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="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9565448" data-attributes="member: 6785785">It’s not beside the point at all.And the thing is, just because combat rules may be more complex, that doesn’t automatically make them better. I’ve played games with minimal combat rules that allow for a lot of tactical decision making and dynamic situations than very codified rules.Hence why I advocated for rules systems that resolve a variety of conflicts with the same core process. You say that those are “too simple” for combat, but then you point out how complex rules for social situations are “unwieldy and cannot be used amidst IC conversations”. Neither is actually arguing against what I’m saying, So you think that play would have been enhanced by allowing the player to decide if his character stopped raging? Actually, yes, that’s what it means. the two parts of your sentence here are in conflict, which I think is emblematic of your statements overall. You cannot know something for certain until after the fact. You can have a strong idea, and you may very well be right… but you cannot know. Well, except this is pretty much exactly the situation that the player wanted to examine in play. His Instinct is “Duty” and that has manifested in play as his duty to the town as one of its champions versus his duty to his family.This is precisely the kind of situation the GM is meant to put the character into. No, that’s my point. I haven’t decided ahead of time exactly what I’ll do as a person. I have a good idea… I’m generally a good guy, I care for my friends and family, and all that kind of stuff… but I also know I have flaws. And I know I’ve been fortunate enough to never have those flaws be strongly tested against my virtues. Not everyone is so lucky.What does this mean? Rules are required to make choices? But your whole point is about the significance of choices absent any rules. Okay… so why are you playing an RPG? Why not just freeform roleplay? And I don’t at all agree with your assessment that going to the dice robs players of agency. You’re kind of ignoring all the buildup to the point a roll is made in favor of just classifying the roll as not being up to the player. I would view the situation in my Stonetop game very differently if the player had just been allowed to choose the result. I would think that would be more damaging to agency… he went into the situation knowing the stakes and making decisions on it all along. To just erase the stakes… to remove the chance for things to go poorly? To me, that’s not honoring player agency.</blockquote>

Verification