New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 121 to 123 of 123
  1. - Top - End - #121
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2021

    Default Re: Why I think the OOT is better off not going to the final dungeon.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    It's not about speaking for someone else. It's about how basic logic works.

    "A=true" does not mean that "!A=false"
    Point of order: this IS how basic logic works. If A is true, then by definition, negation of A is false. Not that it changes your argument. You probably meant to say "...does not mean that things that aren't A are false."

    Also, not marking a cleared dungeon would make it obvious something's wrong if they decided to go in there and saw there are no monsters. Not a smart move if you ask me.

  2. - Top - End - #122
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: Why I think the OOT is better off not going to the final dungeon.

    That you are throwing around "we" when you should be saying "I" is entirely about speaking for someone else. Any We I belong to is entirely comfortable stating that the creature in the darkness did not leave an explored door unmarked. Do not presume.

  3. - Top - End - #123
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Why I think the OOT is better off not going to the final dungeon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xirdus View Post
    Point of order: this IS how basic logic works. If A is true, then by definition, negation of A is false. Not that it changes your argument. You probably meant to say "...does not mean that things that aren't A are false."
    Correct. Sorry. I'm too used to using that syntax in a different way.

    "!A" in this case means "things not A". meaning "B", or "C", or "D" (huh. What is the syntax for "set of all cases that aren't A"?). I probably should have been more clear.

    What I'm saying is that if A is true, that does not mean that B is false (ie: A is not the only thing that can be true).

    To put this back in to the actual case at hand: If "MitD marks extra doors after each exploration" (A) is "true". This does not mean that "MitD does not mark the door explored after each exporation (B)" is "false". Nor does it mean "MitD dances a jig after each exploration" (C) is "false" either. Nor, for that matter, any other thing that we might speculate that MitD might do. The fact that A is true does not preclude other things being true as well. But the argument I'm running into is that because we have seen A being true (MitD marking extra doors), this means (with 100% certainty even) that nothing else can be. That is clearly not correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xirdus View Post
    Also, not marking a cleared dungeon would make it obvious something's wrong if they decided to go in there and saw there are no monsters. Not a smart move if you ask me.
    No, it wouldn't. It would make them assume they happened to enter a dungeon that the bugbears had previously cleared. They'd probably only start to think something was up if they ran into several dungeons that were empty. The only thing that would immediately guarantee a "Something is wrong with our marks" is if they enter a marked dungeon and find live monsters in it. Which, btw, is exactly what actually happened.

    And that's the point I find really flummuxing about this whole discussion. The entire argument that MitD can't possibly have decided to not mark doors that were entered rests around the assumption that doing so would cause discovery of his actions. But that argument ignores that marking extra doors *also* runs the risk of being discovered (which, you know, actually happened). Even if not by chasing the Order into a marked dungeon and finding live monsters in it (as happened in the strip), but merely stopping and counting and realizing that there's way more doors marked than they've explored.

    So yeah. I don't get why some people are insistent that MitD wouldn't do one action because it would be obviously counter productive and likely to be discovered, when the action he did take is also counter productive and likely to be discovered (arguably *more* counter productive and *more* likely to be discovered, but that's somewhat subjective).

    Heck. Even if it's not discovered, by marking additional doors, MitD is decreasing the time it will take TE to "mark all the doors". We can only speculate what they would do at that point, but it definitely takes this from "it'll take 200 days at 2 doors a day to search all 400 doors", to "they finish marking all the doors in ~50 days, and then try something else". It's not actually a very good idea as it stands, so I'm not sure how one rejects another thing that's also not a very good idea. The same mind that would think one would work, might also think the other would (or hey, maybe do both?). The larger point is that we just can't say with anything close to 100% certainty that MitD didn't try this on at least some of the doors. And that risk alone should be enough to not try to do anything that counts on assuming the marked doors are at all accurate measurements of which dungeons TE has or has not explored.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •