Search results

I used the quotes to mean the label usually used, rather than the actual thing itself. What I would say, then, is that skilled play is not actually harmed in newer editions--it is simply something that the GM cannot achieve with minimal effort. If the GM wishes to provide a challenge, they...

Would you say you are of the opinion that "skilled play" is just a byword for lots of tedium, then?

Would you say your intent was more "putting certain kinds of traps into a random cave is blatantly unrealistic, and thus not something a novice player would necessarily expect, but an experienced player would know to look for things that are genre-appropriate but unrealistic"?

Limited to only 5.5e, there are currently only four since...we haven't gotten any more books yet. With 5.0, though, there were nine. That's rather a lot to ask development for, I'd say.

The natural state of being is ignorance. We only change that state by asking questions. I will always prompt my players to ask questions, generally with descriptions I hope are evocative and curious, inherently inviting, "But why would that be so...?" If something genuinely doesn't make sense...

Perhaps. I personally think it is a good and healthy recognition that what is often passed off as "skilled play" is actually itself simply another form of deeply flawed play, and that the hyperfocus on solely bad-faith-players, while ignoring bad-faith-GMs, is a common error that leads to...

Based on what was discussed in the previous thread.... I am apparently a diehard new-school fan (4e, 13A, and DW are among my favorite systems)...who demands skilled play. Which I have been repeatedly told, albeit not quite in so many words, should be a logical impossibility. I am also...

Fair enough. I guess, given how insistent and frequent the claims are, and how hard the lines have been drawn in the sand, I had thought there was more to it than "we ignored the stuff that didn't fit our perception back then, but have major issues with the stuff that doesn't fit that perception...

Indeed, everything I've heard about proper early-edition D&D is that making optimal choices was extremely strongly pursued. That's why the Cleric came into existence in the first place, because Sir Fang the Vampire Fighter had become unstoppable by exploiting optimal choices. That's why the ear...

If that "rankles a skill play GM", why was it included all the way back in 1e? It's not like we're talking about some weird obscure supplement or a late development in the wild and woolly days of Skills & Powers. I was given to understand--based on the claim that old-school systems are about...

Then...refuse to allow the players to do this? That's literally what I do whenever I GM Dungeon World....both because it's what the rules explicitly require, and because it's what I would always ask of my players whenever I am GM. You cannot "Roll Perception". You can observe your environment...

Okay. Why does equipment count as "not intrinsic of the character's elements"? Is the non-standard usage the primary component here, and the foregoing portion less so? Why are magic-user spells acceptable, but other kinds of character elements aren't? Not going to lie, this doesn't really...

Genuine question here. What is "player skill"? Like...what is it, what is the thing that is happening when one is displaying it? What is the thing one acquires by attempting it and failing to display it? What is gained through it? Because every time I've asked someone to explain the...

Are you sure? I have to be skeptical, because I'm telling white lies if I make arguments based on my personal experience, so the fact that this is achievable at all must be subject to skepticism.

So....4e mechanics, but with better presentation? I feel like you've dismissed this exact same proposal multiple times before...so it's strange to see you so confidently making it now.

4e did it. Even if you don't like the result, it proves that it can be done without this alleged "off the charts" effort.

But that literally was not the argument being made: This is not "every single NPC (of a certain type) uses X, therefore my character should be able to, too." This is "if any NPC (of a certain type) uses X, then my character should be able to, too." Your claim is a for-all type. His is a...

Sure, but IMO much more to the point, they gave a specific breakdown of exactly why they did so--and it is pretty much the same criticisms that have been brought up over and over and over again for decades. The system is fundamentally unbalanced in a way that makes it difficult to design...

So instead....they listened to....people who heard about the "D&D Next" playtest....on forums...? Your argument doesn't make any sense.

I assume this got cut off. If we are admitting this though, we are talking about a situation where there are concessions to practicality. With such concessions in play, we can't make arguments like the one I responded to. We instead need to have an argument about when it is okay vs not okay to...