Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D's Evolution: Rulings, Rules, and "System Matters"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8398700" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I think the most helpful way to think about <em>neutrality</em>, in the context of RPG refereeing, is to look at the historical examples and the departures from them. We can then see what neutrality does and doesn't bring to the table, what some of the pressure points are, and what we gain and lose by sticking with it as a principle.</p><p></p><p>In the same way that there's no unique best answer to the question <em>should we film a movie in black and white or in colour?- The Maltese Falcon </em>is inconceivable in colour, while <em>Hero</em> is inconceivable in black and white - so there's no unique best answer to <em>do we want the referee to be neutral</em>. It depends on the experience we are hoping to have. (See also [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] not far upthread.)</p><p></p><p>I want to put to one side a GM who <em>actively deceives</em> about action resolution processes - that raises a further range of issues that are important (eg did the players implicitly agree or even desire to be deceived?) but easily distract from a focus on neutrality as such.</p><p></p><p>So: sticking to the wandering monster clock <em>come what may</em> is clearly neutral. It can cause the sort of problem Gygax identifies in his DMG (p 9). The response Gygax recommends is <em>varying brutal wandering monster results for groups that are playing skilfully but getting unlucky on the checks</em>. That prescription in itself isn't a departure from neutrality, but it is hard to implement in a neutral way because judging the boundaries of <em>played well but got unlucky</em> is a hard thing to do! It's no surprise that, over time, wandering monsters drop away as a source of adversity and time-pressure and that <em>use those encounters that will make the game fun in a pacing/drama sense </em>becomes a more popular technique (4e D&D is probably the full development of this principle in the context of D&D).</p><p></p><p>Just as with how situations are established in play, so <em>action resolution </em>can be approached more or less neutrally. Rolling for success/failure on simple tasks like (eg) opening doors or finding secret doors is pretty neutral; and classic D&D has lots of this. Deciding if the process someone describes for how their PC disarms a trap, and adjudicating that by direct application of fictional positioning (rather than any sort of roll) <em>can</em> be neutral, if the player is a competent describer of things and the GM is a competent judge of how the machinery of the trap works.</p><p></p><p>But it's easy to hit limits. In my Classic Traveller game, one of the PCs wanted to make modifications to a communicator so that instead of performing its normal function it would do something slightly different (maybe jam an enemy signal? I can't remember the details). The player's PC had relevant skills (Electronics, I think it was). The player knows little about radio technology; I'm the same; and there's the further complexity that we're talking about science fiction adventure in the far future! As referee, I decided that the attempt was possible: that was done non-neutrally, and rather having regard to questions like<em> does it make basic sense? </em>(yes, it seemed to) and <em>is it abusive? </em>(no, it didn't seem so) and <em>will it contribute to the ongoing trajectory of the game? </em>(yes, it would).</p><p></p><p>I then set 10+ as the basic throw required (on two dice), applied appropriate modifiers for skill and stat, and stated a final throw required - this was extrapolated by me from an example of resolution in the Electronics skill description, and was neutral enough in that sense but not connected to any "realistic" sense on my part or the player's part of how hard the thing might be.</p><p></p><p>There are approaches to adjudication that depart further from neutrality than what I've just described. Eg the GM answers my questions in the same fashion that I did, and then instead of setting a difficulty just says <em>Yes, it works. </em>That sort of free-form approach is a perfectly feasible way to approach RPGing, but will produce a pretty different experience from free kriegsspiel! We're moving much closer to the GM as storyteller, or maybe collaborative storytelling between players and GM.</p><p></p><p>A third domain of GM decision-making we could look at through this lens of neutrality and departures from it is <em>establishing consequences of action declarations</em>, especially when they fail. The most "neutral" approach - which works well for trying to open doors, or trying to find a secret door - is <em>you don't get what you wanted</em>. But we can see the limits of this even in classic D&D, when it comes to tasks that are risky, like climbing a wall or trying to disarm a trap: does failing a climb walls check mean <em>you can't see any way up</em> (a bit like failing to find a secret door) or does it mean <em>you fall and get hurt</em> (which is a pretty different proposition!). If the latter, how frequently do checks have to be made? The early D&D texts are all over the place in this respect (eg Moldvay Basic says to check once per 100', with failure meaning a fall at the halfway point; the PHB says to check once, at the midpoint of the climb, with failure meaning a fall; the DMG has movement rates in feet per round and says to call for a check every round to avoid a fall). This shows the limits of neutrality in task adjudication; it only gets more complicated if the task is <em>I approach the hobgoblins in a friendly fashion </em>(what does failure mean here? that they're unreceptive? that they attack?) or <em>I send threatening letters to the mayor under a pseudonym, with the goal of bringing about a change of city policy</em>.</p><p></p><p>My own view is that <em>the more complex the range of anticipated fictional situations and acceptable action declarations</em>, the less feasible that neutrality is as a referee disposition, even if is desired by the game participants. The converse of that is that play in a neutral style works best in an artificially sparse and constrained fictional environment - eg a classic dungeon!; or an Agatha Christie-style mystery set-up where all the relevant parameters can be pinned down in advance; etc.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8398700, member: 42582"] I think the most helpful way to think about [I]neutrality[/I], in the context of RPG refereeing, is to look at the historical examples and the departures from them. We can then see what neutrality does and doesn't bring to the table, what some of the pressure points are, and what we gain and lose by sticking with it as a principle. In the same way that there's no unique best answer to the question [I]should we film a movie in black and white or in colour?- The Maltese Falcon [/I]is inconceivable in colour, while [I]Hero[/I] is inconceivable in black and white - so there's no unique best answer to [I]do we want the referee to be neutral[/I]. It depends on the experience we are hoping to have. (See also [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] not far upthread.) I want to put to one side a GM who [I]actively deceives[/I] about action resolution processes - that raises a further range of issues that are important (eg did the players implicitly agree or even desire to be deceived?) but easily distract from a focus on neutrality as such. So: sticking to the wandering monster clock [I]come what may[/I] is clearly neutral. It can cause the sort of problem Gygax identifies in his DMG (p 9). The response Gygax recommends is [I]varying brutal wandering monster results for groups that are playing skilfully but getting unlucky on the checks[/I]. That prescription in itself isn't a departure from neutrality, but it is hard to implement in a neutral way because judging the boundaries of [I]played well but got unlucky[/I] is a hard thing to do! It's no surprise that, over time, wandering monsters drop away as a source of adversity and time-pressure and that [I]use those encounters that will make the game fun in a pacing/drama sense [/I]becomes a more popular technique (4e D&D is probably the full development of this principle in the context of D&D). Just as with how situations are established in play, so [I]action resolution [/I]can be approached more or less neutrally. Rolling for success/failure on simple tasks like (eg) opening doors or finding secret doors is pretty neutral; and classic D&D has lots of this. Deciding if the process someone describes for how their PC disarms a trap, and adjudicating that by direct application of fictional positioning (rather than any sort of roll) [I]can[/I] be neutral, if the player is a competent describer of things and the GM is a competent judge of how the machinery of the trap works. But it's easy to hit limits. In my Classic Traveller game, one of the PCs wanted to make modifications to a communicator so that instead of performing its normal function it would do something slightly different (maybe jam an enemy signal? I can't remember the details). The player's PC had relevant skills (Electronics, I think it was). The player knows little about radio technology; I'm the same; and there's the further complexity that we're talking about science fiction adventure in the far future! As referee, I decided that the attempt was possible: that was done non-neutrally, and rather having regard to questions like[I] does it make basic sense? [/I](yes, it seemed to) and [I]is it abusive? [/I](no, it didn't seem so) and [I]will it contribute to the ongoing trajectory of the game? [/I](yes, it would). I then set 10+ as the basic throw required (on two dice), applied appropriate modifiers for skill and stat, and stated a final throw required - this was extrapolated by me from an example of resolution in the Electronics skill description, and was neutral enough in that sense but not connected to any "realistic" sense on my part or the player's part of how hard the thing might be. There are approaches to adjudication that depart further from neutrality than what I've just described. Eg the GM answers my questions in the same fashion that I did, and then instead of setting a difficulty just says [I]Yes, it works. [/I]That sort of free-form approach is a perfectly feasible way to approach RPGing, but will produce a pretty different experience from free kriegsspiel! We're moving much closer to the GM as storyteller, or maybe collaborative storytelling between players and GM. A third domain of GM decision-making we could look at through this lens of neutrality and departures from it is [I]establishing consequences of action declarations[/I], especially when they fail. The most "neutral" approach - which works well for trying to open doors, or trying to find a secret door - is [I]you don't get what you wanted[/I]. But we can see the limits of this even in classic D&D, when it comes to tasks that are risky, like climbing a wall or trying to disarm a trap: does failing a climb walls check mean [I]you can't see any way up[/I] (a bit like failing to find a secret door) or does it mean [I]you fall and get hurt[/I] (which is a pretty different proposition!). If the latter, how frequently do checks have to be made? The early D&D texts are all over the place in this respect (eg Moldvay Basic says to check once per 100', with failure meaning a fall at the halfway point; the PHB says to check once, at the midpoint of the climb, with failure meaning a fall; the DMG has movement rates in feet per round and says to call for a check every round to avoid a fall). This shows the limits of neutrality in task adjudication; it only gets more complicated if the task is [I]I approach the hobgoblins in a friendly fashion [/I](what does failure mean here? that they're unreceptive? that they attack?) or [I]I send threatening letters to the mayor under a pseudonym, with the goal of bringing about a change of city policy[/I]. My own view is that [I]the more complex the range of anticipated fictional situations and acceptable action declarations[/I], the less feasible that neutrality is as a referee disposition, even if is desired by the game participants. The converse of that is that play in a neutral style works best in an artificially sparse and constrained fictional environment - eg a classic dungeon!; or an Agatha Christie-style mystery set-up where all the relevant parameters can be pinned down in advance; etc. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D's Evolution: Rulings, Rules, and "System Matters"
Top