D&D General Dungeon Master or Referee?

[Crimson Longinus]

That I would agree with. I think this is part of being impartial, is understanding "I really, really want the players to go into the city of Port Sul" and understanding how that might be impacting what you are doing in terms of throwing things at them, or even potentially steering them towards the city. Same during combat, treating one player different than other players, or any other part of the game. Being away of your biases can be useful. That is why I find referee useful, it causes me to pause once in a while and evaluate these things, asking myself if I am being as fair and impartial as I ought to be

Yes, I agree that you should to strive to be aware of why you're making the decisions you're making, but I don't think the sort of impartiality that you imply is necessary. (Which is not to say that it is automatically bad either, it's just a different priority.) But if you think the game will be more fun if the characters go to Port Sul, and you can gently nudge them into that direction, then why not? If one player hadn't had a good spotlight moment for a while and you can nudge things so that such emerges, why not? Personally I feel GM should be doing decisions like this, because that's the strength of having an human in charge; they can read the room and direct things into fun.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, I agree that you should to strive to be aware of why you're making the decisions you're making, but I don't think the sort of impartiality that you imply is necessary. (Which is not to say that it is automatically bad either, it's just a different priority.) But if you think the game will be more fun if the characters go to Port Sul, and you can gently nudge them into that direction, then why not? If one player hadn't had a good spotlight moment for a while and you can nudge things so that such emerges, why not? Personally I feel GM should be doing decisions like this, because that's the strength of having an human in charge; they can read the room and direct things into fun.

This boils down to style. I want to emphasize, I am not saying the type of impartiality I am talking about is necessary. You can run the game however you like, using whatever GMing philosophy makes the most sense to you. I am saying it is an approach and it is an approach some find fun. Some groups want the nudge to the fun stuff in port sul, some don't. Some want the freedom to find fun stuff elsewhere and not be guided by the GMs hand. It depends on what you are doing. I agree having a human as the arbiter of the session is a strength. But I see the strength because of the GMs ability to adapt. One of the things I like about an RPG is I can strike out in any direction, do anything I want, there is a sort of limitless world and I can push the GM in directions they hadn't expected to go if they are open to it. With this style if the GM is overly intent on port sul and not fairly considering the alternate things I and the other players want to pursue, it can become a problem (fun though port sul may be). That said, not every GM is comfortable with that, so I am not saying this is the way you have to run a game. But it is one area where fairness impartiality can be important if you are running it that way. I was just throwing that in as one potential area of the game for impartiality to have an impact.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I see myself as more of a judge, so Dungeon Judge is a bit closer. In fact, I do sometimes refer to players who dig out rules minutiae for me as my "paralegals".

Dungeon Crawl Classics uses "judge" in place of DM, echoing the Judges Guild line of 1E products back in the day.

 

[Helldritch]

This doesn't really make sense, does it? I mean a GM can be fair to the players - they're real people - but the monsters are purely imaginary and so aren't vulnerable to mistreatment.

What this means is that fairness to the monsters is also showing fairness to the players. When you fudge dice in favor of the players, you down play the power of monsters and lessen the accomplishment of your players.

When you play your monsters as they should be, not only are you fair to the monster's capacities bit you are also making your players earn their victory. For without risks, there are no reward worthy of the challenge.

Here is an example. When CoS got out, I saw a group kill Strahd in quite an easy way, no challenge no risks. The players were bragging and claiming that anyone dying to Strahd were bad or not "experienced" enough to play. I know my players were terrified of Strhad so I asked them if they would agree to replay the final battle with me as a DM. I used Strahd as he was supposed to be played, a hit and run striker. They got totally defeated in two and a half hour. One player claimed that I cheated even if I was rolling on the open. I showed the Strahd's stats. It was their DM that downplayed Strahd that led to their bold claim and ultimately their defeat. The we killed Strahd at level 7 was not logical.

The discussion went on about what they wanted as players and strangely, their DM was not at fault. He was simply giving in to their critics that the game was too hard when they started so he was fudging. It is not really what they wanted but it is how it was perceived by their DM. Now their DM rolls on the open and do not pull punches. He is fair to both his players and to their foes.

 

[Parmandur]

Judge, Jury, AND Executioner.

 

[Parmandur]

Though seriously, I always took the "Master" part to be like the "Master" in MC, so it always seemed fair and innocuous.

 

[Lanefan]

This doesn't really make sense, does it? I mean a GM can be fair to the players - they're real people - but the monsters are purely imaginary and so aren't vulnerable to mistreatment.

Fairness, on the DM's part, extends into the fiction as well.

Gygax emphasizes his point of "Always give a monster an even break", and he's right: a DM has to be fair to the opponents just as she has to be fair to the PCs.

Further, if a DM is fair to the PCs in the fiction then by extension she almost can't help but be fair to the players at the table.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

What this means is that fairness to the monsters is also showing fairness to the players. When you fudge dice in favor of the players, you down play the power of monsters and lessen the accomplishment of your players.

When you play your monsters as they should be, not only are you fair to the monster's capacities bit you are also making your players earn their victory. For without risks, there are no reward worthy of the challenge.

Here is an example. When CoS got out, I saw a group kill Strahd in quite an easy way, no challenge no risks.

Similar story...but it involves Tomb of Horrors.

During the 80's and 90's, in the small city where I live (population at the time was about 12k, up to about 16k in the late 90's), there weren't many RPG'ers. There was no "hobby shop" for a good long stretch (only a toy store that carried a single section of about 4' x 4' of RPG/D&D stuff).

At any rate, I quickly developed the reputation of "a really good DM" (...and yes, my early/late teenage self was rather proud of that reputation...still am, tbh ). I guess some of the more...hmmm... "self confident" Players in the area were convinced that they were AMAZING players and that their PC's could take on any challenge that TSR could throw at them.

One group was so convinced of their greatness, and their "teenth-level PC's" that they kept bugging me to DM them. So I did. Tomb of Horrors. None had even heard of it, so in they went. TPK in about 15 minutes of play. Some died to poison, the rest...yeppers... Green Demon Face. "He just kinda disappears? Must be teleport! Everyone in!" POP! POP! POP! POP! POP! Of course, they were used to using Player Knowledge; after the first guy went POP!, everyone waited for me to describe what happened to him...where he was, what he saw, etc, so they could decide what they were up against in wherever they were 'teleported to'. I didn't do that. I sat their and smiled. "You guys aren't there, so I'll wait to you decide if you are going through or not".

They were...simultaneously shocked and elated. I told them not to worry, it was a "test adventure" and their PC's weren't really dead. ...and yes, in those days, if your PC died in some other DM's game/campaign world, word got around you died and your PC was DEAD. As in, no, you can't use him in your regular game, because he's dead. They were extatic because they actually felt like their choices mattered. They realized that the game is soooo much more fun when you don't "know" what is going to happen, based on the DM not wanting to let the PC's die. You know...risk/reward.

Anyway, that story got to another player with a TOTALLY Munchkinized Paladin (with +5 everything, Holy Avenger and a Huge Ancient Gold Dragon for a Paladin Mount...with all the trimmings...). "Pfft! No way would I die! Try me!". Ok...have you ever played Tomb of Horrors?

(spoiler alert: Paladin dead in under 5 minutes; twice; first 2 minutes, he fell in pit and failed his poison save with a natural 1! LOL!...but I "let" his Gold Dragon 'raise him'. He came back and decided to Fly down the hall way. Poked his holy avenger into the Green Demon Face. POP! "No way am I loosing that sword!" ...so in he went. POP!

I see this same sort of 'mindset' in a lot of players nowadays. But that is a whole other discussion thread!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Lanefan]

One thing to mention to those suggesting (upthread) that DMs might be better served by leaning into their partialities rather than trying for full neutrality, and that's this:

There's different types of partiality. Some are occasionally acceptable - maybe - while others are an outright no-go.

For example, being partial to one PC (or worse, player) over another, a.k.a. playing favourites, is never good - unless said DM is looking to sink her own game due to lack of (other) players. Don't do it. Ever. And if you catch yourself doing this, it's a safe bet at least some of the players have noticed it long before you have. (a corollary example is the DM who plays favourites with her DMPC over the PCs, also a bad idea)

 

[Maxperson]

One group was so convinced of their greatness, and their "teenth-level PC's" that they kept bugging me to DM them. So I did. Tomb of Horrors. None had even heard of it, so in they went. TPK in about 15 minutes of play. Some died to poison, the rest...yeppers... Green Demon Face. "He just kinda disappears? Must be teleport! Everyone in!" POP! POP! POP! POP! POP! Of course, they were used to using Player Knowledge; after the first guy went POP!, everyone waited for me to describe what happened to him...where he was, what he saw, etc, so they could decide what they were up against in wherever they were 'teleported to'. I didn't do that. I sat their and smiled. "You guys aren't there, so I'll wait to you decide if you are going through or not".

LOL Those faces TPK'd the group I ran it for as well. They got to the faces and were fairly cautious. They tossed in some objects which vanished into the darkness without a sound. Then one guy tossed in a rope and held the end. I let him know that the portion outside of the darkness that he was holding onto flopped down, cut cleanly. This was the point where the players became convinced that it was a transportation portal and that having part of yourself outside of it was a bad idea, so they promptly told me that they took running headfirst leaps into the darkness.