Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7621951" data-attributes="member: 4937">More to the point, they tend to be less engaging than the social interaction that they are simulating.By the argument that I outlined above, the more detailed the social interaction rules, the less engaging that they will tend to be because the less they will resemble the thing that they are a model for.I can foresee this becoming Celebrim's Third Law of RPGs at some point, I just haven't figured out how to phrase it.&nbsp;&nbsp; But I have a strong suspicion that one of the reasons that the systems that try to cover everything using the same mechanical resolution system never seem to catch on is that fundamentally the things that they are trying to model are more different than they are similar.&nbsp; You can hammer every square peg through the round hole in order to get some sort of 'pass/fail' answer, but you can only do so at the cost of increasing abstraction and with that an intuitive and cinematic transcript of play.&quot;Cinematic&quot; word I realize has been defined in several ways by tRPG writers, but as I use it I mean a process of resolution that tends to increase the ability of all participants to imagine what is transpiring in the scene in the same concrete way.&nbsp;&nbsp; That is to say, it has mechanics which tend to be self reifying.&nbsp; For example, if your process of resolution of a social encounter primarily depends on holding some sort of conversation, then everyone at the table can easily imagine what is transpiring in the scene in the same concrete way, because the transcript of the conversation (or at least something quite similar to it) is right there for everyone to experience.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thus, holding a conversation is cinematic in a way that, &quot;I try to intimidate the guard.&quot;, or &quot;I try to persuade the Baron to lend some of his household troops to assault the lizardfolk&quot;, or &quot;I use a conversational feint.&quot;, etc. etc. just isn't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7621951, member: 4937"] More to the point, they tend to be less engaging than the social interaction that they are simulating. By the argument that I outlined above, the more detailed the social interaction rules, the less engaging that they will tend to be because the less they will resemble the thing that they are a model for. I can foresee this becoming Celebrim's Third Law of RPGs at some point, I just haven't figured out how to phrase it. But I have a strong suspicion that one of the reasons that the systems that try to cover everything using the same mechanical resolution system never seem to catch on is that fundamentally the things that they are trying to model are more different than they are similar. You can hammer every square peg through the round hole in order to get some sort of 'pass/fail' answer, but you can only do so at the cost of increasing abstraction and with that an intuitive and cinematic transcript of play. "Cinematic" word I realize has been defined in several ways by tRPG writers, but as I use it I mean a process of resolution that tends to increase the ability of all participants to imagine what is transpiring in the scene in the same concrete way. That is to say, it has mechanics which tend to be self reifying. For example, if your process of resolution of a social encounter primarily depends on holding some sort of conversation, then everyone at the table can easily imagine what is transpiring in the scene in the same concrete way, because the transcript of the conversation (or at least something quite similar to it) is right there for everyone to experience. Thus, holding a conversation is cinematic in a way that, "I try to intimidate the guard.", or "I try to persuade the Baron to lend some of his household troops to assault the lizardfolk", or "I use a conversational feint.", etc. etc. just isn't. [/QUOTE]

Verification