Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Don Durito" data-source="post: 9707897" data-attributes="member: 6687260">I feel that in some ways the tightness of a little of rules in many traditional games both restricts the GM heavily (and the players of course) and it is why you have the safety valve that ends up giving the GM the power to override any rules.In a game with more narrative rules (I'm not going to say narrativist because there an awful lot of games out there these days like the 2d20 games that are somewhat hybrids), it's often the case that the results of abilites or action have to fit the fiction - this in itself means that the outcomes are often able to be more open while also avoiding the need to give the GM the safety valve of overriding the rules.  (Which of course is not a good one because it frequently causes table acrimony when applied).Like the old bag of rats trick with whirlwind attack and cleave in 3e.  The defence against that in 3e was the GM saying no and overriding the rules. The defence against that in a more narrative game is that it makes no sense in the fiction (and because the rules are more open it doesn't make any sense to find a loophole to exploit - it would just be a player describing how their character murders a lot of rats.).</blockquote>