Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DamionW" data-source="post: 2708623" data-attributes="member: 18649">Mallus, I think if you look back on page 5 you'll find post 165 addressed this concern (I was replying to your post but I'm not sure if you noticed that response I made).  There is a barrier between Level2 and Level 3 abstraction there, both of which are above your example of just desired outcomes and dice-rolling (Level 1 abstraction).  Also, as has been noted, many many areas all parties agree that it's fine to design characters who go beyond the limitations.  No one has a problem with a strength 17 fighter who can smash skulls into jelly with a warhammer, or rogues who can tiptoe quieter than a pindrop, or wizards that can do any number of arcane effects such as fire streaming from their hands.  All of these character concepts are outside the realm of player abilities, yet mechanics exist to supplant the character's abilities to go further in fiction than in reality. Yet somehow when we arrive at the area of convincing other people, not merely talking to them in first person as part of role-playing, but bypassing NPC obstacles through lies, negotiations, or threats, the bar is raised all the way to Level 3 abstraction.  Now all of the sudden, if we aren't able to convince this person in meta-game space as well as if we were standing there within the fictional game space, our character should fail.  No one is claming first-person dialogue and role-playing needs to be removed from the game.  The only claim is that a common sense approach says that if mechanics allow you to surpass player limitations in nearly every area of the game, convincing people through basic conversation should allow some mechanics to at least temper it beyond the limitations of RP dialogue.</blockquote>

Verification