Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7919635" data-attributes="member: 29398">Which then - again - places the onus on the GM to get out of the way and give the characters (players) time and space to do what they're doing.Gygax Rule 0 is, IME, mostly for resolving rules/rulings arguments: ultimately the GM has the hammer.Within any given campaign I largely try to keep the rules consistent, with major changes (mostly) coming between campaigns.  That said, if something develops within a campaign that needs attention (usually involving someone finding either a major typo, an outright error, or a game-wrecking loophole) I'll fix it right away.That said, I have very few rules or guidelines* governing social interaction anyway, which is mostly what we've been discussing.* - most of what I have are to do with treatment of henches, and possible results/consequences therefrom; but even there if the hench-in-character would for whatever reason react differently than the guidelines suggest then that's what it's gonna do.In the right group this is cool.  My experience is that, given the chance, players will tend towards favouring changes that help their PCs (individually or collectively) while pushing back against any changes that hamper the PCs, which is only natural.Yeah - a GM who generally doesn't follow her own rules doesn't work well for me either.Which comes back, in a way, to the drum I often bang regarding PCs and NPCs functioning mechanically the same within the setting: it's way easier as a player to extrapolate the mechanics I already know regarding PCs onto the NPCs than it is to have to learn two disparate sets of mechanics - one for PCs and the other for NPCs* - and therefore it's on the GM to ensure consistency here even if the RAW say or suggest otherwise.* - assuming NPC mechanics are player-side info in that system; otherwise there's no way of knowing what rules the GM is following if any.</blockquote>

Verification