At 23:52 -0400 11/3/10, Jay wrote:
I'm not trying to say that a GM shouldn't be interperting rules according
to
the particular situation but rather suggesting that the time to set the
properties of mythril is probably not in the middle of game play.
...
Do you put any "stock" in the idea of a GM/Player contract?
I think Jay is on the right track, which track is only
slightly divergent from Matthew's.
"Good" fantasy (or SF) movies, books, etc. use "magic"
(technology) to put the reader in a different world. *But* that world
*must* be self-consistent for the reader to enjoy the story. The
"rules of the game" have to be demonstrated early, so that the
reader's "suspension of disbelief" includes the new rules, and the
reader can be immersed in the story and in the world well before the
climax. The reader must have had enough information to figure out the
clever move the protagonist makes before the protagonist makes it.
cf: "Use the force, Luke!"
cf: Who is the true owner of the Elder Wand?
If the "rules" change at the pivotal moment, the book is no
good. The author just pulled a rabbit out of his/her hat to befuddle
the reader, who is therefore unable to participate intellectually at
all, and is just "along for the ride".
I think this principle applies even more strongly to good
adventures. We have three books of canon describing the new "rules of
the game", and how they differ from 21st century American
(Australian, etc.) life. We may choose to add house rules, but we had
better do that before the gaming session starts! Otherwise, our
players are "along for the ride", cannot participate intellectually
in the game, and won't enjoy it much.
So Jay's over-the-top research and rule-making is absolutely
appropriate in this context, in my mind. Establishing a
self-consistent world (in which the rules are all well-known and
available to the players *before* they try them out in a stressful
situation) gives the players the ability to intellectually engage,
which greatly enhances their enjoyment of the adventure.
That is not to say that a referee has to be an *impartial*
"God", running his world the same way whether the characters die of
tuberculosis on the first night or not. The referee's job is to
create a situation where a good adventure takes place. So *within the
framework of the physics, metaphysics, geophysics, and generally
"rules of the world" he has created*, the referee still has (and
*has* to have) latitude to allow the situation to favor, challenge,
or interest the players to enhance the story.
Example: Party of 3 32-pointers happens across (randomly
rolled) a family of bears, mother and two grown cubs. An "impartial"
referee would start the combat, and that would be the end of the
adventure. An "entertaining" (good) referee would think a moment, and
add "...and off in the background, you can see a berry patch. Not a
lot of berries on it at the moment. The bears look at you, sniff, and
amble off."
Consistent with the "rules of the game" for this world, but
very *lucky* for the party. Adds excitement, but doesn't end the
adventure prematurely.
Example: Party of 8 42-pointers is trying to sneak up on a
stockade. The sentry takes 2 poisoned arrows in one turn, and goes
down silently. The party starts to move into position. The referee
thinks a moment, and adds "...and then the camp follower, sneaking up
to relieve the sentries' boredom that night, stumbles across the guys
bringing the petard, trips, falls, and splits the night with a
blood-curdling scream!"
Still consistent with the "rules of the game", but now
*unlucky" for the party. Adds challenge.
So in summary, referee "improvisation" is probably crucial,
even when the world is as well-researched as Jay's, *but* the
"improvisation", if it takes the form of introducing new rules or
changing existing rules, is very likely to spoil the game for the
players, in my opinion. I would urge Referees to do whatever they can
to stay within the existing "rules of the game", and shape the
adventure (or campaign) by the appropriate use of coincidence rather
than by changes to the rules.
Sorry for the long-winded diatribe!
--