All y'all motherfuggers better listen up! : comments [benlehman]

You're assuming that any given rule stands alone. It doesn't. There's also, one assumes, a rule that says 'Sauruman can create nasty winter storms which can force down birds and travelers over Carhadras' or something.

If there's a system rule that allows for game-breaking moves, then it's your responsibility as a GM to understand the system well enough to avoid it. Either that, or change the system _before the situation comes up_. I'm not saying systems can't be changed. What I _am_ saying is that the system is there to divvy up authority between players, including the GM. If the GM can arbitrarily override the system then that divvying doesn't exist.

[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]

There's also, one assumes, a rule that says 'Sauruman can create nasty winter storms which can force down birds and travelers over Carhadras' or something.

But what if there isn't? (Which was the whole point of the example, after all).

If there's a system rule that allows for game-breaking moves, then it's your responsibility as a GM to understand the system well enough to avoid it. Either that, or change the system _before the situation comes up_.

Gah. So I need to be a rules-lawyer to run a game now? That's no fun.

I think every game I run from now on will have a Rule of Unintended Consequences rule. Because I don't want to be a lawyer, and rule systems that I can completely and totally understand will be too simple for the kinds of game I run.

[link] [parent] [reply]

A: I think you underestimate simple systems. I know I sure did.

B: That said, I think that I - and most of the people on this thread - are scuccumbing to the same problem that I always get when I talk about politics: I want things to be as perfect in execution as they are in principle. The fact is, often pragmatism is better than principle because if you follow pragmatism to its ultimate conclusion it gives decreasing returns and takes forever.

C: THAT being said, I think the best idea is to pick the closest system to what you want, modify it as best you can beforehand, and make sure that the other players are cool with the idea that 'if the system happens to be wrong in some unknown way about how the world works, we're going to alter it on the fly'.

D: On the other hand, I still dislike your Gandalf + Eagles example, because it seems pretty clear to me that the player in that instance isn't doing something that doesn't fit the metaphysic or the reality of the world, they're just doing something the GM doesn't want them to. And that smacks of railroading. I think there's better ways of handling such things than saying 'you can't do that'.

[link] [parent] [reply]

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i.d:>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i.D: On the other hand, I still dislike your Gandalf + Eagles example, because it seems pretty clear to me that the player in that instance isn't doing something that doesn't fit the metaphysic or the reality of the world, they're just doing something the GM doesn't want them to. And that smacks of railroading. I think there's better ways of handling such things than saying 'you can't do that'.</i>

I will dispatch Eagles forthwith to pick out your eyeballs and feast on the juicy treats within!
:)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Can't do that! The eagles are, er, preening today. Yeah.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14 1	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

benlehman

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

May