Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8718907" data-attributes="member: 4937">I know it does, and what I'm telling you is that your argument is just wrong because not only are the 6 skills not the same they cannot be made to be the same and it still be a game.  I know why you want to see perfect equality between the skills, but I'm telling you that no matter how much you desire it, it's impossible.  Assuming we are playing a typical "theater of the mind" tabletop RPG instead of a LARP, it's impossible to make a player's physical ability intrude into the game world.  My physical ability can only inform play if I'm able to act it out in a LARP, and a LARP will introduce other restrictions on what I can act out owing to inability to create any physical location we can imagine and the danger of doing so if we could.   On the other hand, in the same situation it is impossible to not have the mind of the player intrude into the game.  There is no wall of separation that we can erect between the mind of the player and the game world.  The player's mind always extends into the game world.  It's how the player can interact with the game world.  And as long as the player can interact with the game world, some aspects of his judgement, his intelligence and his charisma will extend into the game world.  This not only can't be avoided, if we did try to avoid it then the player couldn't interact with his character and it would cease to be a player character.No, it is what you are arguing.  It's just a subset of your larger argument that you don't want to engage with because you are so angry because you had a bad DM that ignored your invested character building resources unfairly.I don't think you really do.  I think you just want to be justly rewarded for investing character building resources in mental or social skills.Sure.  Absolutely you can.  You try doing that in my D&D game though nothing will happen, because in D&D the periodic table has just 4 elements on it - fire, earth, water, and air - and your real world chemistry knowledge does you not the slightest bit of good.  But even if we were playing in a real world say 12th century game and the player wanted his character to invent gunpowder, and metagamed the heck out of it in a totally aggressive and dysfunctional manner that suggested he didn't want to play his character and was 100% invested in winning, I'd probably still make him roll a Natural Sciences or Alchemy check or what not to do it well because just because you can read a recipe doesn't mean you can cook.Absolutely.  If your character can achieve 100% concealment or cover, your are hidden regardless of anything else.  And I'm sorry, but that is true of everyone's game.  If your character is on the other side of a wall or door from an NPC, you don't expect me to make you roll a Hide check unless the NPC has X-ray vision.  So yeah, anyone can hide in the Armoire and hope no one opens it.  Only someone with a lot of hide skill can hide in the room well just by standing against the wall or otherwise hiding without perfect concealment or cover. Are you literally trying to tell me that a character that hides in a chest or armoire ought to be visible to a guard that enters the room because they don't have a lot of hide skill?  Are you literally telling me that a GM ought to say "No" to that proposition because in his opinion the character didn't have enough hide skill to think to do that.  At my table, one of the meta-rules is called the Kindergartener rule.  Anything that you can propose that a Kindergartner might be able to succeed at shouldn't be something locked behind a CharGen asset hurdle.   It might be something you need CharGen assets to be good at, like grappling, but if a Kindergartner can do it then everyone can do it.</blockquote>

Verification