Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="maddman75" data-source="post: 5035372" data-attributes="member: 2673">Most of the games I play feature more research, investigation, and interaction than combat, and therefore the rules involved are pretty important.So why have rules?&nbsp; Why not just rely on GM fiat?&nbsp; Well, why not do that for combat?&nbsp; The players states his intention to kill the enemy, describes his action, and the GM decides if the enemy falls or if he strikes back and kills the PC.&nbsp; I doubt many players would enjoy such a system.So if the players have cornered the shady character and made strong arguments that they know he's involved, make threats that he's going to prison if they turn him in, and make promises that they'll keep his name out of it if they just tell him what they know, why should all that effort be left up to GM fiat?&nbsp; Make it into a game, where they can try different tactics based on what their characters are good at, take into account the environment and adversary, and roll the dice.&nbsp; Maybe the guy sings like a canary, or maybe he clams up.&nbsp; Or starts spewing lies.&nbsp; Any of these could lead to interesting results.To be honest, GM Fiat is not a bad thing.&nbsp; It is there to cover situations that don't come up very often at all.&nbsp; So if you're playing some indie game of being bankers or something, there probably aren't detailed rules for gunfights.&nbsp; Or if you're playing a game of explorers killing monsters and getting treasure, you probably aren't cross examining witnesses that often.&nbsp; In either case, GM Fiat can provide a reasonable way to resolve things.But to suggest that I should use GM fiat for social rolls, which make up probably 75% of the rolls in my game doesn't seem like a sound strategy.Nor do they replace roleplaying.&nbsp; No one at my table ever gets to say &quot;I use Diplomacy on him.&quot; and roll a die.&nbsp; I ask exactly what they are saying to him, try to get them to be as specific as possible in first person.&nbsp; That might change the DC, depending on the personality of the target and the situation that is going on.&nbsp; It might call for a skill besides diplomacy, without the PC even realizing it!&nbsp; If the PC trying to be diplomatic to the cop says &quot;Hey come on, help a buddy out.&nbsp; I'm a PI and I do a lot of work with Detective Johnson down at the precienct.&quot; but unknown to him Johnson is a corrupt psycho that ruins those who stand in his way.&nbsp; The PC should then roll Intimidate instead.Don't fear social rolls, they are my friends.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="maddman75, post: 5035372, member: 2673"] Most of the games I play feature more research, investigation, and interaction than combat, and therefore the rules involved are pretty important. So why have rules? Why not just rely on GM fiat? Well, why not do that for combat? The players states his intention to kill the enemy, describes his action, and the GM decides if the enemy falls or if he strikes back and kills the PC. I doubt many players would enjoy such a system. So if the players have cornered the shady character and made strong arguments that they know he's involved, make threats that he's going to prison if they turn him in, and make promises that they'll keep his name out of it if they just tell him what they know, why should all that effort be left up to GM fiat? Make it into a game, where they can try different tactics based on what their characters are good at, take into account the environment and adversary, and roll the dice. Maybe the guy sings like a canary, or maybe he clams up. Or starts spewing lies. Any of these could lead to interesting results. To be honest, GM Fiat is not a bad thing. It is there to cover situations that don't come up very often at all. So if you're playing some indie game of being bankers or something, there probably aren't detailed rules for gunfights. Or if you're playing a game of explorers killing monsters and getting treasure, you probably aren't cross examining witnesses that often. In either case, GM Fiat can provide a reasonable way to resolve things. But to suggest that I should use GM fiat for social rolls, which make up probably 75% of the rolls in my game doesn't seem like a sound strategy. Nor do they replace roleplaying. No one at my table ever gets to say "I use Diplomacy on him." and roll a die. I ask exactly what they are saying to him, try to get them to be as specific as possible in first person. That might change the DC, depending on the personality of the target and the situation that is going on. It might call for a skill besides diplomacy, without the PC even realizing it! If the PC trying to be diplomatic to the cop says "Hey come on, help a buddy out. I'm a PI and I do a lot of work with Detective Johnson down at the precienct." but unknown to him Johnson is a corrupt psycho that ruins those who stand in his way. The PC should then roll Intimidate instead. Don't fear social rolls, they are my friends. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification