Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6188238" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm happy with it as a rule. My concern is that it be a real 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 are 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.</blockquote>

Verification