Is it desirable, or undersirable, to have referee moderation of (and intervention in) an imaginary or virtual game world? Is it the sign of a healthy game, or a sick one? Is there such a thing as a perfect set of rules that would never require referee moderation? Are computer games superior to referee-moderated games, due to their enforced consistency and lack of bias? The Lurking Gherkin ponders these questions…. (NB - I originally published this article on the excellent Gamegrene forum a couple of years back.)
The Referee Rules:
An argument that all too frequently arises between players and referees is that of the sanctity of the rules of the game versus the referee’s own judgement.
Sometimes, it’s a matter of interpretation – I’ve never seen a pen’n'paper RPG system that didn’t involve rule ambiguity somewhere in its pages, and the subjective nature of words and the multiple meanings we give them makes this inevitable. RPG systems are not written in a mathematically formalised way but instead use plain (or sometimes not-so-plain) English.
Other times, it can be a case of the referee ‘over-ruling the rules’. He or she decides that the rules of the game as written by its authors do not adequately deal with the situation that has arisen, and so they will make a judgement call. If this happens frequently in their game this can give birth to a ‘house rule’.
