On May 20, 8:53 pm, Tristan <c.loidl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I might be wrong, but the problem you seem to have is the unstructured
> handling of social interactions vs. structured physical combat
> actions.
Well, yes and no. One aspect is that I don't want to follow a
very simple structured handling that ends up unbalanced. If
the player characters meet two unallied enemies at the same
time, it should neither be the case that they always attack
the PCs together nor that they always fight each other. The
potential change in the threat to the PCs is very great if an
NPC aims its attack at other NPCs instead of the PCs, and
there are a large number of such decisions in a free-for-all
melee, even though I'm satisfied with the mechanics for combat.
> Negociations, Discussions, Debates and other "conflicts" of a non-
> physical nature are in most RPGs sessions handled as free form play.
> Maybe all you need to do is create similar actions and reactions for
> social based conflicts which will automatically structure it more.
> The winner of such a conflict could then be simply allowed to narrate
> the outcome ...
> There are a few Indie RPGs that take this approach.
That could be useful in some contexts, but it's not that I want
to choose one side that prevails in the narration, it's more that
I want a narration to arise from the process itself. But rolling
lots of diplomacy skills doesn't seem right, either; I'm more
looking for ways to improve my abilities in free form play.
--
Magister
|
