"Player's Advocate" GMs and What is Abuse?
Posted: 09 Nov 2008, 20:55
Anti-heroes look out for themselves and villains seek out others to exploit. How far are these elements allowed in the game? As stated in a previous thread, I'm building a group that's increasing the competitive elements in the game, which also deepens plot and attachment to game play.
I'd prefer the GM have "defense attorney" (a Johnny Cochran for the accused anti-heroes and villains) qualities to consult with. If I am stopped by another GM about "abuse" issues, I can refer them to the GM that gave me the go ahead. Should the GM's have conflicting issues over my actions, I'd like to remove myself as a party that may invoke an emotional reaction (outrage tends towards knee-jerk decision-making) and keep the discussion around the parameters of allowable actions.
If the aim of the game is to avoid player induced plots, intentionally created rivalries and competitive gaming, I'd like to know before I rock the boat more...
I bring this up because the development of this Court and GMs seems to be increasing and I feel this is a relevant subject towards these developing trends.
Platyna had been serving as the primary Judge for most actions, but perhaps these things are being handled differently now. I think a central Judge is great because it is easier to understand a single figure's interpretation of rules and base my actions on the trajectory of decisions they've made (gaming common law, if you will). But if the interpretation and execution of the rules are being spread to many people, I do think there needs to be a safety net from outraged decision making for players.
I'd prefer the GM have "defense attorney" (a Johnny Cochran for the accused anti-heroes and villains) qualities to consult with. If I am stopped by another GM about "abuse" issues, I can refer them to the GM that gave me the go ahead. Should the GM's have conflicting issues over my actions, I'd like to remove myself as a party that may invoke an emotional reaction (outrage tends towards knee-jerk decision-making) and keep the discussion around the parameters of allowable actions.
If the aim of the game is to avoid player induced plots, intentionally created rivalries and competitive gaming, I'd like to know before I rock the boat more...
I bring this up because the development of this Court and GMs seems to be increasing and I feel this is a relevant subject towards these developing trends.
Platyna had been serving as the primary Judge for most actions, but perhaps these things are being handled differently now. I think a central Judge is great because it is easier to understand a single figure's interpretation of rules and base my actions on the trajectory of decisions they've made (gaming common law, if you will). But if the interpretation and execution of the rules are being spread to many people, I do think there needs to be a safety net from outraged decision making for players.