Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 3650511" data-attributes="member: 8158">Sorry, when you were raising your hand, it wasn't clear what you were raising it about (to me anyway). Thanks for clearing up the context.Why do you think you're disagreeing with me vehemently?I've already said I love SWSE. I applaud it wildly. I am considering pulling the plug on my D&amp;D campaign to take it for a spin. Go back a few pages and you'll see I started by just raising a point about an issue with taking 10 and the big bonuses that characters already have with trained skills--I didn't even say it crippled the game, just that I was &quot;dubious&quot; about it being a good idea. The &quot;search your feelings&quot; bit was an example that others chose to obsess over, rather than address the point. Happens all the time in these threads. The deconstructionists blow the example up so that it's the crux of the arguement, not just an example, and then suddenly it's me who's the Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling and blowing things out of proportion, not them. Sure, it is easy to adjudicate that particular use of the skill. GM's can house-rule all kinds of stuff. But that's just cleaning up a messy aspect of the rules. It's not really addressing whether the rule is well-designed, it's just sidestepping and saying the GM can fix it. Should he fix it is really the question. Should something very potent--basically, a little augury spell usable at will--have a low DC that's virtually automatic for trained force users? Me, I say no. Now, while I don't care that much about it, I am sure gonna debate with anyone who thinks that knowing whether every action they're considering will yield weal or woe is a weak, trivial ability with zero potential for disruption. With that hand of cards, I may not feel compelled to raise, but I sure ain't gonna fold either. I'll check. And in that respect, I am possibly my own worst enemy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Felon, post: 3650511, member: 8158"] Sorry, when you were raising your hand, it wasn't clear what you were raising it about (to me anyway). Thanks for clearing up the context. Why do you think you're disagreeing with me vehemently? I've already said I love SWSE. I applaud it wildly. I am considering pulling the plug on my D&D campaign to take it for a spin. Go back a few pages and you'll see I started by just raising a point about an issue with taking 10 and the big bonuses that characters already have with trained skills--I didn't even say it crippled the game, just that I was "dubious" about it being a good idea. The "search your feelings" bit was an example that others chose to obsess over, rather than address the point. Happens all the time in these threads. The deconstructionists blow the example up so that it's the crux of the arguement, not just an example, and then suddenly it's [B]me[/B] who's the Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling and blowing things out of proportion, not them. Sure, it is easy to adjudicate that particular use of the skill. GM's can house-rule all kinds of stuff. But that's just cleaning up a messy aspect of the rules. It's not really addressing whether the rule is well-designed, it's just sidestepping and saying the GM can fix it. [I]Should[/I] he fix it is really the question. Should something very potent--basically, a little augury spell usable at will--have a low DC that's virtually automatic for trained force users? Me, I say no. Now, while I don't care that much about it, I am sure gonna debate with anyone who thinks that knowing whether every action they're considering will yield weal or woe is a weak, trivial ability with zero potential for disruption. With that hand of cards, I may not feel compelled to raise, but I sure ain't gonna fold either. I'll check. And in that respect, I am possibly my own worst enemy. [/QUOTE]

Verification