Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8306795" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think what [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] was saying here is that a realistically detailed world admits of so many possible variables which are unconstrained (because they are simply details which the game world's developer has not the time and energy to specify) that it would be basically just always DM Fiat what happens next, or else left up to some toss of dice. Either way, trying to bargain with an orc leader would be a puzzle beyond reasonably solving. We don't know what he wants, or how to communicate our offer, or even how to approach. We could certainly come up with 'solutions', but again this is just playing the DM, even he doesn't have answers to what will work. Honestly, the skill is actually more STORYMAKING skill here, where all the participants at the table try to figure out how to all agree to an interesting scenario.This is what motivated the generation of skill systems (I know, I was there). Nobody knew what was 'likely to happen', so it was deemed better to play at the skill of bringing the most bonuses to bear on a 'diplomacy check' than on a 'manipulate the DM/story operation'. Plus you could still try to control the framing of the checks (intent/cost/consequences) such as to come out with an optimum mix of risk to reward. This is a type of skill, it was accepted as such, and in MOST circles it was accepted as MORE skilled than &quot;talking the DM into say the orc takes your bribe.&quot; At least it was a skill more apropo of playing an RPG, as it is more about the characters and less about the participants in the game. OTOH it also may encourage a '3rd person stance' at times. I think DW and such games are partly a reaction to THAT.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8306795, member: 82106"] I think what [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] was saying here is that a realistically detailed world admits of so many possible variables which are unconstrained (because they are simply details which the game world's developer has not the time and energy to specify) that it would be basically just always DM Fiat what happens next, or else left up to some toss of dice. Either way, trying to bargain with an orc leader would be a puzzle beyond reasonably solving. We don't know what he wants, or how to communicate our offer, or even how to approach. We could certainly come up with 'solutions', but again this is just playing the DM, even he doesn't have answers to what will work. Honestly, the skill is actually more STORYMAKING skill here, where all the participants at the table try to figure out how to all agree to an interesting scenario. This is what motivated the generation of skill systems (I know, I was there). Nobody knew what was 'likely to happen', so it was deemed better to play at the skill of bringing the most bonuses to bear on a 'diplomacy check' than on a 'manipulate the DM/story operation'. Plus you could still try to control the framing of the checks (intent/cost/consequences) such as to come out with an optimum mix of risk to reward. This is a type of skill, it was accepted as such, and in MOST circles it was accepted as MORE skilled than "talking the DM into say the orc takes your bribe." At least it was a skill more apropo of playing an RPG, as it is more about the characters and less about the participants in the game. OTOH it also may encourage a '3rd person stance' at times. I think DW and such games are partly a reaction to THAT. [/QUOTE]

Verification