Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5467901" data-attributes="member: 957">Good.&nbsp; But not using a SC is not a defense of SCs.&nbsp; But that does not adequately describe SCs.You could say that befriending a bear will take 6 successful handle animal checks, and three failures would tick it off.But SCs say that while some actions may not apply, it doesn't tie to the nature of the bear.&nbsp; It just says 6, and (barring &quot;double credit&quot;) no fewer and also no more than 6 actions of any type.&nbsp; The details are completely unknown and by the structure of the SC it does not matter.It is a completely different approach.If you are willing to jettison SCs whenever they get in the way of the narrative, then bravo.&nbsp; But that does not make SCs themselves any better.BTW, you are treading into the old &quot;putting words in my mouth&quot; territory.&nbsp; If you want to discuss, please don't pursue that path.&nbsp; You know I've walked away from conversations with you before over that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5467901, member: 957"] Good. But not using a SC is not a defense of SCs. But that does not adequately describe SCs. You could say that befriending a bear will take 6 successful handle animal checks, and three failures would tick it off. But SCs say that while some actions may not apply, it doesn't tie to the nature of the bear. It just says 6, and (barring "double credit") no fewer and also no more than 6 actions of any type. The details are completely unknown and by the structure of the SC it does not matter. It is a completely different approach. If you are willing to jettison SCs whenever they get in the way of the narrative, then bravo. But that does not make SCs themselves any better. BTW, you are treading into the old "putting words in my mouth" territory. If you want to discuss, please don't pursue that path. You know I've walked away from conversations with you before over that. [/QUOTE]

Verification