Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6071596" data-attributes="member: 6669384">Hmm.&nbsp; The forums seen a bit odd today.&nbsp; I've posted two replies to this, and none of them stuck.&nbsp; Let's try again.I&nbsp; think the point of conflict between us may be based in poor&nbsp; communications.&nbsp; I'm not the only person who read your initial post and&nbsp; had trouble figuring out what you were talking about.For&nbsp; example, you said that you wanted to subsume skills into class abilities&nbsp; and &quot;attributes&quot;, a poorly defined concept.&nbsp; When pressed on this&nbsp; point, however, you give a somewhat contradictory claim that you're&nbsp; increasing the number of feats available.&nbsp; Hard to see how one lead to&nbsp; the other.You proposed bulk-packaging skills to simplify things, but then said&nbsp; that you'd allow them to be broken out individually again.&nbsp; The grouping&nbsp; seemed to run counter to your implied goal of limiting what ability&nbsp; scores can do, and then the subsequent separation appeared to undercut&nbsp; your initial attempt.There are other examples as well.&nbsp; I&nbsp; enumerated a few in one of my earlier responses, but that got lost and&nbsp; I'm not sure rewriting them will mean anything, since this reply may get&nbsp; lost/rejected as well...It also seems as if you and I have&nbsp; different values when it comes to good games.&nbsp; I suggested that the wide&nbsp; variety of choices was a strength of 3.*, and you replied that it was a&nbsp; weakness.&nbsp; After which you claimed to be increasing those choices&nbsp; (though it's unclear just how).You said you want to &quot;flatten&quot;&nbsp; the math, which essentially reduces the granularity of skills and&nbsp; abilities.&nbsp; You obviously think that's a good thing, and I seriously&nbsp; disagree.&nbsp; I'm sure you have a clear vision of what you're&nbsp; trying to do, but it's hard for me (and apparently others) to discuss,&nbsp; or even understand it, based on the way you've expressed it.Over&nbsp; all, we seem to be starting from different place and are working&nbsp; towards different goals.&nbsp; I doubt we'll ever agree, and in fact may have&nbsp; so little in common that conversation is pointless.&nbsp; So I think I'm&nbsp; probably done with this thread.&nbsp; I've gotten very little out of our&nbsp; exchanges, and I doubt that you've gotten much out of my contributions.&nbsp;&nbsp; You've acknowledged that I raised some good points, but you never&nbsp; addressed them, so I'll presume that you've just sort of moved past&nbsp; them.&nbsp; And that's okay.Do you mind some friendly advice?&nbsp; When&nbsp; you begin a discussion like this one, clearly state the perceived&nbsp; problem you're trying to address.&nbsp; Then, as you frame your proposal,&nbsp; include some explanation about how your idea addresses the problem.&nbsp; I&nbsp; have to admit that I was unclear what you were trying to do from the&nbsp; start, which may be why I had such a hard time getting a handle on how&nbsp; you were planning to do it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greenfield, post: 6071596, member: 6669384"] Hmm. The forums seen a bit odd today. I've posted two replies to this, and none of them stuck. Let's try again. I think the point of conflict between us may be based in poor communications. I'm not the only person who read your initial post and had trouble figuring out what you were talking about. For example, you said that you wanted to subsume skills into class abilities and "attributes", a poorly defined concept. When pressed on this point, however, you give a somewhat contradictory claim that you're increasing the number of feats available. Hard to see how one lead to the other. You proposed bulk-packaging skills to simplify things, but then said that you'd allow them to be broken out individually again. The grouping seemed to run counter to your implied goal of limiting what ability scores can do, and then the subsequent separation appeared to undercut your initial attempt. There are other examples as well. I enumerated a few in one of my earlier responses, but that got lost and I'm not sure rewriting them will mean anything, since this reply may get lost/rejected as well... It also seems as if you and I have different values when it comes to good games. I suggested that the wide variety of choices was a strength of 3.*, and you replied that it was a weakness. After which you claimed to be increasing those choices (though it's unclear just how). You said you want to "flatten" the math, which essentially reduces the granularity of skills and abilities. You obviously think that's a good thing, and I seriously disagree. I'm sure you have a clear vision of what you're trying to do, but it's hard for me (and apparently others) to discuss, or even understand it, based on the way you've expressed it. Over all, we seem to be starting from different place and are working towards different goals. I doubt we'll ever agree, and in fact may have so little in common that conversation is pointless. So I think I'm probably done with this thread. I've gotten very little out of our exchanges, and I doubt that you've gotten much out of my contributions. You've acknowledged that I raised some good points, but you never addressed them, so I'll presume that you've just sort of moved past them. And that's okay. Do you mind some friendly advice? When you begin a discussion like this one, clearly state the perceived problem you're trying to address. Then, as you frame your proposal, include some explanation about how your idea addresses the problem. I have to admit that I was unclear what you were trying to do from the start, which may be why I had such a hard time getting a handle on how you were planning to do it. [/QUOTE]

Verification