Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Krensky" data-source="post: 5434385" data-attributes="member: 30936">No, I did get your point. I just can't remember anything remotely like that happening after junior high school. It's a game. One of the GMs job is to referee and run NPCs. If the GM and the player disagree on the moralit or ethicalness of an action, the GM's right until after the game when a philosophical debate can commence. It sounds more like a hypothetical argument about not offending people then an actual issue in the game.Actually, it was a mis-phrasing on mine, since I meant what you said. As for the rest,... the mind boggles. Letting the player act as his own judge? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />Only when the GM abdicates his responsibility. &quot;Let the player decide if his character is following his restrictions properly.&quot; *shakes head*Wait, when did this become about 3.X?<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />Do you let your players just make up numbers for dice rolls too? If a player takes a disadvantage (code of conduct, duty, or whatever) in order to gain an advantage (spell casting, special abilities, more build points, etc) and then you don't make them feel that disadvantage you're just giving them free power.If a PC enters into a deal with a more powerful character and the player gets to adjudicate that deal, they will almost never do so fairly. This whole scheme sounds more like player fiat then anything else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Krensky, post: 5434385, member: 30936"] No, I did get your point. I just can't remember anything remotely like that happening after junior high school. It's a game. One of the GMs job is to referee and run NPCs. If the GM and the player disagree on the moralit or ethicalness of an action, the GM's right until after the game when a philosophical debate can commence. It sounds more like a hypothetical argument about not offending people then an actual issue in the game. Actually, it was a mis-phrasing on mine, since I meant what you said. As for the rest,... the mind boggles. Letting the player act as his own judge? :confused: Only when the GM abdicates his responsibility. "Let the player decide if his character is following his restrictions properly." *shakes head* Wait, when did this become about 3.X? :confused: Do you let your players just make up numbers for dice rolls too? If a player takes a disadvantage (code of conduct, duty, or whatever) in order to gain an advantage (spell casting, special abilities, more build points, etc) and then you don't make them feel that disadvantage you're just giving them free power. If a PC enters into a deal with a more powerful character and the player gets to adjudicate that deal, they will almost never do so fairly. This whole scheme sounds more like player fiat then anything else. [/QUOTE]

Verification