no i'm not. I may not agree with you, you may not agree with me...but no I am not wrong all 6 stats are what my character is...whay I am roleplaying as
You are not wrong that you character is your character sheet. You are wrong that we can treat mental and social skills exactly the same as physical skills. That's impossible. Whether we think that's unfortunate or fortunate is a different matter.
but we can get close enough... and we do so by useing the numbers
I'm not opposed to that. I'm going to rearrange your response a bit to show this.
You wrote about your process of play:
"no I am saying "that's a great idea, lets roll to see how well it works"
a high roll it works as intended
a low roll it doesn't work as intended
having a better skill increases odds of high
having a bad skill and disadvantage makes odd of bad result more likely.."
Great.
That is exactly the same as my process of play. You are describing exactly what happens at my table as well. So we can't be in as much disagreement as you think.
But there is something you left out of that description, and I'm going to try to get you to see it. And I hope when you see it you are going to see where I am coming from.
I can make a puzzel and watch someone larp beating it.. or I can set a DC and when people try have them roll
Yes, you can. There is nothing wrong with either one.
Oh you can try. There are a range of different play styles you can adopt that prioritize or depriotize a player's intelligence, judgement and social skills versus what's on the character sheet. But you can never get of them completely and it still be an RPG.
nope... and good rule of thumb don't tell people what they mean and what they don't
I hear you, but it's just a rule of thumb.
So let's get back to what you left out of your process of play.
Suppose the players come to a walled garden which you describe. One wall is smooth stone. Another wall has carved decorations on it. Another wall has ivy growing up it. A third wall has a tree that is growing near it which has a branch that overhangs the top of the wall.
Four players enter the garden. You ask them what they want to do? And it turns out that they all want to climb over the wall to see what is on the other side. Does it matter which side they use? That is to say in your game are all four of those walls equally easy to climb? Or to put it another way, do some choices that the players make earn them advantage and disadvantage? Because if choices the player can make, whether climbing the ivy or using a grappling hook can change the difficulty of a task, they you haven't taken the player from the equation. Because of choices a player can make do give advantage and disadvantage, sooner or later you are going to get into a situation where the character with weak climbing ability is succeeding more often than the character with good climbing ability.
How far do you really take this fortune at the beginning concept? You hinted that you railroad players in your prior posts using the "your character would know better" method. Do you make the player roll the climb check and then decide based on how well they did which wall and method they climbed up? Or is every wall the same difficulty and only the character skill matters such that the character skill describes the world?
infact if you did I would go out of my way to have creatures with scent and keen hearing all over the place just to show you how wrogn you are...
So, you are really upset by the idea that players might metagame the GM, but you are actually bragging about how you the GM might megagame against potential players?
You are more and more convincing me that your obsession with making sure player skill doesn't matter is actively adversarial GMing. Is that why players throw things at you? I hope that hasn't happened in the last 20 years or so.
