Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Interaction rules
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6188238" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I'm happy with it as a rule. My concern is that it be a <em>real</em> rule, that the players can use well or poorly (like combat) rather than an illusory rule, where all the action is really on the GM side.</p><p></p><p>For instance, at present learning an Ideal, Flaw or Bond takes 10 minutes of interaction (HtP p 15), but as far as I can tell the question of whether any interaction lasts for 10 minutes is primarily in the hands of the GM. So if a player is confident that the GM will let the interaction run for 10 minutes, there is very little to lose by trying for some insight into one's interlocutor; and, conversely, if a player is worried that the NPC, as played by the GM, is not going to hang around for 10 minutes, there's no clear mode for making a check to at least have the person hang around. (The analogue for this in the combat rules is that the GM can't just fiat an NPC out of combat - there are movement rules, withdrawal rules, action economy etc.)</p><p></p><p>In other words, in so far as they <em>are</em> rules, I want them to have enough tightness and structure that the players can reliably engage with them.</p><p></p><p>The compromise would be to do what some other systems do, and suggest mechanics both for "simple" (one roll) resolution and "complex" (skill challenge-style resolution). For the complex system to work, there then need to be options about resource deployment etc (at the minimum, an action economy of some sort) along the lines that I have sketched out above.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6188238, member: 42582"] I'm happy with it as a rule. My concern is that it be a [I]real[/I] rule, that the players can use well or poorly (like combat) rather than an illusory rule, where all the action is really on the GM side. For instance, at present learning an Ideal, Flaw or Bond takes 10 minutes of interaction (HtP p 15), but as far as I can tell the question of whether any interaction lasts for 10 minutes is primarily in the hands of the GM. So if a player is confident that the GM will let the interaction run for 10 minutes, there is very little to lose by trying for some insight into one's interlocutor; and, conversely, if a player is worried that the NPC, as played by the GM, is not going to hang around for 10 minutes, there's no clear mode for making a check to at least have the person hang around. (The analogue for this in the combat rules is that the GM can't just fiat an NPC out of combat - there are movement rules, withdrawal rules, action economy etc.) In other words, in so far as they [I]are[/I] rules, I want them to have enough tightness and structure that the players can reliably engage with them. The compromise would be to do what some other systems do, and suggest mechanics both for "simple" (one roll) resolution and "complex" (skill challenge-style resolution). For the complex system to work, there then need to be options about resource deployment etc (at the minimum, an action economy of some sort) along the lines that I have sketched out above. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Interaction rules
Top