NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="zarionofarabel" data-source="post: 8160265" data-attributes="member: 7026405">Agreed. Though within the context of rules for a RPG, they are one and the same, as they are both narrative constructs.The emotions of a player, no, the emotions of a PC however is a different matter. PCs are not players and players are not PCs. A player is the real life human sitting at the table playing the RPG. A PC is a narrative construct, or more importantly, a figment of the imaginations of the players and DM. Having a PC's beliefs changed by the result of a social conflict in no way removes agency. A player can still make meaningful choices within the narrative even after a PC's beliefs have been altered. And yes, following the agreed to ruleset is part of the contract. So, if the ruleset includes a "social combat" system that can alter a PC's beliefs then allowing those beliefs to be altered is good form as it fulfills the obligations of the contract.As stated above, fulfilling the obligations of the contract is good form. Following the rules is good form. If a "social combat" system is part of the rules then abiding by the results of any "social combat" is good form, just as abiding by the rules governing physical things. Also, many RPGs nowadays have very few rules regarding physical things and instead lump everything physical and non-physical under the same narrative framework. In other words, the rules govern the narrative directly, whether the thing they govern is physical or not is irrelevant.</blockquote>

Verification