Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aus_Snow" data-source="post: 5436165" data-attributes="member: 29112">Personally, I don't think the fact that some people (on the internet, anyway) find &quot;D&amp;D social skills&quot; - yes, that would be an ironic phrase, right there - redundant, means that a large number of gamers necessarily do. It could be that it highlights how little some gamers have in common with some others, in particular ways. If anything, that is.And yet, mileage varies. Greatly.There are many gamers who find the shackling of social scenes to some kind of elaborate minigame does in fact &quot;abstract&quot; the whole thing out to something less immediate, compelling, meaningful... well, you get the idea. Not to mention, it might just bore the crap out of them. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />A very simple system, on the other hand, mostly so's to avoid the otherwise potentially looming &quot;Yes I did! / No you didn't!&quot; scenario, might suit them just fine. Whether that's ability checks (e.g., Cha/Int/Wis), reaction rolls, Bluff and co., or whatever - if it does the job and gets out of the way, that is exactly what a lot of people (so they say, at the very least!) are wanting from the mechanics. That very phrasing, or something very similar, you will see/hear often enough, that's for sure, if you but look/listen a little.Don't get me wrong - I hear what you're saying, and for some (such as yourself, it would seem! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />) that's totally the way to go.But I do wonder where the majority comes down, on this issue... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm&nbsp; &nbsp; :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aus_Snow, post: 5436165, member: 29112"] Personally, I don't think the fact that [B]some[/B] people (on the internet, anyway) find "D&D social skills" - yes, that would be an ironic phrase, right there - redundant, means that a large number of gamers necessarily do. It could be that it highlights how little some gamers have in common with some others, in particular ways. If anything, that is. And yet, mileage varies. [I]Greatly[/I]. There are many gamers who find the shackling of social scenes to some kind of elaborate minigame does in fact "abstract" the whole thing out to something less immediate, compelling, meaningful... well, you get the idea. Not to mention, it might just bore the crap out of them. :p A very simple system, on the other hand, mostly so's to avoid the otherwise potentially looming "Yes I did! / No you didn't!" scenario, might suit them just fine. Whether that's ability checks (e.g., Cha/Int/Wis), reaction rolls, Bluff and co., or whatever - if it does the job and gets out of the way, that is exactly what a lot of people (so they say, at the very least!) are wanting from the mechanics. That very phrasing, or something very similar, you will see/hear often enough, that's for sure, if you but look/listen a little. Don't get me wrong - I hear what you're saying, and for some (such as yourself, it would seem! :)) that's totally the way to go. But I do wonder where the majority comes down, on this issue... :hmm: [/QUOTE]

Verification