Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9642056">Sure you can do it that way. I use a lot of principled solutions myself. But those can also be a straight jacket. What [USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER] and I am wary of here, is saying the GM should never step in and fiat. There are going to be times when even principled solutions break down or fail to respond adequately to player requests. There are going to be times when even the best rules and procedures break down or didn't adequately foresee the situation the players are in and what they are trying to achieve (I ran into this problem a lot during the 3E era for example, where you had a rule for everything it seemed but the rules did not always adapt well to what was actually going on, and they didn't allow for much flexibility in terms of breathing life into the things like the creation of magic items (there was a very regimented way of doing things). Now to be clear, I am not saying other people dont' have different experiences than me. For some people I am sure all those codified rules were helpful for bringing the game to life. But for some of us, the ability of the GM to occasionally, not always, not most of the time, act as a stop gap is very crucial to the game functioning in a way that makes agency matter. Yes, and just as an aside, people should definitely read the book if they have any intention of running 2E or just want some good GM advice from that era. But all they are saying here, regardless of how good or bad the particular example they gave was, is it is occasionally useful to put aside the rules and focus on something like what the PCs are saying they are trying to do. I don't think this advice is that outrageous, and I think it is worth keeping in mind. Here is what they actually have to say about it (this is the important part of that section):[ATTACH=full]403030[/ATTACH]Sure, but that doesn't take away from Jaquays' and Connor's point either.</blockquote>

Verification