Quote from: jrients;375448If you tell someone your game has a skill system, I think they are going to expect something more on their character sheet than "Listen at Door 1 in 6".

"Listen at Door 1 in 6" wasn't the definition I provided for skill systems. It was, again, "It's a subsystem of a game in which assigns a mostly static modifier to the resolution of some specific task."

Quote from: jrients;375448And during chargen they'll probably want to select the skills they are good at and later they will probably want to train to improve them.  

Those are good points. First, not all skill systems allow you to choose your skills or bonuses. Second, training up is a problem as that's clearly not going to happen here, so I'll stick to "akin" and "rudimentary" when describing it.

Seanchai

Quote from: Sigmund;375492And yet they're not used the same way at all. Having the Dm describe a room and then telling the DM where you want your character to search is also a "de facto" skill system, and apparently the one RandallS prefers.

You need to describe what you're searching, etc., with WotC's editions of the game as well.

Quote from: Sigmund;375492The point is, you tried to say that 1e includes a WotC style skill system and it doesn't.

No. Again, I said 1e had a skill system.

Quote from: Sigmund;375492I didn't say nobody could listen at doors.

"Except not really a perception check because it's very specific, which is why it's called "listening at doors", not "perception", and only thieves could do it, not everybody."

Quote from: Sigmund;375492I thought we were discussing skills, so I was referring to the thief skill "Listening at Doors".

How could you? You've spent this entire time arguing that there is no skill system in 1e. How could thieves have skills?

Quote from: Sigmund;375492What you said, as I've pointed out, was that 1e D&D contained a WotC style skill system, in direct contradiction to RandallS telling you what older editions do not contain that WotC editions do.

No, that's all you. RandallS said 1e didn't have skills, the context being that players controlled the course of the game, not a die roll. I pointed out that 1e has a skill system and has several rudimentary systems which are akin to skills. These are not player directed and hinge on die rolls.

The whole "it has to be just like WotC's system" is your invention and straw man.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;375598"Listen at Door 1 in 6" wasn't the definition I provided for skill systems. It was, again, "It's a subsystem of a game in which assigns a mostly static modifier to the resolution of some specific task."

So my character with a 13 Strength has a +1 to open doors.  Is that a "skill system"?  It hardly seems like a skill to me and it doesn't seem very systematic.

Quote from: jrients;375603So my character with a 13 Strength has a +1 to open doors.  Is that a "skill system"?  It hardly seems like a skill to me and it doesn't seem very systematic.

Quote from: Seanchai;375598"It's a subsystem of a game in which assigns a mostly static modifier to the resolution of some specific task."
Seanchai

Dwarven bonuses to poison saves = skill system.

Quote from: Seanchai;375602You need to describe what you're searching, etc., with WotC's editions of the game as well.

While many DMs include description, I see nothing in the Perception skill or WotC system that requires it.

QuoteNo. Again, I said 1e had a skill system.

No, you said 1e had a skill system like the one WotC designed.

Quote"Except not really a perception check because it's very specific, which is why it's called "listening at doors", not "perception", and only thieves could do it, not everybody."



How could you? You've spent this entire time arguing that there is no skill system in 1e. How could thieves have skills?

No, that's you making up my argument to suit your nitpicking argumentativeness. You wanted to talk skills, so I was talking skills. I never said 1e didn't have mechanics that would allow characters to do things. I said, 1e does not include a skill system. If you want to redefine what we're discussing to include the 1e thief's class abilities that are labelled as skills, then sure, go ahead. Based on the new definition, I'll say 1e does not include a skill subsystem that is independent of class. The "skills" in 1e are a class ability of the thief. The crux of the issue is that many to most of the skils that WotC included in it's skill system were either not defined in 1e, not defined as specifically in 1e, or were actually class abilities in 1e. It's clear that they are very different, that 1e's way of handling is much looser and much more open to interpretation, and that RandallS prefers the older way, which is what you originally attacked and has been the enitre point of my objection to your attack all along.

QuoteNo, that's all you. RandallS said 1e didn't have skills, the context being that players controlled the course of the game, not a die roll. I pointed out that 1e has a skill system and has several rudimentary systems which are akin to skills. These are not player directed and hinge on die rolls.

No, you made a blanket statement that you didn't think you'd be called on, and are now being forced to go back and either recharacterize what you wrote, or be more specific about what you meant.

QuoteThe whole "it has to be just like WotC's system" is your invention and straw man.

Seanchai

No, RandallS wrote about what he didn't like about newer editions as compared to older editions, and you decided to attack what he wrote in a vague and inaccurate way and i called you on it. I don't give a fuck about skills myself, that's never been my problem at all. My problem is you giving people shit just to do it, rather than engage in an actual discussion.

Plus, you seem to continue to have a selective memory about even what you wrote yourself. Things like, "Except we're discussing what WotC editions added that weren't in TSR editions." and (in response to RandallS), "They exist in 1e." How is this "I pointed out that 1e has a skill system and has several rudimentary systems which are akin to skills." I don't see you pointing out anything except your apparent belief that 1e includes a skills system like WotC's skill system, which is what that post was in response to. So, you have had to back-pedal and actual present an argument rather than just attack someone else's preference.

You guys do realize you're arguing with Seanchai, right?

Quote from: Benoist;375640You guys do realize you're arguing with Seanchai, right?

I think that arguing with Seanchai and then coming to the realization that he is not intellectually honest in his arguements is becomming a Right of Passage here.

Quote from: Benoist;375640You guys do realize you're arguing with Seanchai, right?

Quote from: jeff37923;375642I think that arguing with Seanchai and then coming to the realization that he is not intellectually honest in his arguements is becomming a Right of Passage here.

I would hardly characterize my participation as arguing.  More like a MiSTing, really.  I am going to get a graphic of Joel and the Bots and start framing my posts.  

I'm just enjoying pointing out the dishonesty. I'll stop when I get bored.

Quote from: jrients;375603So my character with a 13 Strength has a +1 to open doors.  Is that a "skill system"?  It hardly seems like a skill to me and it doesn't seem very systematic.

Clearly, it's a system. As for it's relation to skills, they're often based on attributes and default to them in the case where a character is untrained. I think you could make an argument that it's akin to a skill system or a rudimentary one. But I think they are stronger examples of such things in 1e.

Seanchai

Quote from: Sigmund;375638While many DMs include description, I see nothing in the Perception skill or WotC system that requires it.

If a Search or Perception check only covers a square or a few squares and the PCs don't describe where they're searching, how would they find anything? You believe that the WotC skills Search and Perception were designed only to cover what lay at the PCs' feet?

Quote from: Sigmund;375638No, that's you making up my argument to suit your nitpicking argumentativeness.

No, it's a direct quote.

Quote from: Sigmund;375638If you want to redefine what we're discussing to include the 1e thief's class abilities that are labelled as skills, then sure, go ahead.

I don't need to redefine what we're discussing. It already covers Thief Functions.

Quote from: Sigmund;375638It's clear that they are very different, that 1e's way of handling is much looser and much more open to interpretation...

Which is it, 1e relied on player skill or 1e relied more on player skill that WotC editions because it was looser and more open to interpretation?

The reason skills and skill systems are relevant is because they don't rely on player skill to any large degree. The presence of rudimentary skill systems (along other systems) lays to rest the idea that 1e was a mecca of player ingenuity, that it was the mind behind the character that mattered in those early editions and not mechanics.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;375969Clearly, it's a system.

Now I'm confused.  Can you clarify the difference between a system and a game mechanic that is not a system?  Maybe give me an example?

Quote from: jrients;375603So my character with a 13 Strength has a +1 to open doors.  Is that a "skill system"?  It hardly seems like a skill to me and it doesn't seem very systematic.

I don't know. I would kinda define a skill system as anything that requires a dice roll (even just attribute checks..) that isn't combat. I seem to recall attribute checks in Basic D&D, but I can't remember. If someone had a big issue with that I don't think it's even worth battling over.

So a +1 to open doors is the modifier to the door-opening skill system. (Where you open doors on a 1-x on a y sided dice.

Why is it that the same guys every time are trying to simply trying to shout out dissent, remain completely off topic, and seemingly exist only to validate each other? This is an extremely trivial topic, and people could be discussing in it in a completely casual way, but it's being artificially escalated just to maintain solidarity. The issue isn't skill systems, really, let's just admit it. The issue is seanchai is talking so he has to be shouted down by the three dumbest motherfuckers on the board.

Well I guess some trio of posters have to be the three dumbest motherfuckers on the board, but I honestly don't see how asking for some clarification on this point constitutes shouting Seanchai down.  Personally, I never would have said there was a skill 'system' in D&D prior to non-weapon proficiencies in later 1st edition AD&D and the optional skills in the RC.  Did the D&D skills appear in BECMI as well?  I don't have the CMI part of those sets.  I mean, am I talking crazy talk here, or didn't Runequest and many other later FRP games gain converts preisely because they had skill systems and early D&D did not?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;375990Why is it that the same guys every time are trying to simply trying to shout out dissent, remain completely off topic, and seemingly exist only to validate each other? This is an extremely trivial topic, and people could be discussing in it in a completely casual way, but it's being artificially escalated just to maintain solidarity. The issue isn't skill systems, really, let's just admit it. The issue is seanchai is talking so he has to be shouted down by the three dumbest motherfuckers on the board.

This another example of the personal trolling style that you call "Retard Farming", isn't it?