Gaming philosophy conundra

[Stormcrow]

If I invoke Rule Zero to change Rule Zero, does the game implode?

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Consider a party that's located in the middle of a room with two treasure chests, one on each side, which are equally valuable. With no rational preference for one chest over the other, the party with free will has no valid reason to make a choice, and so must starve to death when their iron rations run out. (Grimtooth missed this trap.)

Surely this requires not only free will but a lack of preference and no ability to make arbitrary decisions?

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

The DM has told you that the location of the boss mob in the dungeon will be a surprise. You know that the boss cannot be located in the last room of the dungeon, because then you'd expect the boss to be there. Knowing that the boss can't be in the last room, you then know it also cannot be in the next-to-last room along the corridor. Similarly for the next-to-next-to-last room, and so, the party can show that the boss cannot be located in any room of the dungeon. The boss thus disappears in a puff of logic, the party gets xp for the boss, and can then easily collect all the loot in the dungeon. Since this conclusion is logically inevitable, the party need not even leave their room in the tavern; they simply get xp and loot.

...but which is the last room in the dungeon?

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

The DM does no prepwork, being completely indifferent to the game, but instead relies only on making things up on the spot during the game as the players ask questions and take actions. Luckily, the GM is very good at remembering whatever he invented, so he never contradicts himself, and he's sufficiently inventive as to always have an answer ready for the players when they ask. Is the GM creating the game, or are the players, by their choice of questions?

The answer is the sound of one hand clapping - that is to say that neither achieves the final effect on their own.

[Anders]

In games with an alignment system - is an action good because the DM says so, or does the DM say so because it is good?

[RyanW]

How does one determine whether they are using Copenhagen dice, Everett dice, or de Broglie–Bohm dice?

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by RyanW

How does one determine whether they are using Copenhagen dice, Everett dice, or de Broglie–Bohm dice?

Dunno about Copenhagen, but I know Chessex have most of their dice made somewhere in Denmark...

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by Varyon

That's not a houserule, that's plagiarism.

What if the altered rule has a mechanical difference but no change in effect, for example, replacing rolling 3d6 with draw with replacement from a set that has an identical distribution?

Originally Posted by Anders

In games with an alignment system - is an action good because the DM says so, or does the DM say so because it is good?

The action is capital G Good because the DM says so. Sometimes the DM says so because it is lowercase g good, sometimes because the book says so, and sometimes just because they say so.

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

If the dragon's hoard is reduced by the thief taking one gold coin at a time, exactly when does the pile stop being a hoard?

Well first of all it's a misconception that all dragon hoards are composed of (or even include) coinage. A dragon's hoard stops being a hoard as soon as any item in the hoard is removed from it, as it becomes an incomplete hoard soon after. Dragons react very badly to their hoards becoming incomplete and may seek a massively larger number of items to alleviate the anxiety caused by losing an item. Returning that item may not be enough to render the hoard complete again. The moral of all this is don't mess with a dragon's hoard.

[baakyocalder]

Killing fellow PCs over orcs is usually a morally more correct action. Many game systems make orcs inherently evil. PCs, although supposed to be nice and good in many systems, are usually murderhobos.

If the PCs aren't murderhobos, then killing an orc may be the better option, but some people will say you're a racist for doing it.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by TGLS

A dragon's hoard stops being a hoard as soon as any item in the hoard is removed from it, as it becomes an incomplete hoard soon after.

True. But in that case, when would an incomplete hoard become a complete hoard while building it?

We know dragons do not ever stop collecting their hoards. Clearly, the dragon themselves always considers their hoard incomplete, and so (as you say) always seeks to collect a massive number of items. This incomplete hoard becomes no more incomplete due to the removal of one tiny coin or cup. And while the dragon may be vengeful, it's no more avaricious. Indeed, it's not possible for a creature to be more avaricious than a dragon, as they have maxed Greed stats, while a content dragon is an oxymoron, nowhere to be found in the Bestiary.

If the dragon's attitude doesn't change due to removal of one item, then it's a difference that makes no difference, and so not actually a difference at all. But if removal of one item was not a difference, then the dragon would not notice -- and we certainly know that they do. Having reached a contradiction, we know that there must be an error in the postulates.

[Lovewyrm]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

True. But in that case, when would an incomplete hoard become a complete hoard while building it?

We know dragons do not ever stop collecting their hoards. Clearly, the dragon themselves always considers their hoard incomplete, and so (as you say) always seeks to collect a massive number of items. This incomplete hoard becomes no more incomplete due to the removal of one tiny coin or cup. And while the dragon may be vengeful, it's no more avaricious. Indeed, there's it's not possible for a creature to be more avaricious than a dragon, as they have maxed Greed stats, while a content dragon is an oxymoron, nowhere to be found in the Bestiary.

If the dragon's attitude doesn't change due to removal of one item, then it's a difference that makes no difference, and so not actually a difference at all. But if removal of one item was not a difference, then the dragon would not notice -- and we certainly know that they do. Having reached a contradiction, we know that there must be an error in the postulates.

Maybe the dragon just makes a new hoard but also keeps the old one as a keepsake?
That way the overall hoard grows, in fact, now the dragon has two, but the defilement of the hoard is also reflected and made a somewhat corporeal reminder of the crime against it.

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by Lovewyrm

Maybe the dragon just makes a new hoard but also keeps the old one as a keepsake?
That way the overall hoard grows, in fact, now the dragon has two, but the defilement of the hoard is also reflected and made a somewhat corporeal reminder of the crime against it.

Once an item (or an atom) has been part of a hoard, it is part of a hoard forever.

Therefore the ultimate destiny of all matter is to become part of a hoard.

There are some who would argue that this has already happened.