Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadras" data-source="post: 7943412" data-attributes="member: 6688277">So IF I were playing along those lines as strictly as [USER=6775031]@Saelorn[/USER] seems to do: If the GM wasn't happy with the player's reasoning for the character's actions it could go to a table vote. Personally if I were a player (and actually a GM) at that table I would prefer it going to the table rather than have the entire decision rest in the GM's hands.In a way yes, but also to try maintain a sense of internal consistency.Look if it ever went that dark - the GM would generally have serious trouble at the table. Checks and balances.I do not run my table as metagame free as Saelorn, obviously, given some of the gaming techniques I have incorporated, but I will say this: Our table is very much open. Anyone is free to question any character's actions at our table since those actions may affect the story's internal consistency. I often find it is players that check players at our table and opinions may be shared and may lead to rethinking/modifying the character action taken. In another light (positive) this could be viewed as shared narrative (between two players). Other times the questioning of a character's actions serves to get clarrification but more so insight into the character.</blockquote>