Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8669959" data-attributes="member: 85555">Hillfolk is great. Like I said it does have a kind of metacurrency that applies to shifting the balance in some social situations, but I find the way it works is largely in the background and non-obtrusive (and when it does intrude, the trade off is worth it in my opinion). One reason I love HIllfolk, is I think Laws is a very good writer and wonderful at explaining concepts that could be difficult to convey in an RPG. Hillfolk, to me, felt like being immersed in one of those classic miniseries we used to get in the 70s and 80s (I, Claudius, Shogun, Jesus of Nazareth, Roots, etc). It would work great for more modern shows too like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones. Sorry I missed this question before. This isn't how I would see it in the games I run. I'm not a fan of playing along with the GMs story on either side of the screen. I don' think it is generally the case either (because combat outcomes could also be part of a story the GM has in mind). Also in a lot of the groups I have played in where the style was "figure out what the GM has planned for the story", those groups also seemed to have less trouble than I did with social mechanics. I think some people are just more trusting of people 'reporting' their reaction to dialogue than we are to them determining whether a bullet hits its target. I think part of that is if I have an interaction with an NPC and PC, if there is any question on the players part about why the NPC reacted the way he or she did, it is pretty easy for me to explain why and for the players to see the logic or lack of logic behind it. Where's with a bullet, I don't think that is as intuitive and it is also usually am much more contested thing to boot. I can give reasons, but people have a sense that there is an X factor when you bring physics into it I think (not that there aren't x factors in in social interactions, but they feel more easy to hand wave than for combat to me). Another reason may also be that in the case of the bullet I am not just deciding of NPCs, I am deciding for them too. So me saying the bullet hits you will naturally lead to 'but I am taking cover'. Personally as a GM, that is something I feel like I need to roll for. In dialogue sequences players are in full control of their characters minds and words, and I am in full control of the NPCs mind and words. I don't feel the need to roll for that, and that interaction is a fun part of the game for me. If we reverse those things, I am suddenly having less fun and struggling to make sense of combat.</blockquote>

Verification