Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8149474" data-attributes="member: 82106">OK, fair enough, in D&D or in Diplomacy there are no rules or even process really (I think Diplomacy has a time limit on each turn, though it is common to change it) to govern this. Literally anything goes, I can lie, steal, spy on people, etc. in Diplomacy (actual laws and common decency obviously place limits here). The only thing of substance is the game board situation, and my orders for the turn. In fact I recall that in one Origins Diplomacy tournament I was in one of the players slipped fake orders for another player into the other players clipboard and they got turned in. There was a bit of a controversy on the legality of that, since it was impinging on the structure of the game. I think they decided it was a bridge too far, rolled the turn back and accepted the orders the player claimed were genuine. Anyway, clearly the GM plays this role in D&D, they can't interfere (mostly) in this roleplay, but what exactly it means substantially is a bit unclear. Where it feels like it merges with play, to me, is exactly where "the rubber meets the road." That is, when a player acts out his character convincing a storekeeper to give him a bargain, then that looks like a part of the game, he saves some gold, which is part of the game state. OTOH it is rare these days for this sort of thing to happen without some dice being rolled. At that point, did the 'play acting' really impact the game? It might impact the other players, and thus their PCs. Still, I find all this to be a bit tenuous. I think it is fine to say, in common parlance, that this is 'part of the game', it is certainly part of the activity of playing. So it is meaningful to the participants. I still see a really useful distinction here though. I also have a desire to make all these things into one whole</blockquote>

Verification