Wyvern
Explorer
Dude. No. When the topic is what I meant, me saying "no, I don't mean that," is fricking definitive.
I get that. I really do. What I don't get is why you were unwilling to simply take the time to explain more clearly what you *did* mean. (ETA: Yes, it's frustrating when you're trying to explain something and the other guy persistently misses the point. But it's pretty uncharitable to assume that the misunderstanding must be entirely the other guy's fault.)
Also, as long as we're on the topic of what people meant, me saying "What you're talking about *could* legitimately be described as a 'group check' in a certain sense," is *not* the same as me saying "You say you're not talking about group checks but I think you're lying." If you can't see the difference, that's unfortunate, but it's the truth.
In any case, I can see that continuing to push the point wouldn't do anybody any good, so let me try to start over. Please answer, yes or no: Is *this* an accurate summation of what you were suggesting in your original post?
On rereading this post, it seems to me that he's suggesting that *any* failure would result in a "setback", not just failure by a certain margin. ... as I understand it, [he] is saying that additional people making a skill check increases the chance of success while *also* increasing the chance of a setback, because it's not binary -- if one character succeeds at the check while another fails, the goal has been achieved but at a cost. (That's *not* possible if a single character is making the check, because they can either succeed or fail, but not both.)
If it is, then nothing further needs to be said. If not, then the only way that anything constructive is going to come out of the tangent that you started is if you clarify what it is that you did mean. If you'd rather just drop the whole thing, that's your prerogative; I won't try to pursue it any further.
(For the record, I wasn't deliberately trying to stir the pot by restarting an argument that had already concluded, I simply came late to the discussion because I hadn't been paying attention to this thread over the weekend. I should have known better, and I apologize if I caused any hard feelings, but I really did think you were being a bit unfair to Clayton.)
Wyvern
Last edited: