benlehman

Heh... See my post below, but basically your conflating to points:

1. Social contract: Someone must want to use the Eagles to destroy the Ring, otherwise this wouldn't have come up. One of the primary reasons to use written systems is to arbitrate disputes between players when they disagree. You're basically saying that the game is better if the GM just decides what happens; his desires trump the players. "You want X, too bad! I don't want X, and I'm the GM, so no X for you". If this is the case, why are you using a written system at all?

2. The Theory position seems to be it's *never* OK to over-rule the System

The Theory position is that you should never *have to* over-rule system. If you are doing so then it is a clear indication of one of a number of things:

A) You are using the wrong system. You know that this is true when everyone at the table wants something counter to the system.

B) (And this is more likely) Your group has some problems. Someone wants X and someone wants not-X. For the person who wants X, not-X ruins the game and for the person who wants not-X, X ruins the game. If this is the case then you shouldn't be playing RPGs toegether. Doesn't mean you can't be friends, doesn't mean you can't play pool or basketball or chess. But RPGs? That's not going to work out for you.

Thomas