Making the adventure describer and the rules referee different people

[nnms]

Traditionally, it's been the GM's responsibility to both describe the fictional world and the various challenges and characters the player characters encounter as well as to adjudicate the rules and have final say in system matters.

Might I suggest separating these two participant roles so you have a different person be in charge of the rules? Why would someone want to do this?

1) Trains better description. You now need to describe something so that another person can make reasonable rules interpretations off of your descriptions. If your description skills are lacking or you are glossing over too much, you'll need to lift your game. The rules referee is going to need to be able to listen to you and what you are describing at get an accurate feel for how to resolve what you are talking about in the system.

2) Trains better rules application. The rules referee has to be able to listen and ask the right questions. Most of us can do this, but coming up with system applications based on what other people describe is a pretty key GMing skill.

3) Gives all participants more traction. Everything needs to be more "on the table" as more people are involved in the decision making of the outcome of actions and the implication of those actions.

4) Enables the describer to play even more to "see what happens." They can't fudge results or subtly or unconsciously guide play to their desired ends (even if they don't mean to). The describer is no longer responsible for the outcome or the plot, but just for the situation as it progresses.

5) Develops improvising skills. Everyone needs to take into consideration the resolution of described events from more than one person, which requires being more open and accepting and less blocking and saying no. The describer has to accept the referee's interpretation the situation and the results the system produces and go with it.

6) Reduces GM work load. While the referee is adjudicating system stuff, the describer is free to concentrate on presenting what they have come up with and on characterization of the NPCs, etc.,.

And for an even more distributed work load, make every player a joint rules referee. If there is a rules issue, all of the players, but not the describer-GM, can have input and if no consensus is reached quickly, use a simple vote system. Many groups probably already play like this without realizing it.

What's this look like in actual play?

Describer: "You see a strange metal face, almost a foot across, attached to the base of the statue. Sneering with an almost pig like nose with a wide mouth and large teeth, you think it depicts on orc. There appears to be an opening or empty space between it's jaws."
Player1: "I bend down and shine my torch into the opening."
Describer: "The opening goes for about 6 inches and ends, but you see a key hole there."
Player2: "I can pick locks."
Player1: "Go for it."
Player3REF: "Is this thing well crafted or crude?"
Describer: "Very well crafted."
P3REF: "Well that sounds like it would have a difficult lock to pick. DC30
Player2: "I get started. It's not likely I'll get it, but I might"
Describer: "As you begin picking the lock, the jaws of the face clamp shut!"
P3REF: "You said this thing is pretty well crafted, so I'm thinking it's a trap with an attack bonus of +6"
Describer: "Not a reflex save to get your hand out in time?"
P3REF: "Nope, it's attacking. It gets a 22."
Player2: "It got me..."
Describer: "So not only does it hurt you, it's clamped down on your hand like a bear trap. And water starts pouring and spraying out of the mouth, nose and eyes of the statue down onto you."
P3REF: "It's not trying to lop his hand off, but to hold him, So let's say d4 damage, 2. But your grabbed and it's very strong."
Player1: "Wait a minute! Shouldn't we have gotten a perception check or something? This isn't fair!"
P3REF: "The GM-Describer has all your passive skill levels so he can describe accordingly. You know we agreed that if you want a perception based roll, you need to ask for it or your passives stand."
Player2: "Hey, doesn't Rufus have some sort of water breathing spell in case this place fills up too fast for me to escape?"
P3REF: "Yeah. It's on a scroll. I get that out. Hey, just how fast is the water coming out?"
Describer: "Very fast. it's just spraying out in a deluge. And given how low the opening was, he's crouched down as well."
P3REF: "This room is tiny as well. I open the door."
Describer: "It appears to have locked itself somehow."
Player2: "Well, I better get escaping, I'm going to pull out an iron spike and try to pry the teeth apart."
Player1: "I'll help as well. I'll do my best to stand and crouch in a way that keeps the water out of his face so he can see what he's doing."

 

[Bagpuss]

P3REF: DC5 to pry the teeth apart with the spike.
Describer: That seems a little low for a well crafted trap.
P3REF: Yeah but you said earlier that this tomb is centuries old and will all the water behind it, I figured it has cause the hidden mechanism to corrode.
Player 2: 12 on my Strength check, we rescue him easily.

 

[nnms]

Sorry, the ref can't add content like that. That'd be the describers job to talk about whether or not the water impacted the mechanism. If the ref can't be fair, then that's no different than a traditional GM who can't be fair. Neither will work.

 

[Bagpuss]

Except the Ref in this case has a conflict of interest.

 

[nnms]

As long as the person who introduces a challenge isn't the one who solves it, it's still interesting. So as long as the rules-ref is actually interested in accurately representing what another person describes, then it's no different than a GM accurately representing what another person describes their character doing.

If the person in charge of the rules wants to nullify the challenges rather than actually dealing with them, then they're missing the point of play entirely and there are larger issues going on. Just like when a traditional-GM railroads or nullifies the input of another person on the table.

 

[Dethklok]

Except the Ref in this case has a conflict of interest.

What? Everyone's primary interest is having a good time. Who benefits from ad-libbing beyond the confines of the describer's game?

If the person in charge of the rules wants to nullify the challenges rather than actually dealing with them, then they're missing the point of play entirely and there are larger issues going on. Just like when a traditional-GM railroads or nullifies the input of another person on the table.

OK. But why would anyone want to do that? Isn't that the unpleasant side of GMing? Maybe you could find someone to ref for you, but it wouldn't be I who served in that capacity.

 

[Bagpuss]

What? Everyone's primary interest is having a good time.

Not everyone has a good time in the same way, some people enjoy a challenge others might want to seem like gods among men, and cruise to victory.

One of the most annoying bad DM habits is the DM PC, how is this not creating that situation to some degree in every game?

 

[Dethklok]

One of the most annoying bad DM habits is the DM PC, how is this not creating that situation to some degree in every game?

Ahh! My apologies. I didn't read the original post in it's entirety.

So, yes, this is every bit like that.

 

[nnms]

It's also primarily an exercise. Doing this will teach people things about gaming.

So pointing out an issue like DMPC can be a useful tool for a future DM to learn. Imagine you have someone at the table who's expressed interest in GMing, but they're not ready to dive in. So you make them a Co-GM and ask them to handle the rules stuff. They'll soon learn that they need to balance fairness against their own desires just like every other GM out there.

Another approach is to put the rules responsibility out to every player at the table, but not the GM. It'll become super obvious to everyone when one guy keeps trying to lower the consensus DCs and nullify challenges. When you have rules to follow and it's not the job of the GM to set them aside whenever, people like to follow them. They like to explore them and have fun with using them. It's not going to suddenly fall apart. And if you have an individual at the table that will abuse their responsibility, then you ask them to play traditionally while everyone else hammers out the rules together fairly.

If someone wants to cruise through challenges or be more awesome and they're willing to abuse their position as rules-ref in order to do so, then that's no different than someone abusing their position as a GM to do whatever GMs do in the bad-GM stories we hear.

The fact that it suddenly seems to illustrate the issues people might be concerned with shows why this exercise might be really useful for a lot of groups.

Also, a lot of groups nearly do this already. 3.x/PF is far more about rules transparency than previous editions of D&D and there are definitely groups out there where how the rules are used is more like a negotiation.

If you want to see a good example of this working, look at the history of miniature wargaming. Around the time D&D was birthed out of that hobby, games were played with gamemaster/referees that had total final say in both scenario content and rules outcomes, just like RPG GMs. Since that time people have figured out that players can actually just agree to both follow the rules, set up pre-written or randomly generated scenarios and have a good time sharing the rules interpretation duties. Board games have been doing this for even longer.

The advantage of giving one individual authority over content (the describer) is that people can be surprised in ways they can't without that person. It opens up discovery, exploration and mystery. But nothing about that is interfered with by approaching a more modern approach to rules in the same way miniature wargaming moved on from even having a GM. In fact, doing so may be very illustrative for a lot of RPG groups as to where and why they are having problems or missing opportunities for fun.

 

[Dethklok]

Interesting. I'll have to think about it.