Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 5261118" data-attributes="member: 467">Of course it is. So is mechanical character optimization. But it is pretty obvious that in this context &quot;player skill&quot; refers to relying on input from the player as opposed to simply numerical values printed on the character sheet. It is what man deriders of the &quot;old school&quot; call pixel bitching: saying your character pulls up the carpet and looks behind the tapestries, rather than simply stating the desire to make a search check. And this issue is a direct result of the presence of rules and options in the game -- &quot;player skill&quot; searching for the hidden goods because there's no skill associated with searching for the goods; bypassing that aspect of play is only made possible by the existence of some mechanical, action resolution system for &quot;searching&quot;.This drives to the heart of what I am talking about. It seems to me that the more skills, etc... a game has, the more exclusive it becomes in that actions not listed on the character sheet are excluded -- both those activities not covered by the rules, and those that are but the character lacks any &quot;skill&quot; in. Let's take the introduction of non-weapon proficiencies in AD&amp;D for example (to give 3.x a break for a while). It is wuite common and even reasonable for a DM to ask the player if that player's character posseses the firebuilding NWP when the party is divying up camp chores, simply because a firebuilding proficiency exists. Prior to the existence of such a proficiency, it would be assumed that most adventurer types would know how to build a fire. Moreover, by putting the proficiency there and requiring the player to &quot;buy&quot; it from the same pool of resources as blindfighting, mounted combat and various languages, picking firebuilding becomes suboptimal. And now, you ahve a whole population of wandering swordsmen who can't fend off the wolves or cook their rabbit stew because not a one of them knows how to build a fire.Leaving it -- and all skill things like it -- out entirely, dealing with it in a reasonable way between player and DM, makes the game more fun and improves the quality and value of play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 5261118, member: 467"] Of course it is. So is mechanical character optimization. But it is pretty obvious that in this context "player skill" refers to relying on input from the player as opposed to simply numerical values printed on the character sheet. It is what man deriders of the "old school" call pixel bitching: saying your character pulls up the carpet and looks behind the tapestries, rather than simply stating the desire to make a search check. And this issue is a direct result of the presence of rules and options in the game -- "player skill" searching for the hidden goods because there's no skill associated with searching for the goods; bypassing that aspect of play is only made possible by the existence of some mechanical, action resolution system for "searching". This drives to the heart of what I am talking about. It seems to me that the more skills, etc... a game has, the more exclusive it becomes in that actions not listed on the character sheet are excluded -- both those activities not covered by the rules, and those that are but the character lacks any "skill" in. Let's take the introduction of non-weapon proficiencies in AD&D for example (to give 3.x a break for a while). It is wuite common and even reasonable for a DM to ask the player if that player's character posseses the firebuilding NWP when the party is divying up camp chores, simply because a firebuilding proficiency exists. Prior to the existence of such a proficiency, it would be assumed that most adventurer types would know how to build a fire. Moreover, by putting the proficiency there and requiring the player to "buy" it from the same pool of resources as blindfighting, mounted combat and various languages, picking firebuilding becomes suboptimal. And now, you ahve a whole population of wandering swordsmen who can't fend off the wolves or cook their rabbit stew because not a one of them knows how to build a fire. Leaving it -- and all skill things like it -- out entirely, dealing with it in a reasonable way between player and DM, makes the game more fun and improves the quality and value of play. [/QUOTE]

Verification