Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7584019" data-attributes="member: 22779">Oh, I don't know.&nbsp; Maybe they're playing a class that focuses on skills perhaps?&nbsp; Like a bard or a rogue?&nbsp; What's the point of making skill checks irrelevant when a major portion of my character is centered around making skill checks?Ok, and, that, right there, is pretty much the reason we're not going to agree.&nbsp; You can point to the rules until you're blue in the face.&nbsp; I DO NOT CARE.&nbsp; I really, really, really don't care.&nbsp; Not even just a little tiny bit.&nbsp; I absolutely, 100% do not die a fetid dingo's kidney what the rules state.&nbsp; So, stripping out a single line, that, IME, was included as a milksop to earlier edition players, isn't going to change my mind.&nbsp; It really isn't.You'd think.&nbsp; Unfortunately, doesn't appear to be true since we've got an example IN THIS THREAD from a very experienced DM which demonstrates that it's not that cut and dried.Well, it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.&nbsp; AFAIC, it's a duck.&nbsp; And, since I don't like the play style you are advocating, I'm very unlikely to call it a swan barring some far more compelling evidence than, &quot;Well, in my game, we do this&quot;.&nbsp; This is an old play style.&nbsp; It's been around for years.&nbsp; Fair enough.&nbsp; It's obviously got its proponents.&nbsp; I'm not one of them.&nbsp; It simply isn't fun for me.&nbsp; And, the notion that the goal of the skill system is to eliminate the skill system isn't really helping your argument.&nbsp; &quot;We play this way so that we don't have to engage the mechanics of the game&quot; is not exactly praising your play style to some one who has no issues with those mechanics.I have no problems with the 5e skill system.&nbsp; Or, nothing serious anyway.&nbsp; So, proposing a play style where the stated goal is not actually using the system isn't going to score any points with me.Again, I think the biggest issue I have here, or at least one of the bigger ones, is the complete unwillingness of proponents to admit to any flaws in the system.&nbsp; I have no problems telling you the flaws in what I do.&nbsp; It's shallow.&nbsp; It's facile.&nbsp; It skips over lots of stuff, including stuff that, potentially could be quite interesting.Now, those are flaws that don't really bother me.&nbsp; I don't care that I reduce that guard interaction to a 30 second die roll and move on.&nbsp; Does not bother me in the slightest.&nbsp; If the players actually wanted to interact with that guard, they would.&nbsp; IOW, I trust that my players will TELL me what they find interesting, rather than me trying to force every situation to be interesting by forcing the players to narrate in situations where they are really not interested.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7584019, member: 22779"] Oh, I don't know. Maybe they're playing a class that focuses on skills perhaps? Like a bard or a rogue? What's the point of making skill checks irrelevant when a major portion of my character is centered around making skill checks? Ok, and, that, right there, is pretty much the reason we're not going to agree. You can point to the rules until you're blue in the face. I DO NOT CARE. I really, really, really don't care. Not even just a little tiny bit. I absolutely, 100% do not die a fetid dingo's kidney what the rules state. So, stripping out a single line, that, IME, was included as a milksop to earlier edition players, isn't going to change my mind. It really isn't. You'd think. Unfortunately, doesn't appear to be true since we've got an example IN THIS THREAD from a very experienced DM which demonstrates that it's not that cut and dried. Well, it walks like a duck and talks like a duck. AFAIC, it's a duck. And, since I don't like the play style you are advocating, I'm very unlikely to call it a swan barring some far more compelling evidence than, "Well, in my game, we do this". This is an old play style. It's been around for years. Fair enough. It's obviously got its proponents. I'm not one of them. It simply isn't fun for me. And, the notion that the goal of the skill system is to eliminate the skill system isn't really helping your argument. "We play this way so that we don't have to engage the mechanics of the game" is not exactly praising your play style to some one who has no issues with those mechanics. I have no problems with the 5e skill system. Or, nothing serious anyway. So, proposing a play style where the stated goal is not actually using the system isn't going to score any points with me. Again, I think the biggest issue I have here, or at least one of the bigger ones, is the complete unwillingness of proponents to admit to any flaws in the system. I have no problems telling you the flaws in what I do. It's shallow. It's facile. It skips over lots of stuff, including stuff that, potentially could be quite interesting. Now, those are flaws that don't really bother me. I don't care that I reduce that guard interaction to a 30 second die roll and move on. Does not bother me in the slightest. If the players actually wanted to interact with that guard, they would. IOW, I trust that my players will TELL me what they find interesting, rather than me trying to force every situation to be interesting by forcing the players to narrate in situations where they are really not interested. [/QUOTE]

Verification