Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9115387" data-attributes="member: 6790260">No skill rules. That's what they have said. Repeatedly and explicitly. I don't care that &quot;there still is a roll against a DC at a minimum.&quot; And neither of them has brought up &quot;social combat&quot; in relation to this. (Lanefan did, separately, say they say no to that; but it has never been connected to this. This is purely about demanding, about forcing, roleplay.)Bolded for emphasis. Lanefan explicitly wants players to be forced to actually, personally roleplay, because (allegedly) this is uniquely something players can actually do. Even though plenty of other things (jumping, swimming, climbing, fighting) are all perfectly possible actions IRL as well.No need to even bold here. This is the whole text, and both sentences explicitly say it. Explicitly saying that social skills AND abilities shouldn't be in the game--because that's what roleplaying is for. Like...it's literally the exact words of the statement. The later &quot;clarifications&quot; do not change that, at all. The only thing that got added is that Overgeeked allows for players to describe actions in third person. It still must be actively played out, by the player, in real time--they just don't have to use dialogue to do it, they can use narration if they want. They must still personally narrate.And, again, not one person here is saying that players should be able to just make a fiat declaration of using a roll--of ANY kind, not just social rolls. There must be a reason for why you attempt something. With no reason, there can be no roll. Every edition of D&amp;D has required this, usually explicitly. Since that is how every edition has actually worked, they must be asking for more than just that. The repeated and explicit requirement of actually playing through the action--whether in first or third person--is clearly that &quot;more&quot; they are asking for.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9115387, member: 6790260"] No [B]skill[/B] rules. That's what they have said. Repeatedly and explicitly. I don't care that "there still is a roll against a DC at a minimum." And neither of them has brought up "social combat" in relation to this. (Lanefan did, separately, say they say no to that; but it has never been connected to this. This is [I]purely[/I] about demanding, about [I]forcing[/I], roleplay.) Bolded for emphasis. Lanefan explicitly wants players to be [I]forced[/I] to actually, personally roleplay, because (allegedly) this is uniquely something players can actually do. Even though plenty of other things (jumping, swimming, climbing, fighting) are all perfectly possible actions IRL as well. No need to even bold here. This is the whole text, and both sentences explicitly say it. Explicitly saying that social skills AND abilities shouldn't be in the game--because that's what roleplaying is for. Like...it's literally the exact words of the statement. The later "clarifications" do not change that, at all. The [I]only[/I] thing that got added is that Overgeeked allows for players to describe actions in third person. It still must be actively played out, by the player, in real time--they just don't have to use [I]dialogue[/I] to do it, they can use narration if they want. [I]They must still personally narrate[/I]. And, again, not one person here is saying that players should be able to just make a fiat declaration of using a roll--[I]of ANY kind[/I], not just social rolls. There must be a reason for why you attempt something. With no reason, there can be no roll. Every edition of D&D has required this, usually explicitly. Since that is how every edition has actually worked, they must be asking for more than just that. The repeated and explicit requirement of actually playing through the action--whether in first or third person--is clearly that "more" they are asking for. [/QUOTE]

Verification