Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Axiomatic Unicorn" data-source="post: 88010" data-attributes="member: 1974">I don't really see the distinction.&nbsp; But, phrase the question any way you want to, are you claiming that no question that could be answered with a know: religion check could ever also be answered with a know: the planes check?All I am saying is that I am implementing rules directly out of the book and you are jumping to things like &quot;That way lies madness. What next, skill defaults? Optional specialisation? Maneuvers?&quot;It is not remotely that complicated.And you can have a fine list.&nbsp; But Monte should not be shackled by your play style.&nbsp; If you are going to impose a fixed realm of knowledge skill on your game, then you will be forced to adapt when you use new material.&nbsp; No big deal.But to argue that it is a bad thing, just because you don't want to play that way does not seem reasonable.&nbsp; Again, if you are claiming that anything I said is an attempt to create a &quot;faithful representation of reality&quot;, you are really overcomplicating it.Fast play? Player: Do I know X?DM:&nbsp; What Knowledge skill do you think you would use?Player:&nbsp; Know:&nbsp; XYZDM:&nbsp; OK, the DC is A.Very quick.Here is how I imagine your version:Player:&nbsp; Do I know X?DM:&nbsp; Sure, make a Knowledge: Religion check.Player:&nbsp; Religion?&nbsp; I don't have religion, shouldn't I be able to make a know: the planes check?&nbsp; I have 14 ranks.DM:&nbsp; Nope, this is a strictly religion matter, the planes have nothing to do with it.Player:&nbsp; What do you mean, this question is all about the planes.DM:&nbsp; But it is more about religion.Player:&nbsp; I disagree.DM:&nbsp; I'm the DM.Player:&nbsp; nevermind.Like I said, if you are going to constrain your game, you are going to have to adapt material to fit you view.Change the prereq to know:religion and you are good to go.I think the addition of knowledge skills adds to the flavor in the game.&nbsp; With any luck, it will catch on even more.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Axiomatic Unicorn, post: 88010, member: 1974"] I don't really see the distinction. But, phrase the question any way you want to, are you claiming that no question that could be answered with a know: religion check could ever also be answered with a know: the planes check? All I am saying is that I am implementing rules directly out of the book and you are jumping to things like "That way lies madness. What next, skill defaults? Optional specialisation? Maneuvers?" It is not remotely that complicated. And you can have a fine list. But Monte should not be shackled by your play style. If you are going to impose a fixed realm of knowledge skill on your game, then you will be forced to adapt when you use new material. No big deal. But to argue that it is a bad thing, just because you don't want to play that way does not seem reasonable. Again, if you are claiming that anything I said is an attempt to create a "faithful representation of reality", you are really overcomplicating it. Fast play? Player: Do I know X? DM: What Knowledge skill do you think you would use? Player: Know: XYZ DM: OK, the DC is A. Very quick. Here is how I imagine your version: Player: Do I know X? DM: Sure, make a Knowledge: Religion check. Player: Religion? I don't have religion, shouldn't I be able to make a know: the planes check? I have 14 ranks. DM: Nope, this is a strictly religion matter, the planes have nothing to do with it. Player: What do you mean, this question is all about the planes. DM: But it is more about religion. Player: I disagree. DM: I'm the DM. Player: nevermind. Like I said, if you are going to constrain your game, you are going to have to adapt material to fit you view. Change the prereq to know:religion and you are good to go. I think the addition of knowledge skills adds to the flavor in the game. With any luck, it will catch on even more. [/QUOTE]

Verification