Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5676545" data-attributes="member: 2067">While true, I think the idea that Mearls proposed about skills serves as a barrier to this, as we see in the next paragraph:Right. When I have to engage with the DM, I get a system that doesn't let me pretend to be something I'm not. It's down to personal charisma, persuasive argumentation, knowledge about the subject, and DM leeway. So by the criteria of "lets me be a character I'm not," Monte Cook's skill system is not a success. It's too dependent on DM judgement calls. Which was kind of the original objection to the idea. So that's still valid.Of course, that's not to say that DM judgement calls don't have their place, but couched in circumstance bonuses and "Take 10/Take 20" rules, DMs have a stronger base for those calls, and a less absolute effect compared with a binary "pass/fail" system.The rest of the post is pretty good insight, though he's omitting a distinct possibility: some those DMs who go bad don't want to be bad DMs. They want to be good DMs. The rules and advice were not there to guide them into being good DMs. That's why it's important to have a good rules underpinning that you can, of course, depart from. What makes a rule "good" varies from table to table, since individual DMs are skilled at different aspects of the game (and need more support in others).And "Make It Up" isn't a good rule. Though it's usually pretty good advice.</blockquote>