thread: 2005-03-10 : Conflict Resolution for Luke

On 2005-04-27, Oliver wrote:

Tony, I think as usual, "it all depends". The system can very much tell you whether you live or die in a fashion that lets you conclude it was heroical or not. If you almost lost your life yourself, because the only way to survive was a daring maneuver, then by all means, you can conclude it was heroical. I think the specific example shows some problems quite well. I want to know if I scar him -but I roll... what? I obviously need to inflict some injury on him, but is my skill at inflicting the injury a decisive factor in whether or not I actually scar him? It provides a necessity, but that necessity doesn't translate to a probability. This to some degree relates to Luke's argument of scope. Is scarring him a valid intent upon which I have some meaningful influence? I can provide a necessity, but whether he suffers a scar or not is largely out of my hands

Elsewhere, the example was safecracking to get some dirty info and the possibility of failing at safecracking but still getting the info e.g. from a paper basket. Ok. If you just make one roll to get the info. But... what if you had that roll influenced by a safecracking skill, say, by adjusting the target number? Is finding it in the paper basket still a sensible option? What influence does safecracking have on finding stuff in the garbage bin?

You may say I think too much in a simulationist fashion, but I think of it more of an issue of suspension of disbelief.


This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":