Spirit vs. Letter

[sobrique]

A tough question in a roleplay game, is how much you balance the letter of the rules, against the spirit of the rules.
The art of a good GM is to let the players 'roleplay' without constraining them with 'you can't do that, because there's no rule for it'.
Time and again though, the subject arises. Do you follow the letter, or the spirit of the rules?
Do you fudge that diceroll, because otherwise the character will die in a short and pointless fashion? Do you let the character try to jump on the back of the troll they're fighting, and how do you arbitrate it when there isn't a mechanic.

Do you ever have a monster die when it's 'dramatically appropriate' or do you have it's hitpoints rigidly adhered to?

If you have a gun pressed to someone's eye socket, and pull the trigger, do they still get to dodge/use armour, or are they just toast?

If someone goes out of character for some reason (valid), are they still 'there' and therefore killable?

And does this make a difference in tabletop vs. live action, and player vs. monster, as opposed to player vs. player?

I could put up a poll, but I'll leave that for now. Let me know what you think.

Comments

[jorune.livejournal.com]

When I can interact with all the players, then I may move outside the letter of the law. This will be to add something that I consider what will increase the players enjoyment of the game. While it may awe or startle players it should not upstage the players as they are the stars of the show and should get top billing. So throughout wfrp there was blatant fudging to allow people through to the next scene because it worked for the story.

When I cannot interact with all the players then I always work within the rules that are laid down. This establishes a common framework we can all agree on, without this then the game only continues on the strength of opinion. Without a common framework we are working with best intentions, waiting for someone persuasive to change everything to their viewpoint. I believe that a large multiplayer should work collectively, otherwise we are working with an unstable mixture of favouritism and whim.

When a flaw in the rules is found and an immediate ruling is required, then I will pick the course is most just. It should work in harmony with the rest of the rules. Law plus Goodness = Justice. After a new ruling then it should communicated to the other ref's or players as soon as feasible.

Moving in and out of character should be clearly described in the rules so confusion does not occur. If you are OC the rules should dictate a situation where it is obvious. If you are OC then you should not interact with the game and you should remove yourself from the game area. Once this has happened OC players are not in game and therefore no action may be taken against them or by them.

When you work within the law you are entitled to the protections laid down in the law. When you work outside the law you may or may not surrender access to those remedies. The aspect of goodness is when you decide whether it was an honest mistake or negligence; Forgiveness, redemption. You can ask the player to accept that they made a mistake and accept the consequences of that mistake. Your situation as ref will be made a lot easier if the players can mutually agree a solution that you are comfortable with.

A just decision made within the law is easier to explain to a room of 40 than one based on backroom discussions.