NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 9543046" data-attributes="member: 90374">Yeap, thats an interesting dynamic you have pointed out. Skills have become a binary mechanic for the most part, though the social aspect has not been used or accepted as such. I've long thought there ought to be a separation of binary skills, like athletics for jumping pits, and something like the performance skill in which a PC is dancing or acting. One is a precise action, the other is a context driven one. I know this is getting a little ahead of our current conversation, but my fix would be to binary one aspect, and contextualize the other. For example, spotting a trap or not is binary, disabling would become a more involved process of gethering info and taking actions instead of a single roll check. Alternatively, discovering the trigger or disable point could be the multistep investigation and then disarming (or triggering) would be the binary check.   In any event, the above should highlight my GM style in that there is usaully a context driven session (that may or may not involve skill checks) that leads to a binary moment where you get the resolution before starting the process over again. Something like jumping a pit is spared the process becasue it is unccesary the action type and resolution is obvious.  Using the trap example, lets say the player knows its a blade trap. The player decides they are just going to walk face first through it because it wont kill their PC and they can just heal up afterwards. They are using meta knowledge to push past an obstacle instead of engaging it. They are ignoring the milieu of the game. I see ignoring social results without aknwoledging them as similar.   To be fair, I dont think a trap is comparable to a social situation. A trap doesnt change its position or offer up any defense based on PC actions, its simply static. My concern is the notion of asymetrical play you mentioned earlier in the discussion. If a PC can just yell, "diplomacy" and chuck a D20 and the NPC must abide by the result, I dont get why an NPC cant do the same? Mind you, im not saying thats how it should work at all. I think a social mechanic check is earned through role play and follows a logical set up from an exchange between players and GM. The reuslt informs the GM/player how the character ought to act to the situation moving forward. Ignoring the context of the situation and acting on player meta knwoledge instead, is out of bounds to me. Or has been described earlier in the discussion as being a poor sport. (I'll note, if folks want to simplify social resutls as binary results on way or another, I dont have a problem with that for them. I just dont want to play that way and expect a more interactive experience.)For a social exchange example we can use the time tested getting past a guard. A PC decides to tell the guard they are the king's cousin and he is expecting them. They roll a bluff check or equivalent. Now, the GM plays the guard depending on thier context. Maybe this guard is firecely loyal and unmovable in their duty? The guard might believe the PC is a the King's cousin, but his orders are his orders. He would direct them to an authority to try their case there, but will not allow them to pass. Or, the guard might hate their duty, think the king is a jerk, and allow the PC to pass anyways. Depends also on how much prep the PC put into the situation. If this is an off the cuff response? Probably get the guard's former reponse. If they put in a disguise, learn local customs, play the bit up, then the latter might be likley from the guard. Flip it to the PCs and lets use an interogation scene. The PCs are trying to get info from an NPC. The NPC makes a sucsessful decpetion check. If the PC (not the player) knows this NPC and their reputation, they might proceed with caution or even ignore the result. If they have no context of this NPC at all, they likley should act on the information. Whether its with suspicion and/or caution, the info should be considered. If its flat out ignored becasue the player knows of other avenues and options (that the PC is not aware of), I consider that out of bounds. Also, note how the NPC above gets to consider thier internal and external situation before acting, but always aknwoledges the play on the table.</blockquote>

Verification