No matter how well you right a rule, someone will find an unexpected way to parse it. Here is my proposed addition / clarification to the rules:

If there is any disagreement about a rule, or its application in a given situation, each player states their interpretation. All players then roll the blue die, and the dispute is resolved according to the player with the highest number. If there is a tie, those players reroll -- as often as needed -- to break it. In the end there can be only one. That ruling stands for the remainder of the play session. The game's designer adds +6 to their first roll.

Triu said:

We always work on the 'majority rule' theory. Also, we discuss possible rules queries before we even start (ones that we've become aware of through forum reading, for example). We've always found that it doesn't matter if we play a rule wrong, as long as everyone is in agreement with it.

No. The proper method for coming to an agreement is Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock. Duh.

I am serious … and don't call me Shirley.

BSF, the intent was to provide a quick way to resolve disputes when playing with RL. State your opinion, roll dice (the heart & bane of RPG), and move on.

Majority rule can end up in a tie with 2 or 4 players. The Overlord is at a disadvantage with 3 or 5 players. If everyone unanimously agrees, no rolling is necessary. See, my errata already needs errata

Scissors and Spock aren't in the spirit of the game; paper is questionable. I would accept Rock, Parchment, Spear, Lizard, Gandalf as a replacement for rolling a die if there are no telepaths in the game.

[No edit button? ]

Make that Staff, Balrog, Gandalf … more thematic.

Triu said:

Or how well you write it, either

KristoffStark said:

Or how well you write it, either

Touché!

A rule requiring random resolution of disputes is utter crap. That just encourages people to challenge everything they possibly can, so they can intentionally warp the rules in their favor 50% of the time, even if they obviously have no case at all. I could say "no, the overlord is only allowed to play cards with the heroes' permission" or "I got one of the search tokens, that means I automatically and instantly win the encounter" and according to your proposed rule you have to roll to see whether I'm right. And if you add a "only if both parties are being reasonable" exception, then the rule is useless.

Ultimately, all players must agree to play by some particular set of rules, or a game does not exist. If both sides agree that the other is being earnest and reasonable and they want to resolve the disagreement randomly to keep things moving, that's fine, and they don't need a rule to enforce that. But if I say "no, you have no justification for that, I refuse to play by your abusive interpretation" and you try to come back and tell me that we have to roll for it, then (1) you are being an *******, and (2) it's totally unenforcable anyway, because I can still refuse to play , which is what would have happened anyway if we couldn't agree.

And if you're actually in some sort of competitive/tournament setting where there would be penalties for walking away from the game, then letting one player make up arbitrary rules and roll to enforce them is obviously and grossly unacceptable.

You are absolutely right, but I'm a relativist.

Triu said:

does Gandalf beat his staff?

Mrbob0069 said:

Well, to follow the original it would go something like this:

Staff tears Parchment covers Rock crushes Balrog trips Gandalf smashes Staff halts Balrog (YOU! SHALL NOT! PASS!) burns Parchment banishes Gandalf vaporizes Rock breaks Staff.

So, no.