Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="1Mac" data-source="post: 4778241" data-attributes="member: 48998">ExploderWizard has a good point. It is too easy and too boring to merely say &quot;I use diplomacy,&quot; and something more interesting should be encouraged. But the same can be said for trading basic attacks.There are parallel solutions to these parallel problems. The more robust solution is a built-in mechanic that rewards the player for using more interesting options in combat or social encounters. This was 4e's intent when developing the powers system for combat encounters and the skill challenge system for social encounters and other non-combat events. One can even use parallel mechanics for these parallel mechanics; hence &quot;social combat&quot; systems that give as many tactical options for social encounters as for combat encounters.Without developing new systems, another parallel solution is to apply bonuses for clever or interesting descriptions of whatever the player is rolling for. So a compelling description of an attack grants a bonus to an attack roll, as does a compelling description of an argument, or a bluff, or a battle tactic, or a stealthy maneuver, or any number of non-combat actions.I take the opposite approach of ExploderWizard. Yes, the player should be able to influence the effectiveness of his character. But since role-playing is about playing characters with abilities their players lack, I feel that character abilities take prominence over any abilities the player might impart, such that any contradiction between the two should favor what the character can do. We should favor the focused combatant with excellent results when he fights, and we should favor the focused diplomat with favorable social interactions. But to give the fighter equal effectiveness at diplomacy is unfair to the player who forwent combat effectiveness to be a great diplomat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="1Mac, post: 4778241, member: 48998"] ExploderWizard has a good point. It is too easy and too boring to merely say "I use diplomacy," and something more interesting should be encouraged. But the same can be said for trading basic attacks. There are parallel solutions to these parallel problems. The more robust solution is a built-in mechanic that rewards the player for using more interesting options in combat or social encounters. This was 4e's intent when developing the powers system for combat encounters and the skill challenge system for social encounters and other non-combat events. One can even use parallel mechanics for these parallel mechanics; hence "social combat" systems that give as many tactical options for social encounters as for combat encounters. Without developing new systems, another parallel solution is to apply bonuses for clever or interesting descriptions of whatever the player is rolling for. So a compelling description of an attack grants a bonus to an attack roll, as does a compelling description of an argument, or a bluff, or a battle tactic, or a stealthy maneuver, or any number of non-combat actions. I take the opposite approach of ExploderWizard. Yes, the player should be able to influence the effectiveness of his character. But since role-playing is about playing characters with abilities their players lack, I feel that character abilities take prominence over any abilities the player might impart, such that any contradiction between the two should favor what the character can do. We should favor the focused combatant with excellent results when he fights, and we should favor the focused diplomat with favorable social interactions. But to give the fighter equal effectiveness at diplomacy is unfair to the player who forwent combat effectiveness to be a great diplomat. [/QUOTE]

Verification