> You seem to be saying that it's okay for one player's character to do something to
> another that results in physical consequences (i.e. mug him) but not do something that
> results in social consequences (i.e. intimidate the cash out of him)?
...
> they apply them to conflicts. If you're playing in a game which relies on player
> characters conflicting with each other you're going to have situations where things
> happen to your character that might seem detrimental at the time.
I maintain that this is strictly a question of play style. We can act out the social situation to a reasonable degree of fidelity, so there is less need for abstraction and mechanics. Freely acting out the social conflicts is one of THE things we want out of the game.
Things that seem (are!) detrimental happen to people. Sometimes they give, sometimes they escalate, sometimes they just remain stubborn. It's all good, because the other party can react to that, freely. :)
Not everybody wants to play this way, and that's cool. I like it, though.
Cheers,
Powered by hypermail