Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 2899242" data-attributes="member: 151">It's a term someone invented up-thread.&nbsp; They decided that since 2e was tactical, but 3e was MORE tactical in their opinion, they describe it as 'sub-tactical'.&nbsp; Which I guess is the same as 'more detailed tactical than just tactical'. Now, as to the exchange shown above, I guess this illustrates different play and DM-ing styles.&nbsp;&nbsp; IMC, there would have been circumstance bonuses/penalties, should players attempt to do certain things.&nbsp; I don't care how high the half-crazed druggie's CHA is...the police are coming into a potentially violent situation on a call...-10 to any diplomacy or bluff checks.&nbsp; I'm not sure comparing dual-wielding guns is really a fair comparison to dual-wielding sword and dagger in D&amp;D, personally.&nbsp; How does d20 modern handle dual-wielding guns might be a better comparison, or M&amp;M (my personal favorite for modern), instead.As long as your players and you are both having fun, then it was the right choice for your group.&nbsp; It wouldn't be for mine, necessarily, but I honestly believe that while the system DOES influence the fun, it does not DICTATE the fun.&nbsp; Hence I ran a 8 year Superhero game in GURPS (yes, GURPS) that was just as much fun as the M&amp;M game I run today.&nbsp; The system is merely a mechanical framework...a means to an end that may be more or less suited to an individual group's needs.A side thought: one thing that is rarely discussed, IME, when complaining about the presence of social skills is the bias of perception against them.&nbsp; Apparently, it's all right to assume the real player is a blacksmith due to his skill, but not that he's a consumate liar unless his player also is.&nbsp; This, to me, says that certain players aren't allowed to play certain types of characters, because those characters don't excel at that skill in the real world and thus should be penalized in the game world for it.&nbsp; The presence of a Diplomacy, Bluff or Sense Motive skill are not substitutes for role-playing, they are supplements to them.&nbsp; In my game, just as we don't roleplay every financial transaction, so too we do not roleplay every social interaction, unless it is meaningful to us.&nbsp; Bluffing your way past the first guard might be fun and interesting...but by the time you're halfway through the palace, not so much.&nbsp; I can understand why that approach wouldn't appeal to some, but to me, the intent and goal is more important than the actual implementation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WizarDru, post: 2899242, member: 151"] It's a term someone invented up-thread. They decided that since 2e was tactical, but 3e was MORE tactical in their opinion, they describe it as 'sub-tactical'. Which I guess is the same as 'more detailed tactical than just tactical'. Now, as to the exchange shown above, I guess this illustrates different play and DM-ing styles. IMC, there would have been circumstance bonuses/penalties, should players attempt to do certain things. I don't care how high the half-crazed druggie's CHA is...the police are coming into a potentially violent situation on a call...-10 to any diplomacy or bluff checks. I'm not sure comparing dual-wielding guns is really a fair comparison to dual-wielding sword and dagger in D&D, personally. How does d20 modern handle dual-wielding guns might be a better comparison, or M&M (my personal favorite for modern), instead. As long as your players and you are both having fun, then it was the right choice for your group. It wouldn't be for mine, necessarily, but I honestly believe that while the system DOES influence the fun, it does not DICTATE the fun. Hence I ran a 8 year Superhero game in GURPS (yes, GURPS) that was just as much fun as the M&M game I run today. The system is merely a mechanical framework...a means to an end that may be more or less suited to an individual group's needs. A side thought: one thing that is rarely discussed, IME, when complaining about the presence of social skills is the bias of perception against them. Apparently, it's all right to assume the real player is a blacksmith due to his skill, but not that he's a consumate liar unless his player also is. This, to me, says that certain players aren't allowed to play certain types of characters, because those characters don't excel at that skill in the real world and thus should be penalized in the game world for it. The presence of a Diplomacy, Bluff or Sense Motive skill are not substitutes for role-playing, they are supplements to them. In my game, just as we don't roleplay every financial transaction, so too we do not roleplay every social interaction, unless it is meaningful to us. Bluffing your way past the first guard might be fun and interesting...but by the time you're halfway through the palace, not so much. I can understand why that approach wouldn't appeal to some, but to me, the intent and goal is more important than the actual implementation. [/QUOTE]

Verification