Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8481964" data-attributes="member: 29398">Bad faith is bad faith, no matter whose idea of fun might be offended.The reason I often bring it up is that I don't think there's enough thought given - be it in these discussions or at the design level - toward finding ways and means of legislating or ruling or rules-writing against bad faith play.As I just posted a moment ago, a DM also has to act with integrity and good faith.&nbsp; This is why I strongly support the DM-as-neutral-arbiter model.That said, a DM who consistently acts in bad faith likely won't be a DM for very long, once the players catch on.If this is your end stance then believe it or not we're in agreement!My point is - and has been all along - that this agreed-on model renders social mechanics redundant, and thus they can be safely removed from the game without affecting anything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8481964, member: 29398"] Bad faith is bad faith, no matter whose idea of fun might be offended. The reason I often bring it up is that I don't think there's enough thought given - be it in these discussions or at the design level - toward finding ways and means of legislating or ruling or rules-writing against bad faith play. As I just posted a moment ago, a DM also has to act with integrity and good faith. This is why I strongly support the DM-as-neutral-arbiter model. That said, a DM who consistently acts in bad faith likely won't be a DM for very long, once the players catch on. If this is your end stance then believe it or not we're in agreement! My point is - and has been all along - that this agreed-on model renders social mechanics redundant, and thus they can be safely removed from the game without affecting anything. [/QUOTE]

Verification