Post originally by Wulf Corbett at 2005-04-21 04:15:27
Converted from Phorums BB System

Conan wrote:
-------------------------------
Thus proving that you didn't get my point at all. I never said no rules. I said that they don't need to be as complex or detailed as combat.
-------------------------------
And I disagreed clearly and obviously to the briefest of looks at my message that I was talking about exactly that - rules equality between combat and conversation. And clearly stated my opinion that if there was NOT equality, that that was a failure of the game.

I'd modify that somewhat to say it's either a failure, or a clear sign that the game is heavily biased in favour of combat over social interraction. If it provides full detail for one type of activity, and scanty, vague rules for another, it's clear which is meant to be concentrated on, and which the game writers consider most important.

Fewer and less precise rules for social interraction are not helpful to roleplay, they're not an incentive to roleplay, they are an excuse to avoid roleplaying, since they avoid the creation and definition of the role in the first place. How can anyone claim to be playing a role if the role is undefined? Just make stuff up and claim it's all in character afterwards.

Wulf