Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 5556843" data-attributes="member: 10479"><p>I'm not sure the example being used is necessarily the best, but I agree in great part that the outline is both important and valid.  I would add in regard to the third point that there are factors beyond game mechanics that must figure into the adjudication of any given situation that have to do with presentation of setting and precedent of previous interaction, as brought up by a number of other posters.  The problem with giving any single example is that it carries added knowledge, that cannot be fully expressed, that falls under the heading of having had to have been there.  However, the premise still feels sound to me.  A GM has to watch how any system works with his players, in the moment, and determine if the situation warrants making some adjustment, even in times when the GM might express to the players that the adjustment is being made for the given situation.  I'd further caution that such adjustments should be rare since the unseen can of worms being opened could lead to future confusion and, if it does, it becomes incumbant upon the GM to be gracious in how that future confusion gets cleared up, lwaning toward favoring the players.  No rule set can cover all eventualities, neutrality and fairness should always guide the GM (which makes the choice of the word "pernicious" at least imprecise if not inaccurate).</p></blockquote><p></p>