Search and taking 20: the problem

[swrushing]

Out of curiosity, how MIGHT you argue ROUTINELY? I've mostly dropped out of this thread because people are so consistently misstating my position that I've concluded it's a deliberate effort to attack a straw man rather than debate the (much more nuanced) position that I'm taking. I can scream till I'm red in the face, or until my text is huge and red, about whether I'd handle the traps routinely in the way suggested by the OP, and people will still make false and insulting claims about my play style. Perhaps the problem is with my posts and not with the folks who are so misstating my argument, if you think you could argue ROUTINELY.

Daniel

Daniel, i think perhaps my poor wording is leading to a misunderstanding.

First, a note, HYP, i cannot answer this without the word you and your. If i go in the wrong direction just kill the post.

I was NOT saying that i would argue that that was what you were saying...

It was not my intent to misconsture that as part of your argument.

Let me explain it better.

The issue of the "puzzle before skill" trap for SOME PEOPLE might be a serious one so that they feel any occurance at all is the PROBLEM.

"I would argue" that such a choice would not be a problem to me, in my eyes, unless it is **routinely** done.

That was what i meant by "i would argue ROUTINELY"... not that you were arguing routinely but that i would be accepting of it as a special case and an exception to the norm.

There are a great many techniques used in setting up scenarios that work fine as an exception, as a surprise, and as an occasional change of pace that would not be fine or as acceptable if they were frequent or routine. However, not infrequently in online discussions of these "exceptions" one side or the other gets more concerned because they take it from the point of view of "too often".

I think, frankly, almost any rule can be violated for good reason, once in a great while, if well thought out, and can add to a game. however, for many of them, if used routinely, things change.

I hope that clears it up.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

No misrepresentation was intended.

and, for the record, if indeed you are talking about something like the "puzzle before you can roll" trap as a scenario element as a rare departure from the norm, i expect its "whoa that would be bad" opposition would be less alarmed.

enjoy your games.

 

[Hypersmurf]

First, a note, HYP, i cannot answer this without the word you and your. If i go in the wrong direction just kill the post.

I have no problem with "you". It's the accusatory and confrontational "you" (which saw so much use in this thread) that was bothering me, and dragging the tone and level of debate down.

This post looks fine, for example.

-Hyp.

 

[danzig138]

Did I say dice rolls have no place ?

No. Read my post. Did I say that you said die rolls have no place? No, I did not. I said

It certainly is boring if you reduce everything to a die roll. That doesn't mean the die rolls have no place.

Agreement, followed by my opinion. Sorry you think I implied something I didn't mean to. Of course, one could infer, from the following:

Of course why bother ROLEPLAYING, I can just role a diplomacy check.
Why use my brain when I can take 20.

that you do advocate the removal of die rolls for roleplaying interactions.

My point is that you cannot say that common sense, intellligence and roleplaying have no place. Which is why there is more to searching than taking 20, and more to negotiations than rolling a diplomacy check.

And my point is that sometimes you can say that. Sorry, but I've gamed with people who were less intelligent than bricks and whose tongues were more tied than my boot laces. In those cases, there isn't more to searching than T20 or to negotiating than a diplomacy check.

If you take the time to read my (lengthy) example trap you will find that the die rolls and roleplaying are inextricably linked in that which dice rolls you make and the DC's of the roles are dependant on your actions/idea/roleplaying. What irks me is the huge rant on how we should remove all player intellegence from the game.
Im not advocating the de-evolution of the game so that there are NO dice rolls either.

I did read your example. Doesn't change that in a later post, you implied something different, at least to me. That is what I responded to. I didn't respond to your example because I don't care. I'm not intested specifically in the Search debate. I responded to your assumptions and, as I noted, the snarkiness of your post. You might have a great point; it would be hard to find behind the snotty tone of your post. Go back and read what you wrote; you'll see that it seems we are basically in agreement, but the attitude you diplay is distasteful and confrontational.
Concerning the elementals: in my book, elementals have Intelligence scores of 4-6. Not particularly respectable IMO. How I would play the elementals would depend on the exact situation, keeping in mind a dim-witted primal force of nature.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Game over, kids. The signal-to-noise ratio in this thread isn't looking to get any better soon.

I'm locking this one... feel free to start another thread about searching for traps in about 24 hours if you want to discuss the topic, but be sure to keep it free of personal attacks, ego, and observations on one another's character, hmm?

-Hyp.
(Moderator)