|
How do you deal with accusations of favoritism and bias in the free-form system? I understand the necessity of a referee-like position, but we all know how professional athletes (and their fans) treat referees.
I'll go with a specific example. I'm trying to whack Greenstorm with an axe. (Sorry, Greenstorm, but your name was closest on the thread.) However, Greenstorm has recently struck me on the weapon arm with a rock, and I'm pretty hurt. The referee assigns a modifier.
Now, before the dice are rolled, what if the player disagrees with the modifier? ("It's too small a penalty. His arm is nearly broken!" vs. "It's too big a penalty. I was wearing padded sleeves!") Assume both players are trying to be fair, and just see things differently. Is the referee supposed to bias the modifier towards the better RPer, or the outcome which would make for a more exciting story? Can the two players overrule the referee somehow?
Now, if there's a standard modifier for the situation ("All rock hits to the arm result in -2 to hit."), you'd just hard-code it and save the referee some time. So I assume this is only supposed to cover unusual situations, which is where the most difference of opinion might crop up.
I'm mostly curious because 'favoritism' is a very common accusation levelled at game staff, even in systems where the majority of variables are automatically assigned by the code. In a tabletop game, you're probably playing among people you know, and you won't run into 'internet tough guy syndrome' as often. How does the staff handle these situations when they crop up?
|