Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5802007" data-attributes="member: 27160">I'm not sure that's an appropriate comparison; requiring the player to actually make &quot;the speech&quot; is more like requiring that they actually make &quot;the sword thrust&quot; or other combat move. The appropriate comparison to combat tactical skill would be more like requiring details of the social &quot;tactics&quot; and levers being used, and I'm by no means convinced that would not be a good thing in D&amp;D.Megatraveller and some of its derivatives have some interesting/neat stuff from this respect. Things like a range of tactics to be used in the core &quot;social functions&quot; of &quot;improve relations&quot;, &quot;ask for information&quot;, &quot;ask for help/action&quot; and &quot;command help/action&quot;. Approaches include establishing a &quot;Superior&quot; or &quot;Inferior&quot; social position; some tactics only work from one or another position - begging, for example, only works from an inferior position. Things like the use of Intimidation in combat could be viewed this way - the fact of an opponent being bloodied while you are not might open up an opportunity to gain a &quot;Superior&quot; position; this could then be leveraged with a skill to make a command to surrender/flee/etc.Basically, I see two &quot;layers&quot; in all of combat, social and explorational encounters. I would quite like to see a game that gives players tactical and intent control of their characters in all of these, but not &quot;executive responsibility&quot; in the sense of having to actually perform the in-game act. The only use I really see for the latter is in games with an overriding emphasis on immersion, and I think D&amp;D is a very poor fit for that (I would choose RQ, CoC, HârnMaster or Traveller for that).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5802007, member: 27160"] I'm not sure that's an appropriate comparison; requiring the player to actually make "the speech" is more like requiring that they actually make "the sword thrust" or other combat move. The appropriate comparison to combat tactical skill would be more like requiring details of the social "tactics" and levers being used, and I'm by no means convinced that would not be a good thing in D&D. Megatraveller and some of its derivatives have some interesting/neat stuff from this respect. Things like a range of tactics to be used in the core "social functions" of "improve relations", "ask for information", "ask for help/action" and "command help/action". Approaches include establishing a "Superior" or "Inferior" social position; some tactics only work from one or another position - begging, for example, only works from an inferior position. Things like the use of Intimidation in combat could be viewed this way - the fact of an opponent being bloodied while you are not might open up an opportunity to gain a "Superior" position; this could then be leveraged with a skill to make a command to surrender/flee/etc. Basically, I see two "layers" in all of combat, social and explorational encounters. I would quite like to see a game that gives players [B]tactical[/B] and [B]intent[/B] control of their characters in all of these, but not "executive responsibility" in the sense of having to actually perform the in-game act. The only use I really see for the latter is in games with an overriding emphasis on immersion, and I think D&D is a very poor fit for that (I would choose RQ, CoC, HârnMaster or Traveller for that). [/QUOTE]

Verification