Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 7733581" data-attributes="member: 467">I think this suggests a hard dividing line between combat and role-playing that isn't necessary or desirable (IMO obviously). When characters engage the enemy in combat, the players are still role-playing. it is just that the process of combat is a lot more granular than other aspects of the game, meaning that their role-play involves their character sheets and rules a lot more. This doesn't need to be the case. D&D combat could just as easily (and satisfactorily) be treated the same way as the negotiation you described: the player tells you what they plan to do, their tactics and approach, and if you think that leaves some ambiguity they make a single "attack roll" to determine whether they win the fight or not, and what the consequences are of either. That's a perfectly viable way to conduct combat in D&D -- and in a lot of cases, especially when talking about combats that ultimately don't matter and exist primarily to drain party resources or eat game time, it is preferable. Sometimes, though, a fight should be a long drawn out affair with every parry and thrust and spell desrcibed in full.What I don't understand is why people are so resistant to treating other aspects of the game the same way.</blockquote>