Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="thzero" data-source="post: 5899224" data-attributes="member: 86754">Skills were around in 2e and 1e (via the two survival guides)... but really it goes more to the core of the game, skills is just one example.&nbsp; With attacking or magic use, etc. you end up with the same thing.Personally I prefer a more detail oriented system like 3X (and others of its ilk, i.e. GURPS, etc) because I'm more detail oriented person.&nbsp; But in reality even in 3X, and even 4E, what you describe can be done.&nbsp; Nothing that says you can't let someone succeed at something, especially if it not a opposed type situation, just because there character is really strong or smart.&nbsp; Also consider that while for some people the wide open nature of do whatever you want and the DM decides what needs to happen (auto success/failure, need some type of roll, flip of the dice, etc) may be great, how does it play to the mass audience?&nbsp; I think it makes the game more difficult to play and harder for new, returning, or even younger players to pick up.&nbsp; Name a best selling RPG that does this.&nbsp; Can't really think of any.Not to mention, not everyone is about in-depth &quot;immersion&quot;!&nbsp; Some people play just to have some fun, do something different, enjoy screwing around with friends, hacking apart monsters.&nbsp; Others play for very deep storylines and character development.Blanket comments such as &quot;If you have any kind of check, immersion suffers.&quot; are just stupid.&nbsp; For *you*, that may be true.&nbsp; But not for other people, and perhaps not even for the majority.&nbsp;&nbsp; And if there is a rule or system in a game (any game) that ruins your, your group, or what not immersion into whatever, you can always use &quot;Rule 0&quot; (0th rule of gaming, or robotics) to change it or simply ignore it!That isn't necessarily unrealistic or even un-immersive (is that a word? hah); in fact you admitted it in parathensis.&nbsp; People do that type of stuff on a daily basis (or at least one hopes so).&nbsp; You try and maximize your strengths and knowledge and put it to best use.&nbsp; Now thats not to say a person's strengths, abilities, knowledge is always the best tool for the job but nonetheless, typically people are going to naturally try and solve problems using their best attributes.Bottom line, for me I guess, is that its really easy to go &quot;fluffy&quot; with a &quot;crunchy&quot; game that lends itself to a wide audience that it is to go from a &quot;crunchy&quot; game to a &quot;fluffy&quot; game.&nbsp; The former is, of course IMO, more easily approachable, has set actions, goals, etc. that can be performed.&nbsp; The latter is more nebulous and lacks appeal (again back to the question of what is the best selling game of this sort....).Since AD&amp;D the game (along with lots of others) has been defining actions that the characters can take for us.&nbsp; Whether it be skills, attacks, how to perform magic, etc.&nbsp; This isn't a bad thing, not only for your local group, but the community around the game as a whole.&nbsp; It gives a common understanding of what characters in the game world are able to do; allows the simulation to work across the board.&nbsp; This allows new modules, campaigns, worlds, etc. to be born and shared.&nbsp; Allows people to join new groups, have a common core to work from (crap that sounds like Dancy speak); even if the new game/group uses its own variation of house rules (or in 5E case, options).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="thzero, post: 5899224, member: 86754"] Skills were around in 2e and 1e (via the two survival guides)... but really it goes more to the core of the game, skills is just one example. With attacking or magic use, etc. you end up with the same thing. Personally I prefer a more detail oriented system like 3X (and others of its ilk, i.e. GURPS, etc) because I'm more detail oriented person. But in reality even in 3X, and even 4E, what you describe can be done. Nothing that says you can't let someone succeed at something, especially if it not a opposed type situation, just because there character is really strong or smart. Also consider that while for some people the wide open nature of do whatever you want and the DM decides what needs to happen (auto success/failure, need some type of roll, flip of the dice, etc) may be great, how does it play to the mass audience? I think it makes the game more difficult to play and harder for new, returning, or even younger players to pick up. Name a best selling RPG that does this. Can't really think of any. Not to mention, not everyone is about in-depth "immersion"! Some people play just to have some fun, do something different, enjoy screwing around with friends, hacking apart monsters. Others play for very deep storylines and character development. Blanket comments such as "If you have any kind of check, immersion suffers." are just stupid. For *you*, that may be true. But not for other people, and perhaps not even for the majority. And if there is a rule or system in a game (any game) that ruins your, your group, or what not immersion into whatever, you can always use "Rule 0" (0th rule of gaming, or robotics) to change it or simply ignore it! That isn't necessarily unrealistic or even un-immersive (is that a word? hah); in fact you admitted it in parathensis. People do that type of stuff on a daily basis (or at least one hopes so). You try and maximize your strengths and knowledge and put it to best use. Now thats not to say a person's strengths, abilities, knowledge is always the best tool for the job but nonetheless, typically people are going to naturally try and solve problems using their best attributes. Bottom line, for me I guess, is that its really easy to go "fluffy" with a "crunchy" game that lends itself to a wide audience that it is to go from a "crunchy" game to a "fluffy" game. The former is, of course IMO, more easily approachable, has set actions, goals, etc. that can be performed. The latter is more nebulous and lacks appeal (again back to the question of what is the best selling game of this sort....). Since AD&D the game (along with lots of others) has been defining actions that the characters can take for us. Whether it be skills, attacks, how to perform magic, etc. This isn't a bad thing, not only for your local group, but the community around the game as a whole. It gives a common understanding of what characters in the game world are able to do; allows the simulation to work across the board. This allows new modules, campaigns, worlds, etc. to be born and shared. Allows people to join new groups, have a common core to work from (crap that sounds like Dancy speak); even if the new game/group uses its own variation of house rules (or in 5E case, options). [/QUOTE]

Verification