Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3173855" data-attributes="member: 6777">I don't agree. If the system leaves too much to individual GMs, what you get is wild variance between games, and a constant process of player-GM negotiation. In extreme cases, things boil down to, "Roll some dice, and the GM tells you what happens." Some people are cool with this, but I don't really like it.However, my larger point was that you seem to be arguing One True Way-ism, and this stance is problematic from either end of the spectrum. If you assume that all mechanics are better when they're like X, you're possibly overlooking that this particular mechanic might be better when it's like Y. Specifically, you're arguing for a very old-school "lite" approach as naturally better. That may be great for you, but it isn't for me.I'm making cases for both streamlined (Notice and Sneak) and more detailed (Spycraft) options for improvement. I'm not entirely sold on either option; I'm just not nuts about this new solution from Mearls.I was one of the people advocating combining some of the skills, FYI. What I am not doing, however, is claiming that there's one correct way that's the obvious answer.I don't think tossing around terms like "simulationists" is really helping clarify anything.I don't see any problem with the term. Would you prefer something like "higher points of contact"? "Detailed"?</blockquote>