dice themselves, as statistical calculations are, to determine levels of friction and oppositional force? (That is to say mechanisms are not motives and dice-rolling is not the same as  decision-making, and if balance, and the odds, and statistical models are merely game mechanisms then do they determine the nature of the game and your actions, and if they do then why don't you juts create a computer model to run such calculations ad infinitum? Because you are going to lose encounters, both unbalanced and balanced ones. So why the effort to make decisions of your own based on anything but the inevitability of the numbers? Right? You could play D&D even when asleep by having the statistics that cannot be ignored by mechanisms that cannot be subverted or circumvented by rational action played for you in abstentia and save yourself the trouble of making decisions for yourself or of having to make calculations upon human factors like heroism, right or wrong, or danger and risk. Until that is the statistics tell you that you are going to lose (and eventually you will, statistically speaking), and then the game can be over, you having enjoyed your foray into the dark and dangerous realms of balanced numbers, where the statistical bandersnatch roam. I do though allow for the fact that I may be either exaggerating or misinterpreting your point and the real implications of your argument, and if that is the case then I’ll let you clarify. Unless of course you tell me that’s not really what I meant to say then I’ll just wait to hear what you thought I was really thinking.However I do believe we can agree on one point. The way a person looks at real life is very likely to determine how he thinks his entertainments should operate, that they imply, and what they should be about. But then again maybe we won’t agree on that unless you tell me we do and then I guess there’s nothing I can about that. It's just the way things are.No, I’m just kidding. I’m already working up a plan in the case you’re not thinking what I think you’re thinking I oughtta be thinking.Anyways, I like you Jas. You remind me of an old buddy a mine.It was fun arguing with him too.See ya later.</blockquote>

Verification