Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6203039" data-attributes="member: 27160">Yeah, that's probably a shred of my bias showing through <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />How about "...because I prefer trying to get what I want through persuasion to trying to manipulate a mechanical system or gambling on random outcomes"?I can see that - for a limited time, at least. I used to engage in this style of play, but when I started to see it as plays and ploys and gambits being finagled instead of as proxy-character conversation it got to be as boring as simple skill checks pretty quickly. It just came down to a player skill check instead of a character one - yawn.I agree that a simple die roll is boring. I was hoping that 4E might at some point get a system for social challenges that did what I saw the combat system as doing for combat - taking out all the "bad" uncertainties while leaving in all the "good" ones. What I mean here is that, when a player considers what their character's actions will be they have a proxy in their head for what the character knows about the world they grew up in. A resolution system forms a substantial part of that world model. As a result I think the resolution system should give the player roughly as much information about their chances of success as the character would have in the game world, and the knowledge should have similar or analogous limitations. The "single roll" paradigm I think is "bad" because:- It makes the main uncertainty "will my character screw up", which is often one of the least uncertain things out there.- It makes no allowance for the fact that one of the biggest advantages of being highly skilled is what I've seen called "locus of control". What this means is the degree to which the actor (as in person taking action, not thespian) can control the outcome of either success or failure mid-action.This latter one is really interesting. Theatrix was a system predicated on the idea that success or failure were determined by whatever would make the story "more interesting" (this has flaws of its own, but it's not the interesting part), but what skill did was give players more "locus of control". Example: the character is driving a car at speed approaching a bend in the road on a cold night. Then...1) The player of an unskilled character is told (success) "Whoa - that bend was slick with ice! You sure hope that guy coming the other way got back off the verge OK, 'cos he was only on it because you were technically in his lane..." OR (failure) "Yikes! There's ice on the bend! You clip the guy coming the other way as you spin onto the verge and flip onto the roof..."2) The player of the skilled character is told (success) "Whoa - the bend ahead is slick with ice! You can see the tell-tale glimmer and, what's more, there's a car coming the other way. You can slow down a little, and you're confident you can get round OK, or you can slow right down in case the guy coming the other way goes out of control - what do you want to do?" OR (failure) "Yikes! There's ice on the bend ahead! At this speed you're pretty sure you won't make it, and there's another car coming the other way. You could try to cut inside the other guy, and probably stay on the road but also probably hit him, or you can head for the grass verge and risk flipping onto the roof - what do you want to do?"Basically, skilled characters give the player options to choose how they succeed or fail but most of the factors that determine actual success or failure are beyond the character's control. I don't think it fits all situations, and alone it's not enough, but it's an interesting angle to add to a resolution system. It lets highly skilled characters show priorities and character traits through choices in play rather than through random determination - which is where I think the crux of roleplaying lies.</blockquote>

Verification