Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

[Captain_Bleach]

1184244437[/unixtime]]
WARNING: DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE CRYING

Witch is one of the "reasonable" people on WotC.

I'm not crying. I'm laughing my ass off.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Here's the "I win" tactic for the beating the dragon and it's "indirect influence".

Someone proposed that he was going to make a party of 5 wizards and a healer (from what I gather). Each wizard, each day summons a monster capable of the dragon-slaying deed (party of 5 dragon-slaying monsters). Then, sends the monster(s) to kill the dragon while scrying on it. Todays failed plan just gets better tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, ect. Then, if the dragon actually comes out of it's lair (which you are assured it won't), they just fry it.

[NineInchNall]

1184349921[/unixtime]]
If you roll a 20 on your attack roll, you hit your opponent. Therefore: If you miss your opponent, you did not roll a 20 on your attack roll.

• Rolls a natural 20.
  
• Fails Concealment Miss Check.
  
• Head Explodes.

Well, isn't that just because the initial conditional statement is unsound?

[Immortius]

Frank is correct.

The only way to get logical statements out of a rule set is to analyse them in their entirety. Individual rules cannot be converted straight to logical statements.

There are actually somewhat complex rules for analysing computer programs in order to derive logical statements describing their behaviour and ultimately prove their correctness, and most computer programs are a bajillion times more structured and less ambiguous than the D&D rules.

[bitnine]

1184822584[/unixtime]]Well, isn't that just because the initial conditional statement is unsound?

Yeah... that was sort of the initial point. If you look back, the exchange was basically:

"That's a contrapositive. The contrapositive is not deductively valid. Like [example of untrue contrapositive]."
"Dude, but [example f untrue contrapositive] is totally right!"
"I hate you."

[NineInchNall]

Ah, I see.

[Username17]

1184822584[/unixtime]]

1184349921[/unixtime]]
If you roll a 20 on your attack roll, you hit your opponent. Therefore: If you miss your opponent, you did not roll a 20 on your attack roll.

• Rolls a natural 20.
  
• Fails Concealment Miss Check.
  
• Head Explodes.

Well, isn't that just because the initial conditional statement is unsound?

It goes beyond that. The initial statement is not a conditional statement. It's not even a statement. It's a rule from right out of the Player's Handbook, and it's a triggered directive.

The trigger is "you roll a 20", and the directive is "you hit your opponent" - but it doesn't have a truth value because it's just telling you to recognize the attack as a hit as part of a rule chain. If another rule comes in (like say, concealment or incorporeality) and tells you to change that attack to a miss, that's fine and in no way makes the previous rule false.

Remember: sentential logic has no effect at all on questions, exclamations, or directives. A rulebook is filled almost entirely with directives, so basic sentential logic is almost completely useless at all times when attempting to parse one.

-Username17

[Catharz]

1184844434[/unixtime]]
There are actually somewhat complex rules for analysing computer programs in order to derive logical statements describing their behaviour and ultimately prove their correctness, and most computer programs are a bajillion times more structured and less ambiguous than the D&D rules.

"Somewhat complex" as in 'good fucking luck unless it's purely functional (and therefore does behave 'logically')'.

[tzor]

It may only be initiutively obvious to a "casual observer" but a computer program is not a "rules set." It is an "instruction set." Rules exist and are all true at once. Instructions are followed in some sort of order.

D&D, oddly enough, is a combination of the two.

[RandomCasualty]

1184865769[/unixtime]]It may only be initiutively obvious to a "casual observer" but a computer program is not a "rules set." It is an "instruction set." Rules exist and are all true at once. Instructions are followed in some sort of order.

D&D, oddly enough, is a combination of the two.

Well the rules to a game are really the same as an instruction set assuming the rules are well written. It's just that the instructions don't necessarily appear in order in the rulebook.

But good rules operate exactly like a coded computer program.

D&D is however very patchwork because they can't change the base code, and thus are forced to have a bunch of modifications that exist elsewhere and interact with it.

[bitnine]

1184865769[/unixtime]]It may only be initiutively obvious to a "casual observer" but a computer program is not a "rules set." It is an "instruction set." Rules exist and are all true at once. Instructions are followed in some sort of order.

This is untrue. There exist both imperative and declarative programming languages. Take Prolog, for example, a declarative programming language that is framed in terms of logical rules with program outputs that can often be thought of as a byproduct of that proof. Some flavors of Prolog are seriously comprised of just Horn clauses. Rules-based programming not only exists but is a fascinating field.

I guess you could try and frame all written D&D rules (and rules that form exceptions) into clauses and then have a computer resolve your propositions, but you'd have to be some sort of giant nerd to even attempt such a thing.

(Hell, I could have even gone with a more common reference by siting SQL as an example of a declarative language. "SELECT * FROM Table;" is a desired result, not an instruction - the DBMS query optimizer is the one who generates instructions to meet that result in a manner outside the query language itself.)

So take that, casual observers!

[Edit]To expand upon that, the following Prolog code formulates the rules that define an insertion sort:

Code: Select all

%The following rules can be used to determine if one list is the sorted version of another:[br]%Assert: An element is at the top of a list if it is the first element of the list.  (A convenience.)[br]top([First|_],First).[br]%Assert: Inserting an element into an empty list results in a list of just that element.[br]insertadd([],Element,[Element]).[br]%Assert: An element belongs on top of an ordered list IF that element is less than the lists's top.[br]insertadd(List,Element, [Element|List]):-top(List,First), Element<=First.[br]%Assert: An element belongs in the body (but not top) of a list IF that element is greater than the list's top SUCH THAT the top belongs on a ordered body (sans itself) including that element.[br]insertadd([First|List], Element, [First|Result]) :- Element>First, insertadd(List, Element, Result).[br]%Assert: An empty list is sorted.[br]isort([], []).[br]%Assert: A particular result is a sorted version of a list IF the body of the sorted list (sans the top) is sorted and the top belongs on top.[br]isort([First|Rest],Result):-isort(Rest,Return), insertadd(Return, First, Result).

That's SWI-Prolog, and if you seriously tell the environment "isort([5,4,3,2,7,4,6],X). it will then go ahead and find the X that makes the statement true. Nary an instruction to be found, just solving for an X. [Edit*2: Added comments to illustrate.]

[Zherog]

1184881952[/unixtime]](Hell, I could have even gone with a more common reference by siting SQL as an example of a declarative language. "SELECT * FROM Table;" is a desired result, not an instruction - the DBMS query optimizer is the one who generates instructions to meet that result in a manner outside the query language itself.)

And, of course, you can get even more wacky by using PL/SQL, where you have the same SQL command, but wrapped inside a procedural language.

You can also embed that SQL into another language such as C or COBOL and have all sorts of fun interactions.

Then, of course, how your query optimizer parses the text depends both on your DB settings and the code itself.

[Rob_Knotts]

THIS thread just started making me laugh/cry...

[shirak]

1184914973[/unixtime]]THIS thread just started making me laugh/cry...

You forgot to post a link

[SunTzuWarmaster]

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.p ... r][br]Just because it seems like everyone has to get their say in. I think 'no' was fairly clear, simple, and direct.

[Artless]

It's nice that nobody ever reads chapter 10.

I need to come up with a witty saying that pertains to that.

[Crissa]

Sheesh, and you'd think that no one had ever thought that it's just as valid to come up with a Ray-Chain Metamagic.

Besides, if a Ray doesn't give a saving throw, how would the book Chain's effect even work?

-Crissa

[Aktariel]

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.p ... r][br]Just thought I'd brighten everyone's day with this little gem.

Enjoy!

[Any thoughts on my original question/rants about Tome of Battle/ things you'd like to add?]

Please do! Here or there.

[MrWaeseL]

Don't we call a divine gish a cleric?

Also we have a thread for posting retarded or funny wotc boards threads.

[JonSetanta]

Eh, I don't get it. Got bored after the fifth post or so of you all going back and forth about 'joking' and 'supposedly good'.

Cleric = pwn, and needs to be fixed. That we all know.

So what's the deal about making a divine gish? That's redundant.

[tzor]

:jawdrop: Someone just mentioned E6 in the WoTC D&D General Board :jawdrop:

So far the arguments are as follows:

• OMG how can you say that like Gandalf is not the uber 30+ level character?
  
  
• OMG you got peanutbutter on the chocolate boards. Someone move this thread ASAP? Mod? Mod? HELP!

[Username17]

E6 makes Fighters obsolete?

-Username17

[Immortius]

He comes back to life after dying. That's a bit higher than 3rd level magic.

Yeah. Because Gandalf obviously resurrected himself.

[tzor]

The whole Gandalf thing is a total laugh. A "balrog" is a "mighy demon" (doesn't anyone read Tolkien elvish these days) and has no direct relation to any AD&D monster type. Gandalf doesn't "defeat" the balrog, gravity defeats the balrog after a very long fall. Note also that Galdalf also dies.

Gandalf simply cannot be expressed in D&D terms. (I mean what wizard would fall for a fall without feather fall.) In fact he generally appears more of a druid than a wizard with his relations with the lords of the eagles.

Those stats were made by translating the ICE LotR modules into d20 rules. It was made by actually looking at the whole history of Middle Earth, instead of just rough assumptions based on reading the Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit once through.

That is too funny in too many ways. Oh the holy translation of the sacred scriptures must not be questioned.

[shirak]

I believe it was Dork Tower that put it best:

"Gandalf MUST be high level. After all, he defeated a mighty demon!"
"Well, how do we know Balrogs really are that powerful?"
"Um, Gandalf told us."