Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Haradim" data-source="post: 1557062" data-attributes="member: 8468">The latter option is no more realistic than the first. Many opponents aren't going to give you the chance to say anything. They will simply attack. This is particularly true of orcs/goblins/other low level fodder, who are generally depicted as little more than feral raiders who simply take what they want, and have a rather low regard for life.There is less distinction in your terms than you might think. Because your 'roleplayed' route will probably end with a Diplomacy skill role (assuming that isn't done right off).Anyway, what you describe doesn't have any bearing on RPG failure. The only thing it touches upon is a matter of playstyle. If I have an encounter set to occur with a band of goblins in the woods, odd are pretty good that it's to give the Fighter and Barbarian something to amuse themselves with. There likely won't be any bluster or similar pre-fight banter; the enemies will see each other, and there will be blood. There won't be any option for diplomacy (even if attempted), because it furthers nothing with regards to the scenario; the whole point of the encounter is to get the swords swinging. But that's a style matter, as there is nothing with regards to the game (be it DnD, BESM, Vampire, etc) that stops me from allowing a more 'social' handling of the encounter, or simply just allowing a way to avoid the encounter entirely.Essentially, you are declaring that RPGs are failing based on how some people (perhaps even the majority) interpret and play the game, not because of the games themselves. And there is no 'failure' there. People play differently from you, and from I, and from anyone else on this thread, even if the exact same rules are in use.</blockquote>

Verification