Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 4022100" data-attributes="member: 467">First of all, let me back up a second.&nbsp; In case you popped in late or stopped reading halway through or whatever, it is important to note that my position on my initial assertions has changed quite a lot due to the (very interesting and quite civil) discussion in this thread.&nbsp; that's a good thing.&nbsp; i jsut wanted to point that out to head off any suggestions of backpeddaling or moving goalposts.What I do think, though, is that lots of rules, and rules that are highly specific, result in a general reduction in the traditional power of the DM -- often referred to as fiat, though that term often carries some (undeserved) negative connotations.&nbsp; In addition, rules that give players a high degree of influence over the application of those other rules exacerbates the problem.For example, the &quot;social conflict&quot; system (which we haven't seen yet; I am just going on the idea that it is &quot;like combat&quot;).&nbsp; PC/NPC interaction is one of those situations that is traditionally an area where the DM and the players engage in a kind of negotiation as opposed to a rules arbitration.&nbsp; Ultimately, the DM is empowered to have the NPCs react in whatever way he feels appropriate (and, of course, a good DM will be swayed by good player negotiation).&nbsp; With the proposed system, however, the player -- armed with a selection of social combat abilities and tactics -- can, through the application of those rules, &quot;force the DM's hand&quot; regarding an NPC.&nbsp; if that NPC fails his &quot;social save&quot; or runs out of &quot;argument points&quot; or whatever, the player is the one deciding what the NPC thinks or does.&nbsp; that is a net loss for the DM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 4022100, member: 467"] First of all, let me back up a second. In case you popped in late or stopped reading halway through or whatever, it is important to note that my position on my initial assertions has changed quite a lot due to the (very interesting and quite civil) discussion in this thread. that's a good thing. i jsut wanted to point that out to head off any suggestions of backpeddaling or moving goalposts. What I do think, though, is that lots of rules, and rules that are highly specific, result in a general reduction in the traditional power of the DM -- often referred to as fiat, though that term often carries some (undeserved) negative connotations. In addition, rules that give players a high degree of influence over the application of those other rules exacerbates the problem. For example, the "social conflict" system (which we haven't seen yet; I am just going on the idea that it is "like combat"). PC/NPC interaction is one of those situations that is traditionally an area where the DM and the players engage in a kind of negotiation as opposed to a rules arbitration. Ultimately, the DM is empowered to have the NPCs react in whatever way he feels appropriate (and, of course, a good DM will be swayed by good player negotiation). With the proposed system, however, the player -- armed with a selection of social combat abilities and tactics -- can, through the application of those rules, "force the DM's hand" regarding an NPC. if that NPC fails his "social save" or runs out of "argument points" or whatever, the player is the one deciding what the NPC thinks or does. that is a net loss for the DM. [/QUOTE]

Verification