Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6549695" data-attributes="member: 97077">I don't think it &quot;radically changes the nature of the game.&quot; I just think it brings the combat side of the game more in line with the social interaction and exploration sides. To that end, it &quot;normalizes&quot; combat adjudication with the rest of the pillars. Again, we're okay with how social and exploration play out with regard to DM adjudication, just not when it comes to combat. This seems odd and inconsistent.As for addressing it with the players, that goes without saying.This sounds like simply because there are more rules for combat, there is less tolerance of the DM applying the rules as liberally as he or she might in a social interaction situation (even though it's completely on the DM in the first place to apply rules or not during play). I don't think I can buy this explanation. It seems like there is more to the objection than the amount of rules in the book.That brings me back to stakes. You seem to imply that failure in a combat has a concrete result - death, I'm guessing - whereas the outcome of a social interaction does not. What if a scene involving combat didn't have death on the table as part of the stakes? What if failure meant capture or failing to achieve some other important objective? Would you then be more okay with the DM applying something like &quot;Success as at Cost?&quot;Edit: What if a social interaction scene did have stakes wherein failure resulted in death? Fail to negotiate with the Evil Duke and you die. What are your thoughts on that?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 6549695, member: 97077"] I don't think it "radically changes the nature of the game." I just think it brings the combat side of the game more in line with the social interaction and exploration sides. To that end, it "normalizes" combat adjudication with the rest of the pillars. Again, we're okay with how social and exploration play out with regard to DM adjudication, just not when it comes to combat. This seems odd and inconsistent. As for addressing it with the players, that goes without saying. This sounds like simply because there are more rules for combat, there is less tolerance of the DM applying the rules as liberally as he or she might in a social interaction situation (even though it's completely on the DM in the first place to apply rules or not during play). I don't think I can buy this explanation. It seems like there is more to the objection than the amount of rules in the book. That brings me back to stakes. You seem to imply that failure in a combat has a concrete result - death, I'm guessing - whereas the outcome of a social interaction does not. What if a scene involving combat didn't have death on the table as part of the stakes? What if failure meant capture or failing to achieve some other important objective? Would you then be more okay with the DM applying something like "Success as at Cost?" Edit: What if a social interaction scene did have stakes wherein failure resulted in death? Fail to negotiate with the Evil Duke and you die. What are your thoughts on that? [/QUOTE]

Verification