Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6208277" data-attributes="member: 27160">I can see what you are driving at, here, but have one unresolved problem with it. It seems that, given all the dialogue and player specification of wording and so on, that the effects of the tactics chosen are made up on the spot by the DM. The problem with that is that the player has no way of knowing what those effects will be - they are really just trying what they think the GM will consider &quot;cool&quot; and hoping for the best. I don't really consider that application of player skill - it's the social equivalent of &quot;spray and pray&quot; tactics.I would much prefer a set of rules that has specific tactics and effects for social interactions that involve some &quot;tension&quot;. I draw a distinction between two types of &quot;unknown&quot;:Type 1) Attributes, conditions and keywords are &quot;owned&quot; by the NPCs but the players don't necessarily know what they are (although in principle they could discover them); these determine the outcome of the social encounter.Type 2) There isn't really any &quot;system&quot; for the interchange determined up-front, so the GM makes up modifiers, reactions and implications on the fly. A natural implication of this is that players have no real way to know what the implications of their choices will be except by guesswork based on their knowledge of the GM's belief structures, biases and preferences.Of these I don't mind type 1 at all - they are the very stuff of dramatic play, I think - but I much prefer to minimise type 2 as far as possible. Type 1 I think allows for &quot;tactical&quot; play and the application of player skill and reason; type 2 allows only for &quot;GM reading&quot; and &quot;GM playing&quot; IMV.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6208277, member: 27160"] I can see what you are driving at, here, but have one unresolved problem with it. It seems that, given all the dialogue and player specification of wording and so on, that the effects of the tactics chosen are made up on the spot by the DM. The problem with that is that the player has no way of knowing what those effects will be - they are really just trying what they think the GM will consider "cool" and hoping for the best. I don't really consider that application of player skill - it's the social equivalent of "spray and pray" tactics. I would much prefer a set of rules that has specific tactics and effects for social interactions that involve some "tension". I draw a distinction between two types of "unknown": Type 1) Attributes, conditions and keywords are "owned" by the NPCs but the players don't necessarily know what they are (although in principle they could discover them); these determine the outcome of the social encounter. Type 2) There isn't really any "system" for the interchange determined up-front, so the GM makes up modifiers, reactions and implications on the fly. A natural implication of this is that players have no real way to know what the implications of their choices will be except by guesswork based on their knowledge of the GM's belief structures, biases and preferences. Of these I don't mind type 1 at all - they are the very stuff of dramatic play, I think - but I much prefer to minimise type 2 as far as possible. Type 1 I think allows for "tactical" play and the application of player skill and reason; type 2 allows only for "GM reading" and "GM playing" IMV. [/QUOTE]

Verification