Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5809179" data-attributes="member: 996">'Siloing' combat and non-combat and balancing them independently would be an elegant solution.  But it's already clear from what's been said that characters will be trading between the two.  So that's going to be a source of potentially severe imbalance, and an incentive to run campaigns to a prescribed script.  Explore, negotiate, fight; explore, negotiate, fight...fight, negotiate, explore... fight fight TILT!  Yeah, the player-as-resolution-system aproach (just RP it, and how your DM judges your performance determines success) really constrains the types of roles players can choose, and makes gaming the DM prettymuch the whole game.  Not wonderful.  The obvious solution is to have a mechanic based on the character available - as one of those player-chosen modules.  If you're playing a PC you're confident your the equal of in wits or diplomacy or whatnot (relative to your DM), you can not use it.  If you feel you not up to simulating your hamadryad bard's singing voice,  you can have a mechanic for it. Of course, if you combine that with the ability to trade out combat and non-combat, you could very easily have players gifted with a forceful personality or bit of eloquence or flim-flammery, take 100% combat characters, and then 'just RP it' for interaction.</blockquote>