On 2009-04-16, Ben Lehman wrote:
Chris: That's a nice breakdown of the types, I think. With the understanding that they can stack: a traditional GM does all three in the same sentence.
I think that these things can result in a lot of problematic play when there's not a shared set of social expectations around them. If there's a player who gets to decide who if anyone gets the tactical bonus for the scene, the group needs to be clear about which of the following is expected:
1) The player gives it to the person who gains the best advantage from it.
2) The player gives it to the who his character would want to see win.
3) The player gives it out in such a way that it tactically benefits him.
4) The player gives it out to the character who he really does believe has the tactical advantage.
5) The player gauges the group's mood and gives it to who consensus seems to arrive on.
But establishing these expectations clearly is not impossible, either in the game itself (easy) or in the group during or before play (touchier, but definitely doable). And, once established (and provided that the group actually backs them up socially), a player will likely follow the expectations, unless they are the sort of player who cheats to win.