RE: [s-d] Re: HH Actions

["Mark Walsh" <flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On: 1/1/06 6:04:40 PM Peter sent:
> Subject: [s-d] Re: HH Actions
>
> "Mark Walsh" <flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > The assertion "my Nimbleness was incremented by one."
> > cannot be evaluated with finality and certainty because,
> > as of the occurance of the assertion, no dice had been rolled.
> > It is, in fact, impossible for the dice roll called for in the Action
> > of Training to occur at a time earlier than the assertion is made
>
> Hmmm. Well, this certainly seems like a reasonable take on the matter,
> and it keeps the game from breaking, so I don't intend to contest it.
>
It was the definition of  'occurance' in 1-3 that cemented it for me.
>
> However, this brings to light that we don't have specified how we
> determine randomness or how we roll dice. We must have gotten rid of
> that at some point. It might be a good idea to put something in there,
> lest someone get ideas about rolling dice in other manners.
>
You are absolutely right about this! NO rules exist regarding the
implementation of SORCs. Only acceptable SORCs are described,
and this not within rules.
Got pens?
>
> > (except perhaps in some Einsteinian existence).
> > [[ Let there be light speed! ]]
>
> I really hope our game never has to deal with that. :)
>
> > [[ I will admit that the ruse was highly creative, and kudos for that!
]]
>
> Thank you. I guess my transaction rule was better than I thought. :)
>
Not at all. Nothing ventured.....

Triller


_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss