Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6944789" data-attributes="member: 15700">You never played TSR era D&amp;D, have you?&nbsp; You can call it silly all you want, but all that does is show your ignorance of 25 years of D&amp;D's lifespan.&nbsp; I already told you that Gygax literally comes out an tells you that combat is a last option when all other options fails.&nbsp; It simply isn't worth the risk in TSR D&amp;D.&nbsp; And again you double down with the &quot;it has the most rules so therefore it must be the most important and biggest part of the game&quot; fallacy.&nbsp; I've already explained why this isn't true.&nbsp; You're making another mistake thinking that if a mechanic isn't as granular, then it doesn't carry as much weight.&nbsp; That's another argument of fallacy.&nbsp; All mechanics are equally important whether they are super detailed or simple, if they have an impact on gameplay at your table.&nbsp; As I said, and INT check is incredibly simple mechanically, but it comes up a lot at our tables (just like the basic ability check in AD&amp;D which came up A LOT).&nbsp; Therefore, it has just as much weight to the impact of the game as the most detailed mechanic.&nbsp; And also like I already mentioned, you can do narrative in combat as well.&nbsp; Heck, Matt Mercer does that.&nbsp; Have you ever seen his livestream games?&nbsp; A lot of the combat rules he completely ignores in favor of the narrative approach.What?&nbsp; It's super easy to roll someone who is extremely good at the other two pillars and not focused on combat.&nbsp; What kind of question is this?&nbsp; For one &quot;can't contribute&quot; is false anyway, because pretty much everyone can contribute, regardless of your PC's stats and/or abilities.&nbsp; So toss that idea right out.&nbsp; I'll assume you mean &quot;not combat focused&quot;, which is very easy to do.&nbsp; &quot;Isn't the norm&quot;.&nbsp; Once again, you're taking your personal preferences and assuming everyone else plays like that.&nbsp; It seems clear to me that you came into D&amp;D when it was &quot;tabletop combat!&quot; era, and thus you assume that's what the game is always about.&nbsp; Which simply isn't true.&nbsp; Skyrim probably has less code devoted to walking the world than it does for all the combat abilities/powers/spells/rules, but people spent more time exploring Skyrim than in actual combat, I'm betting.&nbsp; For every hour of gameplay spent in actual combat, I probably spent 2 just walking around exploring things.By your own statements here, it clearly implies that your particular table narrates the other two pillars when you have to deal with that part of the game (apparently infrequently).&nbsp;&nbsp; Good on you.&nbsp; If you're having fun, that's all that matters.&nbsp; But please stop with your false assumptions about the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 6944789, member: 15700"] You never played TSR era D&D, have you? You can call it silly all you want, but all that does is show your ignorance of 25 years of D&D's lifespan. I already told you that Gygax literally comes out an tells you that combat is a last option when all other options fails. It simply isn't worth the risk in TSR D&D. And again you double down with the "it has the most rules so therefore it must be the most important and biggest part of the game" fallacy. I've already explained why this isn't true. You're making another mistake thinking that if a mechanic isn't as granular, then it doesn't carry as much weight. That's another argument of fallacy. All mechanics are equally important whether they are super detailed or simple, if they have an impact on gameplay [i]at your table[/i]. As I said, and INT check is incredibly simple mechanically, but it comes up a lot at our tables (just like the basic ability check in AD&D which came up A LOT). Therefore, it has just as much weight to the impact of the game as the most detailed mechanic. And also like I already mentioned, you can do narrative in combat as well. Heck, Matt Mercer does that. Have you ever seen his livestream games? A lot of the combat rules he completely ignores in favor of the narrative approach. What? It's super easy to roll someone who is extremely good at the other two pillars and not focused on combat. What kind of question is this? For one "can't contribute" is false anyway, because pretty much everyone can contribute, regardless of your PC's stats and/or abilities. So toss that idea right out. I'll assume you mean "not combat focused", which is very easy to do. "Isn't the norm". Once again, you're taking your personal preferences and assuming everyone else plays like that. It seems clear to me that you came into D&D when it was "tabletop combat!" era, and thus you assume that's what the game is always about. Which simply isn't true. Skyrim probably has less code devoted to walking the world than it does for all the combat abilities/powers/spells/rules, but people spent more time exploring Skyrim than in actual combat, I'm betting. For every hour of gameplay spent in actual combat, I probably spent 2 just walking around exploring things. By your own statements here, it clearly implies that your particular table narrates the other two pillars when you have to deal with that part of the game (apparently infrequently). Good on you. If you're having fun, that's all that matters. But please stop with your false assumptions about the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification