Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8303811" data-attributes="member: 71699">This is where Pun Pun is so ideal. Pun Pun wins ToH without effort. There is literally nothing in ToH that can serve up difficulty to Pun Pun.Whatever it is called, it worked to "open up opportunities for players to play skillfully", which is my exact claim.Can you address the general claim that force applied to random encounter rolls offers such benign examples, first?4e has balanced character mechanics, and never got so far into splatbooks as 3rd ed. It is possible to charop in 4e. It isn't possible to charop to the same point. Burning Wheel is the same. I'm not sure charop is even a thing in BW. Some skills are more useful than others so I guess picking those skills helps, but this is highly dependent on what the campaign stresses. 5th ed allows for high charop, still falling short of 3rd charop.In my post #375 I said - "The crispest example is charop in 3rd edition." and I went on to give such an example from 3rd edition. Perhaps the crispest example that exists, period. So I rather feel that I did say so.I feel this is true, and would just like to exclude a way in which it could (but I'm assuming isn't here) taken. A player can say something informative about factors of skill. They might say for example that they are good at spell efficiency in 5e. There are two things that they cannot say -<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">their degree or strength of skill, because they may feel they have strong skill after being consistently confronted with tasks that are difficult, but beatable, at their skill level.... but that tells us nothing about where they sit among all players; most games are constructed to have beatable tasks, and most players are working with a small, local, subjective data set</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">that they have a complete picture of factors of skill (in any context, including their own) or can exclude factors that might count as skillful (in any context, but more often in regard to contexts other than their own)</li> </ol>Yes, that is exactly what I meant when I stated Elo was silent on the factors of skill.Skill in games is generally defined as a prediction of success against a task of known type and difficulty. Yes, there are confounds - I discussed those including practice effect. What I meant when I talked about statements in relation to this is that posters are using the word skill in a different way here. Less concrete. That is okay, we just need to appreciate that fact.I literally included "D&D (all editions)" in my list.I will respond to your further thoughts separately as they are interesting and maybe we will find common ground. I don't think you necessarily need to respond to my above: I wanted most to draw attention to where we are passing one another like ships in the night. To be fair, I have no doubt done the same to you.</blockquote>

Verification