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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8608988" data-attributes="member: 6785785">So the distinction on this is that there are a few things we're kind of talking about, and they're getting mixed up.1) is the role of the GM as final arbiter. When there's conflict of some sort, or if the rules or procedures produce a result that isn't satisfactory to the group in some way, the GM can override the rules. When the rules don't account for a specific given situation, the GM is to make a ruling.2) is the GM granting permission. The player makes a suggestion of some sort, and the GM says yes. "Is there a tree nearby I can climb?" and so on.3) is when the rules give the player the ability to establish something, either through an action and associated ability check, or else through the use of magic or a class or background ability.Let's look at the very common action of making an attack. There are very specific rules about this. I make a roll, if I equal or exceed the target's AC, I hit the target and roll for damage. This is an example of 3 above, right? I think it's clearly not 2. An interesting question is: is it subject to 1?Having examples of my number 3 does not take away my number 1.Can a GM use their authority to block examples of number 3? Sure they can. But unless such a decision is justified and explainable, I imagine it's gonna cause some issues. Most of the time from what I've seen and what I expect in most games, when a player declares that they take an action that the rules state they can make, the GM follows those rules as described and doesn't override them.So if the game (or agreed upon process or house rule) allows the player to establish that their character's sister works in the mayor's office as a type of action.. an example of 3 rather than of 2.... then I don't see that as a challenge to 1.</blockquote>

Verification