Quote from: Seanchai;374456No, you quoted bits of the thread. As I can provide page numbers for the skill system in question and you yourself admitted that the skill system exists, I'd say that makes me correct.

Seanchai

You must never cease being tired of being wrong, although I suspect you're just afraid of admitting you're wrong for some reason. I quoted the relevant bits of the thread back to you because you seemed to have forgotten what we were discussing. That is unless you were starting a new discussion and you failed to tell anyone. I would love to be enlightened as to the page numbers for where each of the skills included in the WotC skill system is also included in 1e, in fact that's what I already asked you for and you've so far failed to provide. I'm especially interested in the 1e version of Intimidate which RandallS specifically mentioned liking not being included in 1e. By all means, provide books and page numbers for this alleged skill system. I'm intensely interested.

Quote from: Seanchai;374458How many folks out of the 2,795 board members weighed in again? Is it more than 10?

Seanchai

Is that important really? I will concede to exaggerating, mainly because I already have one completely pointless argument going with you already, and since I was indeed exaggerating, at least about the "vast majority" on this site bit. I can say the only 2 in this thread who seem to have any problem with the terms is you and Dead Uematsu, so however few we are, we're still not as few as you two. Take that any way you want, I couldn't care less. We will continue to have perfectly meaningful and interesting discussions using the terms, and you will continue to make snide and pointless posts about how the terms we're using are meaningless and how we're all discussing nothing and we'll just go on conversing anyway. Have fun with that. Hopefully the "win" will help you feel better about yourself.

Quote from: Benoist;374459Still need to pick it up, by the way - Outdoor Survival, I mean. It's completely optional, though. It's basically the board you use as a "default" hex map to explore in the game. If you build your own campaign milieu, then you don't need it, unless of course your milieu happens to be based on Outdoor Survival's board...

Years ago I asked Mr. Gygax about the importance of this game. Since it was listed as being required to play D&D, I assumed it was vital. Turns out it was just the board to use as a map. I picked up a copy anyway.

Quote from: Fifth Element;374657Years ago I asked Mr. Gygax about the importance of this game. Since it was listed as being required to play D&D, I assumed it was vital. Turns out it was just the board to use as a map. I picked up a copy anyway.

Yup. That's basically it!

Quote from: Sigmund;374529Other than for you and DU, we already have. How does it feel to be wrong yet again?

Wrong? How many people out of 2,795 have come to this consensus again? That's right. Statistically speaking, almost none...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;374797Wrong? How many people out of 2,795 have come to this consensus again? That's right. Statistically speaking, almost none...

Seanchai

And how many actively disagree? That's right. TWO known shit-stirrers around these parts.

Quote from: Sigmund;374532I would love to be enlightened as to the page numbers for where each of the skills included in the WotC skill system is also included in 1e, in fact that's what I already asked you for and you've so far failed to provide.

I would imagine I'd have to have said that each of the skills WotC's skill system appears in 1e for me to feel any obligation to produce said evidence. As that's your straw man, I'll let you chase after it.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;374801I would imagine I'd have to have said that each of the skills WotC's skill system appears in 1e for me to feel any obligation to produce said evidence. As that's your straw man, I'll let you chase after it.

Seanchai

Oh. Ok, I think I see now. So, in response to being asked by you, "What did WotC turn into a die roll that wasn't already a die roll in a TSR version?", RandallS responded, "All the skills, for the most part. " After directly quoting that response, you then responded, "They exist in 1e.", but you did not actually mean all the skills after all, or even "for the most part" (and so of course can't actually provide books and page numbers like you said you could) yet didn't then feel the need to actually say so, and then argued with me about it even though you actually agreed with me all along. Do I have this right? Do you think, perhaps, that if you had said, "Some of them (or even more accurately, "a few of them") exist in 1e", it might have been more accurate? Face it, you're wrong. I know ya won't admit it, but it's pretty clear anyway. Go ahead and shift goal posts or make up stories about straw men, maybe even with flying monkeys and little dogs too, I've made my point.

Quote from: Seanchai;374797How many people out of 2,795 have come to this consensus again?
Seanchai

Well, pretty much the ones using the terms in question at the time I'd say. So, yeah, we pretty much have that. I mean, there's you and DU, but really who the fuck cares about you two not agreeing with something? We're more surprised when you do agree with something after all. Other than that, yeah, we pretty much all agree already, so we're good. Thanks.

Quote from: Sigmund;374834Oh. Ok, I think I see now. So, in response to being asked by you, "What did WotC turn into a die roll that wasn't already a die roll in a TSR version?", RandallS responded, "All the skills, for the most part. "

I took, and take, "all the skills" not to mean every specific skill, but rather a skill system. Hence my responses.

Quote from: Sigmund;374834Do you think, perhaps, that if you had said, "Some of them (or even more accurately, "a few of them") exist in 1e", it might have been more accurate?

I did say that.

"Moreover, if you don't think 1e had something akin to Intimidate and Perception, for example, you should go back and re-read the rules."

"Clearly, they're not the same."

"The core 1e system has players and DMs making plenty of de facto skill checks."

Quote from: Sigmund;374836Well, pretty much the ones using the terms in question at the time I'd say.

So...about six of you at the most? Or .2% of the members here? That's not exactly a consensus or, at the very least, a significant consensus. You can dance around the question of just how many people have come to some sort of agreement, but it's clear you're leagues away from demonstrating that it doesn't all come down to personal preference.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;374977I took, and take, "all the skills" not to mean every specific skill, but rather a skill system. Hence my responses.

That's how I took it, too.  NWPs are a (really bad) skill system, but are a system of character skills.  Rules Cyclopedia had a really bad skill system as well.  And there were indeed discussions in the various TSR edition books about die-rolling for things and not just using player skills at description.

Now, they did tend to avoid interaction type skills.  But, on the other hand, you were supposed to be making reaction rolls and morale rolls, which more or less take the place of diplomacy and intimidate skill checks.

My only point has been that WotC has, indeed, simply continued to develop along the same path TSR had been going down for 20 years.  TSR continually made the game more complex and more reliant on rules vs. DM fiat - and all that was in response to customer feedback, who preferred it that way.

The idea that "TSR products" only represents the stuff some grongards like, and doesn't represent things they don't like (like the changes to the rules made in Unearthed Arcana, the Survival Guides, the Rules Compendium, the Player's Option series of 2e, etc) is just plain silly.

Quote from: Seanchai;374977I took, and take, "all the skills" not to mean every specific skill, but rather a skill system. Hence my responses.

However that's not what you wrote, so it's kinda hard to respond appropriately to what you're not writing.

QuoteI did say that.

"Moreover, if you don't think 1e had something akin to Intimidate and Perception, for example, you should go back and re-read the rules."

"Clearly, they're not the same."

"The core 1e system has players and DMs making plenty of de facto skill checks."

Of course you did, after I pointed it out. Glad that's settled.

QuoteSo...about six of you at the most? Or .2% of the members here? That's not exactly a consensus or, at the very least, a significant consensus. You can dance around the question of just how many people have come to some sort of agreement, but it's clear you're leagues away from demonstrating that it doesn't all come down to personal preference.

Seanchai

Honestly, I couldn't care less whether you consider it to be entirely personal preference or not. We were having a discussion using those terms. We seemed to be able to understand each other, and more or less agree with each other, quite well. You and DU jumped in to question the validity of how we are using the terms, yet neither of you even agree with each other, so you are each of the opinion that the terms are defined opposite to one another, but that we are all wrong in how we use them. So, you have a consensus of one. DU has a consensus of one. We have several times that at least just in this thread. Forgive me if I choose to go with the larger number, since it has worked just fine for me up until now anyway. If you can manage to gather any more evidence than just your personal opinion about what the terms mean, then feel free to re-initiate the discussion. Since I have no problem with the terms as I and others have been using them, I feel no need to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of your personal opinion, especially since even when you are proven to be wrong, you rarely concede, and argue for page after page about increasingly irrelevant or inaccurate minutia in order to avoid admitting any error on your part.

Quote from: Seanchai;374977I took, and take, "all the skills" not to mean every specific skill, but rather a skill system. Hence my responses.

And what is the 'skill system' in 1e?  Ability checks? Background professions?  What is this 'skill system' you keep referring to?  Because you specifically mentioned Non-Weapon Proficiencies, which didn't show up until the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide as an optional system, and weren't implemented in the main rules until 2nd edition.  And even then, the entirety of the skill system was clearly marked as optional.  The NWP part was the second of two options to an optional system.

So, as Sigmund is fond of pointing out lately, you are still wrong.  Until 2nd edition, there is no 'skill system' in AD&D.

Quote"Moreover, if you don't think 1e had something akin to Intimidate and Perception, for example, you should go back and re-read the rules."

a·kin adj
"If you squint really hard, and use terms in a completely non-standard way that only conform to the exact definition that supports my argument"

Quote"Clearly, they're not the same."

Then why are you trying to say they are the same?

Quote"The core 1e system has players and DMs making plenty of de facto skill checks."

I do no think that word means what you think it means.

QuoteSo...about six of you at the most? Or .2% of the members here? That's not exactly a consensus or, at the very least, a significant consensus. You can dance around the question of just how many people have come to some sort of agreement, but it's clear you're leagues away from demonstrating that it doesn't all come down to personal preference.

Ok, let's say it is six.  How many of the 2,795 members are rushing in to countervail those six and defend your argument?  Generously, we'll say 1, even though that one isn't really defending your position as Sigmund points out.  So, the two of you.  .07%  I am not even sure that is the legal limit for intoxication in most states.  Additionally, the six you are claiming make up 75% of the eight in question.  We could pass amendments to the US Constitution with those numbers.

In other words, you can play all the mathematical tricks you want in your attempt to downplay the significance, but in the end it still boils out that there are only the two of you defending a ridiculous stance.

(Cue argument that numbers don't equal DA TROOF, whereupon any number of posts can be easily found wherein 'popularity = quality' is not only the major theme, it is the entire point of a 'refutation')

Quote from: jgants;374985That's how I took it, too.  NWPs are a (really bad) skill system, but are a system of character skills.  Rules Cyclopedia had a really bad skill system as well.  And there were indeed discussions in the various TSR edition books about die-rolling for things and not just using player skills at description.

Now, they did tend to avoid interaction type skills.  But, on the other hand, you were supposed to be making reaction rolls and morale rolls, which more or less take the place of diplomacy and intimidate skill checks.

My only point has been that WotC has, indeed, simply continued to develop along the same path TSR had been going down for 20 years.  TSR continually made the game more complex and more reliant on rules vs. DM fiat - and all that was in response to customer feedback, who preferred it that way.

The idea that "TSR products" only represents the stuff some grongards like, and doesn't represent things they don't like (like the changes to the rules made in Unearthed Arcana, the Survival Guides, the Rules Compendium, the Player's Option series of 2e, etc) is just plain silly.

I might have even made sense to take it that way, if RandallS had not added the qualifier "for the most part" and also referred to a specific skill (Intimidation). I entered into discussion with Seanchai regarding 1e specifically because he mentioned 1e specifically. Sure, there are mechanics included in 1e that could be used in a similar manner to WotC skills by individual DMs as houserules if they chose to. Many years after 1e was released, a crude precursor to the WotC skill system was also introduced to 1e in the form of the optional NWP system, but given that RandallS doesn't seem to like skill systems in D&D, I'm betting he chooses not to use these options, and can make that choice because the optional mechanics/houserules in 1e are not tied into other rules/mechanics like the WotC skill system is, because 1e was not originally designed to have a skill "system". Plus, perhaps you might want to avoid completely fabricating both other people's arguments and how the rules are presented. Few if any characterize "TSR products" as only things they like, and the specific 1e "rules" (NWPs) we are discussing here were never presented as rules "changes", but as "options". Just so we're clear, options are things that can be used in an individual game/group, or not, depending on what they choose. Sure WotC developed along a path laid down in previous editions, but that does not mean 1e included a skill "system", especially one equivalent, or even all that similar in scope or application, as Seanchai originally tried to indicate.

Quote from: Sigmund;374997Sure, there are mechanics included in 1e that could be used in a similar manner to WotC skills by individual DMs as houserules if they chose to.

I'm not talking about houserules. I'm talking about systems such as listening at doors - basically a perception check - that has different modifiers based on the attributes of the PC making the check.

Seanchai