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="clearstream" data-source="post: 9241352" data-attributes="member: 71699">This illustrates quite well that the driver of conflicts of interest are the interests. And those can be engineered to avoid conflict. To spell it out using your exampleThe given player [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] (TS) has goals around their character's survival and progress (say). TS also has a goal to play ethically, which means to them not "being fussy about the rules when it helped me but not when it didn't" TS is therefore not conflicted when upholding rules, because the second goal is stronger than the first.Similarly, a player can be given ownership of arbitrating A just so long as their strongest goals don't lead to conflicts connected with A. One way to secure that by design is to give players strong goals that don't lead to conflicts with A, or expressly exclude goals that would.To some extent, that's what Baker is doing in that piece I quoted earlier from AW. He is spelling out that it is not GM's goal to do X, Y or Z. On surface that seems to mean just - don't do X. But it also means that seeing doing X isn't a goal of GM, they are unconflicted in cases that would relate to X.It’s not your job to put their characters in double-binds or dead ends, or to yank the rug out from under their feet.So if a situation would yank the rug out from under a PC's feet, GM can arbitrate on that without conflict. To put that strongly, the rug very much can be yanked out from under a PC's feet. It's not GM's job to do that. Maybe a rule makes them do it: they follow that rule.</blockquote>

Verification