Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6117130" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't think that's quite right (though of course I may have misunderstood [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION]).Libramarian says &quot;it should be obvious how to play a proper paladin in-game, because the more restricted your choices . . . the more heft your commitment . . . has.&quot; The &quot;should&quot; there means &quot;the rules of the game should make it easy to see how to play your paladin&quot;. That is, the restrictions are meant to be obvious. The commitment, then, is that you have tied one hand behind your back before play even starts. You're not really a hostage to fortune - the GM's job should just be to remind you about the hand behind your back.On this theory, an ambiguous code would be poor design, and a GM who set out to frame ambivalent situations would be, if not breaking the rules, at least putting improper pressure on the social contract.At least, that's my take on it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6117130, member: 42582"] I don't think that's quite right (though of course I may have misunderstood [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION]). Libramarian says "it should be obvious how to play a proper paladin in-game, because the more restricted your choices . . . the more heft your commitment . . . has." The "should" there means "the rules of the game should make it easy to see how to play your paladin". That is, the restrictions are meant to be obvious. The commitment, then, is that you have tied one hand behind your back before play even starts. You're not really a hostage to fortune - the GM's job should just be to remind you about the hand behind your back. On this theory, an ambiguous code would be poor design, and a GM who set out to frame ambivalent situations would be, if not breaking the rules, at least putting improper pressure on the social contract. At least, that's my take on it. [/QUOTE]

Verification