Telling Linde that he is "of the video game mentality" is not conductive to a good discussion. You clearly do not mean that as a compliment and you are making yourself look like an ass.
An ass? Oh dear, the insults start already, how shocking! I suggest that the next time you decide to try read my mind and tell me what I mean as a compliment or not, you should make the effort to be right. While it is possible that I did in fact mean it as an insult, it is also possible that I meant it exactly the way it was said: there is a certain philosophical approach to gaming among many younger gamers (and yes, Linde counts as "younger" to me, I was playing D&D years before either of you were even born) that wants things to be far more quantifiable and equitable, where nobody gets "shafted" for not being as creative or as descriptive, where the players' and DM's personalities are removed from the equation as much as possible - which is pretty much the opposite of how role-playing works, and I attribute this approach to the influence of video games - thus the "video game mentality.
Now, whether or not I think that is a good thing (I don't) has no bearing on whether I meant it as an insult (I didn't). The fact of the matter here is that you took it as an insult, and decided to project that onto my motives. This almost always an error, especially in an online interaction, something you will learn when you have been interacting online as long as I have (and no, you haven't been, I have been interacting online since you were in diapers). I will also let you know here and now that it almost guaranteed to be an error when interacting with me online. You will have to take my word for it - I do not think like you at all, and any attempt on your part to figure that out is pretty much certain to be wrong. In the future, you should just take my words at face value, I do not pussyfoot or shilly shaly around, I say exactly what I mean - nothing more and nothing less, and I haven't the slightest interest in playing passive-aggressive forum games. Nor do i really care what a bunch of complete strangers online think of me. I do not waste my time trying to be cute or cryptic, if I think somebody is being a twit I will tell them outright - oh BTW Alexander, you are at the moment.
Now assuming you are done being so, we can get on with the discussion, and if not? Oh well, I can always get a chuckle out of your posturing.
The problem is that the whole idea of "being skilled in ruling manor" is silly. What exactly does that skill consist of and how does it differ fro being skilled in ruling law or temple? Is it agricultural expertise? Bookkeeping? or perhaps it is the ability to force people into serfdom? See what i mean? it is purely game mechanic oriented and has no actual correlation to anything real world and does not in any way take into account what the action itself actually represents.
It is a simplification that detracts from the game, it basically changes the game from a free-flowing open-ended intellectual exercise into a video game where you can purchase certain specific bonuses and that is it, you do not have the freedom to be creative and find bonuses elsewhere, you do not have the ability to find ways to use seemingly unrelated skills in an original manner to affect an action.
And that freedom, that lack of hard structural limit is what distinguishes role playing from boardgames and video games, even the so-called online role playing games, and is what makes them a superior for of gaming. And that sort of freedom is what is being progressively removed from RoE with the latest revisions.
Now, if I am a dinosaur whose time has past, so be it, I will continue play the game the way I feel it should be played, and I will continue to grumble about the direction that you young whippersnappers are taking the game. You can all ignore me, or engage me, or perhaps even heed me, it really doesn't matter to me, I am really here to play a game, not to make friends with anybody.
