Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7306657" data-attributes="member: 97077">Yes, we agree that you do sound crazy. I certainly didn't suggest removing mechanics from the game. See &quot;The Middle Path&quot; in the DMG, pages 236-237.I don't see why you'd have any emotional reaction at all to how someone else runs their games, but it does explain a lot of your posts on enworld.As I have said in multiple threads now, a player is tasked with describing what he or she wants to do. That means stating an approach to a goal. Stating the approach to the goal is roleplaying now matter how you communicate it. Therefore, if you are skillful at coming up with effective approaches to goals such that you end up rolling less than other people at the table, yes, you may be more successful over time. That's okay in my view. Player skill should matter in a game as as I see it and putting one's character in the best possible fictional position to achieve success is smart play (to the extent smart play is seen as achieving more successes than failures).However, the way one presents a goal and approach to the DM is unimportant to adjudication. The player may use an active or descriptive approach to roleplaying or some combination of the two. If the long, inspiring speech by one player (active approach) still just effectively boils down to the simple statement of goal and approach by another player (descriptive approach), they have the same chance of success. So, no, being a &quot;wordsmith&quot; or a thespian or the like doesn't give you any particular advantage.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7306657, member: 97077"] Yes, we agree that you do sound crazy. I certainly didn't suggest removing mechanics from the game. See "The Middle Path" in the DMG, pages 236-237. I don't see why you'd have any emotional reaction at all to how someone else runs their games, but it does explain a lot of your posts on enworld. As I have said in multiple threads now, a player is tasked with describing what he or she wants to do. That means stating an approach to a goal. Stating the approach to the goal is [I]roleplaying[/I] now matter how you communicate it. Therefore, if you are skillful at coming up with effective approaches to goals such that you end up rolling less than other people at the table, yes, you may be more successful over time. That's okay in my view. Player skill should matter in a game as as I see it and putting one's character in the best possible fictional position to achieve success is smart play (to the extent smart play is seen as achieving more successes than failures). However, the [I]way [/I]one presents a goal and approach to the DM is unimportant to adjudication. The player may use an active or descriptive approach to roleplaying or some combination of the two. If the long, inspiring speech by one player (active approach) still just effectively boils down to the simple statement of goal and approach by another player (descriptive approach), they have the same chance of success. So, no, being a "wordsmith" or a thespian or the like doesn't give you any particular advantage. [/QUOTE]

Verification