Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9526588" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Well, yeah. It’s a game. Why shouldn’t it be gamified? Why would someone in a diplomatic situation, performing intrigue not be thinking strategically?I don’t see the conflict you’re describing here.I’m not sure what kind of mechanics you’re thinking of, but again, I don’t see this issue. Why can’t you inhabit your character if there are rules involved?I don’t feel that mechanics limit things in this way. Why is the DM somehow restricted in coming up with scenarios? Or challenges that can be engaged in a meaningful way if there are rules for this stuff instead of just leaving it to freeform RP?When I originally mentioned the social element of the game, I was talking about the social element at the table. The camaraderie and kidding around and so forth. I’m not really worried about that.The social element in the game, though… for the players to navigate as their characters… that’s absolutely something I’m interested in as a player and as a GM. If the game is about political machinations then why wouldn’t I want there to be rules that support that?It’s not like D&D has lacked any such rules. Different versions of the game have had different ways to handle social interactions, depending on the kind of social interactions expected in play. Why shouldn’t a game design toward that instead of away from it?That’s fine as far as preferences go. I find freeform to be fine to a point… but I also want  there to be a game to play and not have the game be freeform collaborative storytelling.And I think you’re kind of touching on my point here… D&D has a lit of rules about combat because that’s a huge part of its focus. That’s what the game is aboutLet me ask you, though… what is it about combat that makes you okay with having many rules? Does that likewise impair your ability to inhabit character?</blockquote>

Verification