I think some of this is not going to be something we can bridge the disagreement on. I don't think the GM being final arbiter, or the GM invoking their power as final arbiter, equals mother may I. But this is also largely a disagreement over terminology.
Perhaps not. I don't think we're disagreeing as strongly as it may seem, but I do think there's one or two sticking points that seem relevant.
So let me say that I see a difference between "Final Arbiter" and "rule zero". One means that when the rules are somehow unclear, the GM is the one to make the final call. The other says that the GM may ignore or alter rules as they see fit (usually with some reference about addressing something unclear in the rules and so on, but often invoked in online discussion without that expectation).
Perhaps that helps bridge the gap?
But I would say rule zero existing, doesn't mean it gets used in every instance. In most instances you are going to swing and roll the expected die. But rule zero is there because the game recognizes that human judgement needs to step in once in a while to make the system run smoothly
Yeah, I agree. But my point is that the rules will often tell us exactly what we need to know. In those instances, the GM's judgment is not needed, and I'd say may also be intrusive.
The idea of a GM interposing in some way when the rules are perfectly clear.... that's what I don't think is good. Why is the GM doing that? Most often because the rules or process isn't as clear as it could be. Not the GM's fault really, but the more a game is uncertain like this and expects the GM to step in, the more you have one person making all the decisions about how play goes.
Now, a big part of what would help this be less necessary would be clearer rules. Clearly stated principles of GMing and playing. Discussion and consensus. Things like that. But absent those things, we're looking at a game that just eschews all of that and places all of it entirely in the hands of the GM.
Sure. I would agree they are largely meant for edge cases. And definitely agree they aren't meant to support crappy GMing. I think the point is though I can see many instances where the Rustic ability would become an edge case because it assumes so much in terms of what is present, what is going on, what is in the setting, and that could conflict with what has happened or what the GM has prepared/developed for the setting. I'm not saying this is what happened in your case, I can just see that being a potential thing that would happen with this ability.
The Rustic Hospitality ability doesn't really assume anything on its own during play. We may say that when the character is created and the Folk Hero background is selected, some assumptions are made. But once play gets moving, it's pretty conditional, and the GM will have a big say if common folk are present in a given area or scene.
I think that my thing with the Rustic Hospitality and similar abilities is I don't get the concern. So the player has the ability to, under some pretty specific circumstances, just say "This is true... these people will feed and shelter us at no cost because I'm beloved by the people". Why resist that as a GM? What's the concern in that situation that we feel the need to maintain some kind of GM veto over it?
I don't mean to imply that you are doing this
@Bedrockgames but it's a sentiment that seems to have been expressed a lot over the discussion, and you seem to be leaning that way.
Like, what makes it an edge case?
I will say whether rule zero applies to edge cases can vary to a degree. If you have players who like to attempt a lot of unorthodox things in combat, and the system doesn't feel like it is fairly adjudicating that (which I often find to the the case), you will find yourself invoking rule zero more (and usually not to hinder the players but to help them achieve what it is they are trying to do). For example if a player says something wierd like he wants to leap down on the toad demon and pour acid down its throat, I am probably going to handle that differently than a simple attack and damage roll (definitely the roll for damage if this succeeds is going to be much higher, but I might also make it come with greater risk), and I might tweak how I handle movement or any relevant physical skill roll in that situation if the system just doesn't fit what we are all imagining. Now personally, if I do this, I usually will explain to the player what steps I want to do instead of the normal ones, why, and also explain if there is greater risk and why (and if there is greater reward). I'll also let them opt for a standard attack roll and damage if they want. I just like that kind of clarity around expectations and I want everyone to feel good about the rulings I am making. But I have had players who were particularly inventive and cinematic where that came up frequently.
Yeah, these kinds of rulings are a bit different than what I'm talking about. trying to find a way to let the player do what they want within the rules is pretty much the opposite. But again, even with uncertain things like this, combat is so well covered that there are a lot of things the GM can lean on here to help guide them on how to adjudicate things.
