|
3 years ago ::
Nov 29, 2009 - 12:53PM
#461
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
When I'm discussing my job, am I also discussing the education which lead to that job? When discussing a friend's whiplash, am I also discussing the increased traffic which contributed to him having an accident? Hardly.
When you are discussing your job, you're discussing your job. Your education is part of what got you your job, so it is a contributing factor. If you and were discussing your job, it would be perfectly valid for me to ask you about your degree or training. When you are discussing your friend's whiplash, that is a direct consequence of the car accident, so you are discussing his accident. Traffic would be a contributing factor and a perfectly valid part of the conversation.
When you are discussing ANY consequence, you are ALSO discussing the action that lead to that consequence, even if you only touch briefly on that action. Otherwise there are virtually no meaning to your words. If you come to me and say "We should bomb Iran.", I'm going to stare at you blankly and say "So what." You need to give a reason for the statement for it to really have meaning. Something like "We should bomb Iran(consequence) because they are building nuclear weapons(action that warrants consequence)." We can then engage in a meaningful discussion about bombing Iran. We may or may not talk about Iran's nuclear capability, but we must touch however briefly on the reasons behind your statements, and makes it a part of the discussion.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 29, 2009 - 2:02PM
#462
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
When you are discussing your job, you're discussing your job. Your education is part of what got you your job, so it is a contributing factor. If you and were discussing your job, it would be perfectly valid for me to ask you about your degree or training. When you are discussing your friend's whiplash, that is a direct consequence of the car accident, so you are discussing his accident. Traffic would be a contributing factor and a perfectly valid part of the conversation.
Sure, it would be perfectly valid if either came up. If. As in, nothing says it will or even should come up.
When you are discussing ANY consequence, you are ALSO discussing the action that lead to that consequence, even if you only touch briefly on that action. Otherwise there are virtually no meaning to your words. If you come to me and say "We should bomb Iran.", I'm going to stare at you blankly and say "So what." You need to give a reason for the statement for it to really have meaning. Something like "We should bomb Iran(consequence) because they are building nuclear weapons(action that warrants consequence)." We can then engage in a meaningful discussion about bombing Iran. We may or may not talk about Iran's nuclear capability, but we must touch however briefly on the reasons behind your statements, and makes it a part of the discussion.
"We should bomb Iran" is a rather more provocative statement than "houserule X might cause problems". Moreover, in your example you're still not discussing Iran building nuclear weapons, your analogy for the houserule. You're referencing a fact, that's all. If you were to dispute this fact or put it in perspective it'd be different, but I don't (need or want to) do that with regards to the houserule.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 29, 2009 - 2:08PM
#463
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
What does this rule really add to the game should be the primary question. As far as I can see all it does is pander to min/maxers, which is NOT role playing. If your worrying about the numbers you really are not role playing. You could easily tell the same story with a character with 8st and 18 or 20int. You dont need to lower one and raise the other. So to me since the rule adds nothing it should not exist. The only house rules that should exist are those that help add something interesting to the game this does not seem to.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 29, 2009 - 3:01PM
#464
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2004
|
They are less common than 18's. An 18 only needs 3 out of 4 dice to read 6's. A 6 requires all 4 dice to be 1's and 2's. To get a 3, all 4 dice must read 1.
X = 4d6, keep highest 3.
[a,b,c,d] = any permutation of a, b, c and d
p(X==18) = p([6,6,6,6]) + p([6,6,6,5]) + p([6,6,6,4]) + p([6,6,6,3]) + p([6,6,6,2]) + p([6,6,6,1])
= 1/1296 + 4/1296 + 4/1296 + 4/1296 + 4/1296 + 4/1296
= 21/1296
p(X==3) = p([1,1,1,1])
= 1/1296
p(X==4) = p([2,1,1,1])
= 4/1296
P(X==5) = p([3,1,1,1]) + p([2,2,1,1])
= 4/1296 + 6/1296
= 10/1296
P(X==6) = p([4,1,1,1]) + p([3,2,1,1]) + p([2,2,2,2) + p([2,2,2,1])
= 4/1296 + 12/1296 + 1/1296 + 4/1296
= 17/1296
p(X<=6) = p(X==3) + p(X==4) + p(X==5) + p(X==6)
= 1/1296 + 4/1296 + 10/1296 + 17/1296
= 32/1296
Conclusion: a 6 or lower is 50% more likely than an 18.
Eywa ngahu
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 29, 2009 - 3:39PM
#465
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2008
|
What does this rule really add to the game should be the primary question. As far as I can see all it does is pander to min/maxers, which is NOT role playing. If your worrying about the numbers you really are not role playing. You could easily tell the same story with a character with 8st and 18 or 20int. You dont need to lower one and raise the other. So to me since the rule adds nothing it should not exist. The only house rules that should exist are those that help add something interesting to the game this does not seem to.
I feel the same way.
I love Horseshoecrabfolk.
What I love most about them is that they seem to be the one thing that we all can agree on.
See for yourself, click here!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 29, 2009 - 4:06PM
#466
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
So to me since the rule adds nothing it should not exist.
Key words: "to me".
If I use a houserule that divine powers are granted by a deity and can be taken away, that adds something IMO. I know for a fact that not everyone feels the same way (and I'm pretty sure I remember you disagreeing).
Bottom line: you shouldn't assume your opinion or standards to be universal.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 29, 2009 - 5:16PM
#467
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
As far as I can see all it does is pander to min/maxers, which is NOT role playing. If your worrying about the numbers you really are not role playing.
Which fallacy is this one? Oberroni? Stormwind? The one that says that if you focus on numbers then you can't also be a good roleplayer?
I honestly fail to see what one has to do with another. The numbers/stats part of D&D can and does exist alongside of (and sometimes outside of) roleplay. You can be the deepest number-cruncher, the most hardcore min-maxer, and the most CharOp-dependant guy in the world and still be a good roleplayer. On the flip-side, you can not give a flip about one thing on your CRS and still be a good roleplayer. They are not co-dependent.
The only house rules that should exist are those that help add something interesting to the game this does not seem to.
To you, perhaps. Others see things differently. When I institute a houserule, it's not always because it "adds something to the game". It can come in many forms. Unbalanced rules can receive houserules. Broken items/combos can receive houserules. Fluff can receive houserules. Houserules don't have to add anything to a game. Houserules can take away as well as add. They can modify. They can reword. They can be so minor as to be unnoticed by those not in the position to notice them or so obvious as to alter the entire flow of the game.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 29, 2009 - 6:11PM
#468
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Which fallacy is this one? Oberroni? Stormwind?
That's the Stormwind Fallacy that williamhm just ran afoul of.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 29, 2009 - 6:25PM
#469
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
That's the Stormwind Fallacy that williamhm just ran afoul of.
It's hard to keep track sometimes between the dozen fallacies, circular arguments, straw men, goal-post shifting, and other forum faux-pas that seem to crop up constantly. Many thanks.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 29, 2009 - 6:26PM
#470
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
What does this rule really add to the game should be the primary question. As far as I can see all it does is pander to min/maxers, which is NOT role playing. If your worrying about the numbers you really are not role playing. You could easily tell the same story with a character with 8st and 18 or 20int. You dont need to lower one and raise the other. So to me since the rule adds nothing it should not exist. The only house rules that should exist are those that help add something interesting to the game this does not seem to.
William this rule adds the most important rule that any game can ever have. "Fun".
|
|
|
