Demonbutt

by puncushion

Dice-o-cratic Resolution

2022-11-03

Sometimes, in the course of play, disagreements about the resolution of different scenarios will come up. In general, most games state that the final word is with the Game Master. They are vested with the trust of the players to determine the most agreeable outcomes based on the tools provided in a game's rules, their own judgment, and the agreed-upon expectations for play. At least, this is the ideal.

It will inevitably come to pass that a player or players are still unsatisfied with a GM's decision. In a bid to avoid the time-wasting theoretical debates about rules that can often happen at the table, I came up with this procedure. It's a mix of parliamentarism and dice-based randomization.

The idea is that everyone can participate in a productive and brief discussion about what they think the call should be. The goal isn't to decide whose proposal is correct by popular vote, but to decide if there's enough energy in the back-and-forth to merit a resolution by the most impartial force available: the dice.

If a player disagrees with a GM decision:

  1. They may call the original decision into question and briefly explain their reasoning and suggest an alternate course.
  2. The GM or another player may briefly defend the original decision.
  3. A quorum must be reached by players (GM excluded) as to whether the issue will be decided by dice roll.
    1. Vote 'yea' to let the dice decide,
    2. 'nay' to maintain original decision,
    3. or 'abstained' if undecided.
  4. Quorum is reached if at least half of players vote 'yea'.
    1. Everyone rolls 1d20 and tally odd and even results,
    2. odds go to original decision,
    3. and evens go to alternative proposal.
    4. If the result is split, then the GM rolls an additional d20.
  5. If quorum is not reached, the original decision stands.
  6. Either the original decision or the alternative proposal may be withdrawn at any point. What remains is adopted by default.

It should be said that this is not a perfect solution. Most calls by a GM, even if mildly controversial, shouldn't necessitate this process. It's mainly meant for casual play, too. It probably doesn't have a place during organized play or any game where balance and consistency are a priority.

It's designed to efficiently address the kind of disputes that prove difficult to move past. There is nothing this process can resolve that runs deeper than the decisions being disputed. Personal issues expressed through procedural conflict is manipulative and an exercise in bad faith. Better to talk it out and air grievances earnestly. Nothing can replace open and honest communication.