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="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9097355" data-attributes="member: 8461">It's clear that this is a topic that's important to you. It's not to me, so I'm going to clarify one or two points and then call it a day where this tangent is concerned.I prefer to have that part already done, which is why I'm willing to put down money to use game systems that set those things down in terms of rules, presumably designed and play-tested by people better at creating games than I am.Don't be snarky, please. The idea is that if having written rules leads to debates about their interpretation, having no rules except for what the referee comes up with has the potential to be even worse. While I think that "mother may I" is an unfair way of describing a lot of games rely heavily on referee adjudication, the underlying idea is one that I'm sympathetic to, in that having an impersonal set of rules governing what can be attempted – even when those rules are unclear – can be more empowering for players than having a single GM who determines everything. It also seems like less work for the GM as well.Again, it's not all about trust. Genuine disagreements can arise, and when those happen it causes less tension for the group (in my experience) to be able to lay at least some of the blame for that on unclear rules than to make it entirely about a clash between two or more people. Written rules act as an insulator in that regard, to the point where you don't have to rely on trust in the first place, and I think there's merit in that.</blockquote>

Verification