Recent content by Thomas Shey

No, I mean you don't believe its representing a real thing that has a real analog in the normal world. I think you've made it clear that at least as executed in the typical skill system that you don't. So again, as long as that's the case and others do, there's no meeting of minds really...

I've argued this should be something that is considered in virtually any system that has a randomizer in it (though in situations with opposed rolls in systems using those, its easier for people to conceptually engage with). After all, what does that randomizer represent? I'd argue a variety...

If they've got a game that leans into traits that have run out of favor, they effectively have chosen an obscure game. After all, presumably they aren't the only GMs looking for remaining players who are interested in those traits.

That's because you don't fundamentally believe in Intimidation (or I'd assume most other social skills) as a real thing. Without that, of course its going to be alien to you. If you did, you'd presumablyt accept that sometimes the way characters react to things is not in their, or really even...

Then they'd presumably have made the resistance roll.

I have mixed feelings at best about overly "opinionated" games, but I have seen some that seemed to do a credibly job of what they were trying for: in the supernatural hunters vein, both Monster of the Week and Chill 3e seemed to do what they set out to do reasonably effectively. I don't have a...

It can be unattractive to them even as a GM if they think it will make it hard for them to find new players when they resist said "scary idea".

Presumably they'd indicated existed as a houserule well before it comes up. If not, well, springing houserules on the fly is never a good look.

Yes? My points have been entirely about not buying the permises your preferences are based on. Which shouldn't be a surprise, or I probably wouldn't have different ones (though some of that is purely priorities, too).

Presumably him and others who don't want to play Torchbearer. Its still not an obviously excessive assumption, given the market.

Well, I think "a lot" is broad enough it can be viewed as accurate, or presumably more people would be playing Torchbearer. They didn't say "most" or "all" after all.

While I think disregarding the tendencies in that direction is overly blithe, I'd argue its more that this also factors in elements that exceed the bandwidth and management capability of same. As I've said before, lacking trust in people's intentions and their judgment are not the same thing.

Well, at least in part that's because even the social bandwidth that goes between the two characters is not full; there are a lot of factors that influence the success of social attempts, and some of them cannot be replicated easily (if at all) in the game. Its not dissimilar in that regard to...

There are certainly games that don't wall off the effect of social skill rolls as only applying to NPCs. Some of them have more formalized structures than others about that (but then, the less formalized ones do when applied to NPCs, too). In either case, the "social skills only apply to NPCs"...

To be clear, I'm talking broadly, though something similar should be possible to implement in most games. And yeah, I don't consider demanding specific actions desirable; but I do think making there a price to failing against social rolls whether from other PCs or NPCs should have a cost, and...