'Civil Law' v 'Common Law' referee methods in role playing
jdfristrom:
I had a a similar thought, but it was from my non-lawyer layman understanding of what 'common law' was - I thought 'common law' was all about precedent, and applied to the gaming table it wouldn't be about adapting rules from other systems...which to me sounds like one country adopting the laws of another country in order to adjudicate its cases...but rather applying a certain consistency at the table, e.g.:
- as we migrated from Pathfinder Beta to Pathfinder Actual, it became murky how many attacks a tiger animal companion gets on a charge, so we keep using what we'd always used
- one of the players realizes we've been playing the 'flying' rules wrong the entire campaign; rather than adopt the correct rules, we just keep playing it the way we have been; we'll switch next campaign
This is more 'fair' than saying "Ok, now we're going to start playing by our new understanding of the real rules instead of the way we've always played" because nobody gets nerfed.
But, whether you're going to be about the text of the rules or precedent, it matters much more for gamist groups where the players are more concerned about min/maxing, etc...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page