> A cynic would say, by turning it into a _series_ of Orate rolls....
Yep, and being a died in the wool cynic I thought of that also. Still, it is an improvement. The aspect of this that I like is that it places an emphasis on a part of the role-playing experience that other systems sleight (IMHO). I *am* worried, like others on the list, that the HW mechanic might devolve into blandly playing of the system rather than assisting the role-playing. Still, the game is in an early stage of development and I am happy with the direction it is taking.
This whole thing has me rethinking the mechanics for non-combat resolutions in my game. If I look at a debate as a combat, with Lores and communication skills as weapons and armor then some interesting things are suggested. Perhaps a series of opposed rolls (I use Pendragon Pass) using different skills would work, with different levels of success reducing something - perhaps "temporary status" until a winner and a looser are found.
A player in my current PDP game pointed out that Runequest was ill designed for a Clan politics game because its mechanics were slanted towards combat. His proof was the amount of detail in the rules for combat vs social interactions. The plethora of skills, spells, and implements that are combat oriented far outweigh those that are useful in social situations or stead management. This, he said, means we should be fighting pretty much all the time. What is my character goal? To be a WindLord. What is a Windlord? A killing machine. What use is it to become a killing machine in a social game?
Oh well, my skill at game development is weak at best... :) Humm... Is there a list more appropriate to this line of discussion?
> Perhaps the point this makes is: each situation should be resolved
> in an amount of detail appropriate to its (dramatic) importance.
Amen.
K.Paul McDonald
Powered by hypermail