Mark Walsh on Sun, 1 Jan 2006 20:41:29 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: [s-d] Re: HH Actions

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.....


spoon-discuss mailing list