Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6808363" data-attributes="member: 4937">Your thinking about this is largely on the right track, but this won't work.  It is insufficient and vague.Because if you give players the right to overrule other players actions on grounds that it effects their character in ways they don't like, then you are invariably going to end up in a situation where a player is unreasonably demanding control over another character over a tissue thin claim that the other character's actions effect them.  If all sorts of problems would arise without this rule, then all sorts of problems are still going to arise with it.Or in other words, while players should always compromise regarding their actions, it's a mistake to require it.   Or to put it even more simply, yes players should be reasonable but no amount of rules that require reasonableness can actually force a player to be reasonable.And in general, I think you'd find it was the most disruptive players that hid the most behind this rule.  Often the best recourse for dealing with disruptive play is to give that character the unvarnished consequences of his action.</blockquote>