Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 6134164" data-attributes="member: 70709">I like the basic direction described in the interaction section.&nbsp; The emphasis seems to be on the natural attitudes, knowledge, and reactions of the NPC, which is really the only foundation that makes any sense for a mechanical framework that should flow spontaneously into and out of pure roleplaying.&nbsp; One can build a more formal system on top of that (&quot;conversation combat&quot;) or leave it as freeform until the DM decides a check is appropriate.I also like the opportunities it might create for different kinds of roleplayers to contribute.&nbsp; The type of player that previously said something like &quot;I make a diplomacy check&quot; might have something a little more tangible to grasp, and appreciate that mechanical nod or signpost, hopefully without getting in the way of naturalistic play.&nbsp; For example, whether or not the magistrate is corrupt (or likely to be) might be discoverable, either through direct knowledge (history or conversation) or perhaps mechanical abilities (backgrounds, class abilities, quest rewards).&nbsp; Such things were always discoverable, of course, and quality freeform roleplaying handles it transparently, but it hasn't always been clear in D&amp;D that narrative resources (i.e. knowledge of NPC characteristics) can be the basis for the mechanical resource as well.&nbsp; NPCs have buttons, and the ones like &quot;would do anything for his children&quot; or &quot;covets a seat on the high council&quot; can help prompt the PCs to creative action more than any raw check ever could.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ainamacar, post: 6134164, member: 70709"] I like the basic direction described in the interaction section. The emphasis seems to be on the natural attitudes, knowledge, and reactions of the NPC, which is really the only foundation that makes any sense for a mechanical framework that should flow spontaneously into and out of pure roleplaying. One can build a more formal system on top of that ("conversation combat") or leave it as freeform until the DM decides a check is appropriate. I also like the opportunities it might create for different kinds of roleplayers to contribute. The type of player that previously said something like "I make a diplomacy check" might have something a little more tangible to grasp, and appreciate that mechanical nod or signpost, hopefully without getting in the way of naturalistic play. For example, whether or not the magistrate is corrupt (or likely to be) might be discoverable, either through direct knowledge (history or conversation) or perhaps mechanical abilities (backgrounds, class abilities, quest rewards). Such things were always discoverable, of course, and quality freeform roleplaying handles it transparently, but it hasn't always been clear in D&D that narrative resources (i.e. knowledge of NPC characteristics) can be the basis for the mechanical resource as well. NPCs have buttons, and the ones like "would do anything for his children" or "covets a seat on the high council" can help prompt the PCs to creative action more than any raw check ever could. [/QUOTE]

Verification