On 2009-04-17, Moreno R. wrote:
I see your DitV comparation... up to a point!
Playing GM in DitV, I usually HAVE some particular preference for an outcome (the one I would try to get if I was a player, saving the NPC I like, etc.), but I don't worry about it because I don't have to "measure" myself when I play different NPCs: I play all of them to the hilt, and it's the game system that let me do it without worrying too much, by giving me a fixed amount of dice to play that NPC (I can add some dice here and there, right, but not too many without some extraordinary effort)
But if I would have to "create NPCs" in DitV like I did in the old days with AD&D ("mmm... I hope this will be strong enough to scare them, but without killing them... but what if I misjudge their strenght? Well, I will have to fudge some roll behind the screen..."), the game wouldn't work so well. And this is what it seems you are talking about in your post: having a "impartial judge" judging how strong a spell has to be (or a monster, or a trap, or...). Like if being impartial would mean being right.
But if you say that you talking about doing that with rules like the ones in DitV, that allow me to be impartial without worrying about having to be "right" all the time, I am interested. But hurry to that point because all this talk of the "GMs of old" is giving me goosebumps! =:-I