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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 5982971" data-attributes="member: 386">I think "Rule Zero" - or as I like to call it, making judgement calls - is an important feature of RPGs.  However, I think that the game system has a big role to play here: it needs to make sure that, when the game requires a judgement call from someone, it doesn't create a conflict of interest, and the game system should be clear about the authority and responsibility players have when making those calls.Conflicts of interest: you don't want the person making the judgement call to have a stake in its outcome.  The typical example is a bonus to hit when you "have the high ground."  The player who cares about getting that bonus shouldn't also be the one who makes that call.  If he is, then the player has to determine if the value of the bonus outweighs an impartial assessment of the "high ground" in the game world.  Conflict of interest.This is pretty straightforward: the player cares if his PC gets a bonus.  The DM doesn't care about that; he cares about making sure the game world is consistent.  This simple dynamic gets complicated when you are running Adventure Paths, high-prep games, or games where the PCs are supposed to succeed.Authority & Responsibility: In order for the game system to get rid of those conflicts of interest, I think it needs to spell out the authority that different players have over different judgement calls, and then detail the responsibility players have when making judgement calls.e.g.  Who decides if a PC is scared?  Is it a judgement call from the player, the DM, or a check?  The kinds of choices you want players to make in the game is going to change this dynamic: D&D and Call of Cthulhu take different approaches for good reason.At that point I think a list of how to make "principled decisions" should be included in the game.</blockquote>

Verification