Quote from: One Horse Town;376053Nothing personal, old bean.

Ok. Good to know.

Quote from: StormBringer;376035Yeah, DeadUematsu has a penchant for shitting all over threads.  At which point you seem to be compelled to come in and shit them up some more by complaining about the stench of shit.

Ah no.

Quote from: jrients;375974Now 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?

Main Entry: sys·tem
Pronunciation: \ˈsis-təm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin systemat-, systema, from Greek systēmat-, systēma, from synistanai to combine, from syn- + histanai to cause to stand — more at stand
Date: 1603

1 : a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole :

...

2 : an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole
3 a : an organized or established procedure

It seems to me that it's you who means something non-standard by "system," so how would you differentiate mechanic and system?

Seanchai

Quote from: jrients;375992Personally, 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.

Which is fine, but those are in TSR editions. And "later 1st edition" was 1986.

Seanchai

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;376006It's three dudes shouting at Seanchai and then loudly chuffling each others wieners over it.

They're not shouting at me: Benoist is the only one of them I'm not ignoring.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;376177Main Entry: sys·tem
Pronunciation: \ˈsis-təm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin systemat-, systema, from Greek systēmat-, systēma, from synistanai to combine, from syn- + histanai to cause to stand — more at stand
Date: 1603

1 : a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole :

...

2 : an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole
3 a : an organized or established procedure

It seems to me that it's you who means something non-standard by "system," so how would you differentiate mechanic and system?

A)  Any particular reason you did not provide me the example requested?

B)  Please explain to me how Listening at Doors fits into the definition of a skill system based upon your definition above.  I see definition 3 working, as long as we are talking about the Listening at Doors rules as the system for, well, listening at doors.

C)  A mechanic can be an isolated part of the game that has no direct points of contact to the rest of the whole, maybe like capturing en passant or castling in chess.  A system, being 'a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole' and/or 'an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole', would provide additional and more uniform points of contact with the overall game, like the way cliche system in Risus drives nearly all mechanical action.

D) Asking me for answer C above without giving me the requested example seems a little uncharitable of you.  It's little moves like that which give ammo to the people who claim you aren't intellectually honest in your discourse here.

Quote from: SeanchaiWhich is fine, but those are in TSR editions. And "later 1st edition" was 1986.

I would've said 1985, as that's the year on the copyright page in my copies of Oriental Adventures.  Of course the Listen at Doors rules you cited as (part of?) a (rudimentary?) skill system goes back to OD&D eleven years earlier, so I'm not sure why you care about this particular point.  I thought you've been arguing for the presence of a rudimentary skill system in OD&D.  I couldn't tell you the total number of times I've heard people very reasonably argue that they didn't like earlier versions of D&D because diverse things like searching, sneaking about, negotiating, swimming, climbing, singing songs and crafting items weren't handled under the rubric of a single skill 'system'.  You seem to be telling me those people were wrong.  I always thought it was a legit complaint.  If you want a skill system, D&D isn't going to be a good answer for you.  Even the later skill system accretions won't help, since the skill-centered experience some people are looking for gets undermined by the class system.

Arguing from definitions is pretty much hopeless unless you can get everyone to agree and understand them in the first place. "System" isn't one of those terms, perhaps. I can only volunteer my own take on what I personally assume when I read D&D-related posts on "skill system" and how I understand that term.

I think the two major factors which differentiate a RPG system using skills in a less than systematic way and one using a full blown skill system are there being a single set of skills such that (a) each of these skills is individually accessible to any character in the game and (b) jointly these skills are intended to cover any situation in the game un-related to combat and magic (talking now about D&D).

What do I mean by this is,

regarding (a): older editions had class-exclusive skills, and 3E made these into stuff that appears on the character sheet of any PC in the game. The difference here (pre-3E to 3e) isn't quite as clear cut, though, since even 3E has a subset of skills which a PC can't attempt to use unless he is "trained" in it, and being trained in it actually requires you to invest a rank in it. However, the major point stands - there's a difference between a class-exclusive ability, and a skill any PC in the game can (theoretically) use. The difference between "skill" and "class ability" is certainly there, as witness the 3.0 -> 3.5 overhaul, when WotC rethought what goes into these categories (scrying and some other skill, Ranger-related I can't currently - perhaps Handle Animals?). I think it's a useful criterion, since it wards off miscategorizations like 2E non-weapon proficiencies - which I regard as class or kit specific - as "skills" in the later sense of being open to any PC.

regarding (b): there's an assumption in 3E and certainly in 4E (as witness skill challenges) that the skills offered jointly suffice to cover any in-game situation that comes up. That's new and wasn't there with earlier editions, since earlier on skills weren't intended to cover everything. And (b) is a system assumption, not a "you must play it this way ... or else" assumption about everyone's play style. Of course every DM can use as little or much as he likes w.r.t. to how frequently he asks for skill rolls (as opposed to ability roles). The point is rather that IF the DM wants, he CAN now use a fairly expansive skill system. That's what differentiates 3.x and 4E skills from earlier editions.

PS. I think Matt Finch's Old School Primer totally misses the gist of that final paragraph.

Quote from: Sigmund;376019The Search text refers to things needing to be "generally" within 10' of the searcher, but nowhere in the description of the skill does it say that the DM needs to provide any details as to what the character even sees for the character to use the skill, nor does it require the player to be more specific than that the character is searching, which would apparently cover 10' in all directions.

The sentence following the one you paraphrase describes how much volume can be searched. The skill description describes distance from the character and volume. Moreover, it says nothing about 10 feet in all directions - it says you can't search something from a distance.

In other words, in context of the skill, a player can't simply say, "I search." To use the skill, you need to say something like "I search the room" or "I search the bodies."

Quote from: Sigmund;376019When I play 1e I have to describe what my character is searching specifically...

Using phrases such as "I search the room" or "I search the bodies..."

Quote from: Sigmund;376019Do you believe they are mutually exclusive?

I believe "player skill" has nothing to do with the issue. I'd define "player skill" to be situations in which the player's strategies, tactics, influence, and approach move the game forward, hopefully in the positive direction.

It isn't the amount of player skill that changed between 1e and subsequent editions, particularly WotC ones. It was the players vs. DM paradigm. It became players vs. the rules.

Quote from: Sigmund;376019Nobody here has said dice are never rolled in 1e for things the character is trying to do...

Rolling dice isn't the issue. Rolling the dice merely indicates that a player isn't deciding the outcome of events via "player skill."

.

Quote from: Sigmund;376019...because you can't win the real argument, which is that 1e had no skill system, and especially not one like WotC's, which is what you originally tried to get away with writing.

I actually did write it. And, again, I didn't claim it was like WotC's - that's your strawman. And 1e does indeed have a skill system. Moreover, it has rudimentary skill systems in various places.

And you admitted as much. Why you're not arguing that it doesn't is beyond me.

Quote from: Sigmund;376036He attacked RandallS's preference by trying to invalidate one of the stated reasons for it.

No. I could care less about RandallS' preferences. As I indicated, he doesn't play in my group. What I attacked, if "attacked" is even the correct term, is yet more revisionist bullshit. WotC didn't add skills to the game. WotC didn't add the idea of rolling dice instead of utilizing "player skill" to the game. That's all TSR.

Seanchai

Quote from: Windjammer;376204regarding (b): there's an assumption in 3E and certainly in 4E (as witness skill challenges) that the skills offered jointly suffice to cover any in-game situation that comes up. That's new and wasn't there with earlier editions, since earlier on skills weren't intended to cover everything. And (b) is a system assumption, not a "you must play it this way ... or else" assumption about everyone's play style. Of course every DM can use as little or much as he likes w.r.t. to how frequently he asks for skill rolls (as opposed to ability roles). The point is rather that IF the DM wants, he CAN now use a fairly expansive skill system. That's what differentiates 3.x and 4E skills from earlier editions.

PS. I think Matt Finch's Old School Primer totally misses the gist of that final paragraph.

I don't really think so.

Of course you can use or not use the tools offered to you by a game system. Their presence, however, means that they are thought of being used, potentially, for any situation in the game, as you pointed out, whereas the Old School Primer specifically points out that there is a play style which will emphasize different means of resolution, i.e. the player's skills and wits, as opposed to a character skill system.

I don't think the Old School Primer dismisses the possibility of playing a modern game design with an old school bent, discarding the use of skills and mechanics in favor of player's skill and wits. Rather, the OSP speaks about modern-style gaming, as in "play style", which assumes the use of skills for most tasks resolution in the game:

Quote from: Old School PrimerMost of the time in old-style gaming, you don't use a rule; you make a ruling. It's easy to understand that sentence, but it takes a flash of insight to really "get it." The players can describe any action, without needing to look at a character sheet to see if they "can" do it. The referee, in turn, uses common sense to decide what happens or rolls a die if he thinks there's some random element involved, and then the game moves on. This is why characters have so few numbers on the character sheet, and why they have so few specified abilities. Many of the things that are "die roll" challenges in modern gaming (disarming a trap, for example) are handled by observation, thinking, and experimentation in old-style games. Getting through obstacles is more "hands-on" than you're probably used to. Rules are a resource for the referee, not for the players. Players use observation and description as their tools and resources: rules are for the referee only.

(...)

Note: The modern-style GM in these examples is a pretty boring guy when it comes to adding flavor into his game. This isn't done to make modern-style gaming look bad: we assume most people reading this booklet regularly play modern-style games and know that they aren't this boring. It's done to highlight when and how rules are used in modern gaming, as opposed to when and how they aren't used in oldstyle gaming. So the modern-style GM talks his way through all the rules he's using, which isn't how a good modern-style GM usually runs his game.

Quote from: Seanchai;376211In other words, in context of the skill, a player can't simply say, "I search." To use the skill, you need to say something like "I search the room" or "I search the bodies."

Pedantic bullshit.  Of course you have to specify what you are searching, just like you have to specify what you are attacking.  What people didn't do, and this is what separates it from a 'skill system', is say "I rolled a 23 on my Search check.  What do I find?"  In fact, the later editions did exactly that, replace player skill in discovering where to look with a catch-all roll that simply provided the answers.

QuoteI believe "player skill" has nothing to do with the issue. I'd define "player skill" to be situations in which the player's strategies, tactics, influence, and approach move the game forward, hopefully in the positive direction.

Do you mean something like "I search the fireplace for a loose stone" or "I don't like the looks of that altar, I will keep my distance and look for triggering mechanisms"?  A strategy that the player would have developed from previous experiences that didn't involve rolling a Search check?

QuoteRolling dice isn't the issue. Rolling the dice merely indicates that a player isn't deciding the outcome of events via "player skill."

Wildy wrong again.  Player skill is in knowing where or what to search, when to break out the 10' pole and check for pit traps, or figuring out what the light breeze is coming from under the door.  As opposed to "I roll Search/Perception."

QuoteNo. I could care less about RandallS' preferences. As I indicated, he doesn't play in my group. What I attacked, if "attacked" is even the correct term, is yet more revisionist bullshit. WotC didn't add skills to the game. WotC didn't add the idea of rolling dice instead of utilizing "player skill" to the game. That's all TSR.

And yet, you are unable or unwilling to point out exactly where these skills are listed or described.  You just keep making the positive assertion that they are there, somewhere, and hoping that it takes.  Flinging shit at the wall and seeing what sticks, in other words.

Quote from: jrients;376184A)  Any particular reason you did not provide me the example requested?

I see "system" and "mechanic" as basically synonymous, so pick something out of a game and there's your example. Now, if you were referring to a game as a whole, I could see calling it a system - i.e., "What system are you using to run your campaign?"

Quote from: jrients;376184B)  Please explain to me how Listening at Doors fits into the definition of a skill system based upon your definition above.  I see definition 3 working, as long as we are talking about the Listening at Doors rules as the system for, well, listening at doors.

I'm confused. If you see definition three as a working, why do you need further explanation?

Quote from: jrients;376184C)  A mechanic can be an isolated part of the game that has no direct points of contact to the rest of the whole, maybe like capturing en passant or castling in chess.

How would you set that up? For example, listening at doors in 1e contacts at least two other points of contact: the choice of race and use of equipment.

Quote from: jrients;376184It's little moves like that which give ammo to the people who claim you aren't intellectually honest in your discourse here.

Shrug. People will say what they will - what I do or say has little do to with it. Moreover, that might mean someone coming from folks who were themselves above board.

Quote from: jrients;376184I would've said 1985, as that's the year on the copyright page in my copies of Oriental Adventures.

That seemed to me to be more of a supplement than a part of the core rules.

Quote from: jrients;376184I thought you've been arguing for the presence of a rudimentary skill system in OD&D.

I keep saying 1e.

Seanchai

Quote from: Windjammer;376204I think it's a useful criterion, since it wards off miscategorizations like 2E non-weapon proficiencies - which I regard as class or kit specific - as "skills" in the later sense of being open to any PC.

No offense, but you are just plain wrong here.  NWPs in 2e were clearly intended to be a skill system and a fair number of NWPs were accessible by every class anyhow.

Also, your definition is faulty.  Dozens of RPGs that aren't D&D have skill systems with skills exclusive to particular classes or character professions (see Palladium for one set of examples).

Just to be clear, whether or not 1e had the rules as core or whether or not some skill-like rolls existed as class abilities is immaterial to the argument I'm making.  All I'm saying here is in 2e, NWPs are part of the core and are clearly a skill system (albeit, a limited and rudimentary one).  Therefore, TSR most certainly was part of the "system skill over player skill" train and it did not, in fact, begin with WotC (though they did escalate it - based on the fact that a huge number of players complained about it not having a proper skill system for decades).

Quote from: 1989;3742554e sucks. Nothing good can come of it.

YerMom also sucks, and at least something good can come of that.

Seriously, if you're going to throw empty statements out like that, you deserve to get back empty statements in return.

Quote from: Zachary The First;374373"I told you, Otto, it says right here you can't take the French as a Favored Enemy".

That was awesome!

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

It's an internet argument.  Nobody is actually paying attention to who they are replying to Or that is to say, they are paying attention simply to make sure it's a "member of the opposition party", but it usually won't go deeper than that.

Quote from: Benoist;376038If you're going to attack, me, do so. Directly. Name names.

You are a poopy head.

Is that the direct kind of names you meant?