Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 7483297" data-attributes="member: 2303">This now seems to be a discussion of the merits of sandbox versus storytelling, more than a discussion of min-maxing. This is a general observation and not a comment on KenNYC that I quote below.When playing in a game like 5E that essentially lacks skills, this might be a legitimate approach. But if playing something like 3E, 3.5, or PF1, where players have skill ranks/points that they have to prioritize, its not. If the paladin has skills ranks in tracking, then tracking is obviously a part of his background somehow. Actually, it is EXACTLY this problem that PF2 seeks to correct with its levels of expertise, even if what I've seen of it from the playtest so far is not impressive. Take Survival as an example. Ayone can use Survival to sense direction or survive in the wild, but you have to be trained in order to conceal tracks or track. These are actual examples from the playtest book.What the paladin player was trying in your example is to go Old School, narrating his actions without reference to a skill system at all. In this tradition the player supplies the skills, not the character, especially outside of combat. This is a legitimate way to play the game, even if I agree with you here KenNYC; I don't use this playstyle at my table either. But it can be hard to draw the line; when does player ingenuity apply, and when does the character's skills, background, and experience apply. Each table has its own playstyle.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Starfox, post: 7483297, member: 2303"] This now seems to be a discussion of the merits of sandbox versus storytelling, more than a discussion of min-maxing. This is a general observation and not a comment on KenNYC that I quote below. When playing in a game like 5E that essentially lacks skills, this might be a legitimate approach. But if playing something like 3E, 3.5, or PF1, where players have skill ranks/points that they have to prioritize, its not. If the paladin has skills ranks in tracking, then tracking is obviously a part of his background somehow. Actually, it is EXACTLY this problem that PF2 seeks to correct with its levels of expertise, even if what I've seen of it from the playtest so far is not impressive. Take Survival as an example. Ayone can use Survival to sense direction or survive in the wild, but you have to be trained in order to conceal tracks or track. These are actual examples from the playtest book. What the paladin player was trying in your example is to go Old School, narrating his actions without reference to a skill system at all. In this tradition the player supplies the skills, not the character, especially outside of combat. This is a legitimate way to play the game, even if I agree with you here KenNYC; I don't use this playstyle at my table either. But it can be hard to draw the line; when does player ingenuity apply, and when does the character's skills, background, and experience apply. Each table has its own playstyle. [/QUOTE]

Verification