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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6096938" data-attributes="member: 2656">I have a number of issues with sim-ish effects adjudication. All too often I have seen players punished by this sort of resolution when they don't think like the referee. For instance their attempted action gets assigned a very low chance of success after it's announced. Much of the time the player is forced to go through with the attempt even when the chance is vanishingly small. Or they may simply forbidden from trying.In the worst case, some negative effect on the PC is associated with the effect, typically with failure, but sometimes with success. Referees are more likely to allow players to change their mind in such cases, though I have seen PCs forced to attempt dangerous or suicidal maneuvers before.Now players who are sympatico with the referee will request actions the referee looks favourably on and be assigned better odds, or even automatic success.But this sort of play trains other players who can't read the referees mind in a variety of bad coping mechanisms. If they care about regular success, they stop trying any unusual actions and stick to documented actions with know rules for adjudication(which is exactly a regular accusation against 4e, and for an equivalent reason). Of if they care more about the occasional big win and don't mind regular failure, they may try repeated "all or nothing" tactics, accept the higher death rate, and maybe get a rare jackpot success result.Now, I realise a bunch of the above could be seen as "bad refereeing" but it's also maybe symptomatic of the referee  caring for gameworld fidelity as much as or more than player enjoyment/agency. Whereas a more freeform approach perhaps sacrifices fidelity in return for improved player agency.</blockquote>

Verification