Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6177112" data-attributes="member: 42582">I definitely want player skill, and player investment in the actual play of the game, to matter. But in the case of combat, it's not player skill at combat that should matter - it's player skill with the tactical and narrative conceits of the game. And in social interaction, the individual player's charming personality or debating skills aren't what I'm trying to engage - rather, it's their skill in envisaging the dynamics of the ingame situation and thinking through it's narrative possibilities.This is related to skill choice, too. A player who wants to engage ingame situations in terms of the narrative possibilities of peace and friendship should play a PC trained in Diplomacy but not Bluff or Intimidate. A player who wants to engage ingame situations in terms of the narrative possibilities of manipulation and deceit should play a PC trained in Bluff (with perhaps some Diplomacy backup). Etc. Just like a player who wants to engage ingame combat situations in terms of the narrative possibilities of blowing things up should (in 4e, at least) play a sorcerer; and so on.</blockquote>