Search results

I did say some processes, Pemerton.

I always found the exhausting comment more insulting than the conservative one. That part is why IMO several posters seem to see this thread as permission to throw shade at traditionally-minded gamers.

Don't see the swerve. If I was a player, and I had some special thing important to my PC destroyed through means entirely in keeping with setting logic, than so be it. No one character is so important that something like that can't happen in games I play. Worst case scenario you make a new PC.

I can't see DW as a version of D&D.

Unnecessary. Find many rule in the 5e DMG that talks about a PC using a social skill on an NPC (using those terms, please). Even so, there's nothing about how the rules work that prevents PCs from being effected.

I never said it was universal either, just what I want out of a game, whether as GM or player.

No, I don't like the specific restrictions under discussion.

Some decision-making processes are, to my mind, more verisimilitudinous than others.

Not in trad gaming, even if the suggestion was for 5e.

Not if you decide, instead of the rulebook.

Unless those games are not of interest to you, and you said so. Specifically.

Well for starters, the name of stuff don't always seem to line up with the descriptions, from what I'm hearing here.

None of that counts as ironclad, just designer intent (and after publishing, really). And as you say, it's just default, which means only as much as any given GM wants it to mean.

I don't trust WotC's current design philosophy enough to trust them with anything new, but I could get behind reprints of their older stuff. A series of volumes fully reprinting the Strategic Review and Dragon Magazine wouldn't go awry, for example.

Hence the advice in the book explaining what using these rules risks. Way better IMO than just saying "no". No table is required to use these rules. If someone has to say no let it be the GM, not the rules.

I have to agree. There's no ironclad reason social skills can't work on PCs. Just common (but not universal) custom.

Fair enough. Good to know where the lines are.

And like I just said, I'm sure that's how you are seeing it. I don't. Why do you assume that the player doesn't value that verisimilitude as well? Is it because that's how you'd feel about it? If so, then please just state your personal, subjective opinion plainly.

I certainly believe that it comes across that way for you, but please speak for yourself.

Do you carefully consider every one of those actions for every creature on every turn?