Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7598302">I'm not sure I buy that.&nbsp; I mean, I agree that it would be valid to use a pure-logic challenge for illustrative purposes, for example if you were asking another poster to clarify their position.But what I'm seeing from some posters (and really this is a pattern that repeats itself in all these debates) is a willful exaggeration of the other side to the most extreme version of the position, in an attempt to discredit it.&nbsp; Exhibit J: &quot;Telegraphing&quot; a trap becomes &quot;Signs that say 'trap here'.&quot;Maybe that also happens, but some have argued pretty explicitly that they think the adjudication of anything important should fall to the dice using ability/skill mechanics, and that no cleverness on the part of the player should alter the probabilities.&nbsp; That, for example, &quot;I disarm the trap&quot; with no description should have exactly the same odds of disarming the trap as proposing a clever and logical way of doing so.It gets pretty frustrating when you try repeatedly to clarify your position, and others continue to (willfully?) ignore it, preferring the more extreme caricature instead.&nbsp; For example, in the thread about Insight, how many times did a bunch of us explain &quot;it's not about the quality of the performance, it's about the approach taken&quot; and still a couple posters kept going on about how we're rewarding people for being glib.I mean, I guess you're right in the sense that maybe we should just stop arguing with those people.And as I just said above, continually accusing somebody of DMing that way, when it's been explained to them repeatedly that they are totally misinterpreting what you mean by 'approach', also misses the point.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7598302"] I'm not sure I buy that. I mean, I agree that it would be valid to use a pure-logic challenge for illustrative purposes, for example if you were asking another poster to clarify their position. But what I'm seeing from some posters (and really this is a pattern that repeats itself in all these debates) is a willful exaggeration of the other side to the most extreme version of the position, in an attempt to discredit it. Exhibit J: "Telegraphing" a trap becomes "Signs that say 'trap here'." Maybe that also happens, but some have argued pretty explicitly that they think the adjudication of anything important should fall to the dice using ability/skill mechanics, and that no cleverness on the part of the player should alter the probabilities. That, for example, "I disarm the trap" with no description should have exactly the same odds of disarming the trap as proposing a clever and logical way of doing so. It gets pretty frustrating when you try repeatedly to clarify your position, and others continue to (willfully?) ignore it, preferring the more extreme caricature instead. For example, in the thread about Insight, how many times did a bunch of us explain "it's not about the quality of the performance, it's about the approach taken" and still a couple posters kept going on about how we're rewarding people for being glib. I mean, I guess you're right in the sense that maybe we should just stop arguing with those people. And as I just said above, continually accusing somebody of DMing that way, when it's been explained to them repeatedly that they are totally misinterpreting what you mean by 'approach', also misses the point. [/QUOTE]

Verification