Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7538147" data-attributes="member: 177">As has already been noted, please address the logic of the post, not the person who made the post.&nbsp; A fast way for a discussion to degrade is to say, in essence, that your fellow posters hold their positions not due to some good reason or difference in opinion, but due to some implied personality flaw.If you want to put it this way, the concept you are thinking of has been turned on its head by 2e, not by 5e, as they made the mechanics largely available to anyone several editions back.And back in 1e days... you say it like the admonishment to not show player the tables actually meant those tables stayed secret and sacrosanct!&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; If nothing else, once you'd run a game, you knew about the tables for every game you played in thereafter.&nbsp; I dunno about you, but in my initial group, pretty much everyone took a hand behind the screen at least once to try it.&nbsp; I don't think an assertion that the rules were really secret holds much water.But, more importantly - if *ALL* roleplaying potential is gone when you know the numbers... that means that all your roleplaying is centered on mechanics.&nbsp; Is that really what you intend to say, or are you using hyperbole?&nbsp; If the former, then geeze, your version of roleplaying seems awfully limited.&nbsp; I spent a pleasant chunk of my last game with my cleric berating the barbarian for being a dunderhead - not a die pip or mechanic in sight, but playing our respective roles to the hilt.&nbsp; So, I'd have to say there's lots of role playing to be had even if the mechanics are transparent.&nbsp;&nbsp; If the latter - the hyperbole doesn't give support to your assertion.&nbsp; It just makes you look strident to the point of saying things that are clearly incorrect.&nbsp;&nbsp; Neither option seems persuasive, as you're incorrect either way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7538147, member: 177"] As has already been noted, please address the logic of the post, not the person who made the post. A fast way for a discussion to degrade is to say, in essence, that your fellow posters hold their positions not due to some good reason or difference in opinion, but due to some implied personality flaw. If you want to put it this way, the concept you are thinking of has been turned on its head by 2e, not by 5e, as they made the mechanics largely available to anyone several editions back. And back in 1e days... you say it like the admonishment to not show player the tables actually meant those tables stayed secret and sacrosanct! Really? If nothing else, once you'd run a game, you knew about the tables for every game you played in thereafter. I dunno about you, but in my initial group, pretty much everyone took a hand behind the screen at least once to try it. I don't think an assertion that the rules were really secret holds much water. But, more importantly - if [B]*ALL*[/B] roleplaying potential is gone when you know the numbers... that means that all your roleplaying is centered on mechanics. Is that really what you intend to say, or are you using hyperbole? If the former, then geeze, your version of roleplaying seems awfully limited. I spent a pleasant chunk of my last game with my cleric berating the barbarian for being a dunderhead - not a die pip or mechanic in sight, but playing our respective roles to the hilt. So, I'd have to say there's lots of role playing to be had even if the mechanics are transparent. If the latter - the hyperbole doesn't give support to your assertion. It just makes you look strident to the point of saying things that are clearly incorrect. Neither option seems persuasive, as you're incorrect either way. [/QUOTE]

Verification