So the idea of a neutral GM comes up a lot, and it’s one that always sticks out to me. I’ve very rarely felt it was all that necessary nor all that common.
<snip>
I ask because in kriegspiel games, there were opposing participants, so a neutral ref makes sense. But carrying over that idea to RPGs seems…less direct? Less one for one or like for like? Not sure what word I’m looking for here, but I hope I’m being clear.
That’s a good summary, and one I can largely get behind. It’s kind of about neutrality to the outcome which is something I tend to want.
<snip>
Would you expect this idea of neutrality to be extended beyond just the NPC/PC axis you’ve cited to incorporate things like pacing or drama and the like?
<snip>
being a fan of the PCs as it’s typically cited in principles of play doesn’t mean you’re going to rule in their favor. It’s more about caring about what happens to them. Being interested in what they do and what happens to them.
Which is kind of why I see the neutrality angle as overstated.
I think the notion of
neutrality is actually pretty fundamental in analyses of the "GM" role in RPGing. I don't know how common it has been historically, though I would guess that it was more common (at least in proportionate terms) 40 years ago than today.
But conceptually it's been pretty fundamental to understandings of RPGing. And I think it's legacy is felt in many ways even when the reasons underpinning it have been left behind.
I'm not sure I can summarise all the ways in which
neutral refereeing can and should manifest itself in those RPGs where it matters. But here are some of the key ones:
* The setting/situation/scenario is established, and set-in-stone, prior to play;
* Action resolution is (ideally, and hopefully in actuality also) a "model" or reflection of how things would really unfold were these events really happening;
* The influence of the players' desires on action resolution is fully exhausted once the PC's action has been declared (and hence can be disregarded by the referee, provided the action declaration has been properly interpreted);
* The influence of the players' desires on setting and situation design does not extend beyond informally telling the referee what sort of stuff might be fun (and for the truly austere even that might be stretching things, because it risks the players recognising the influence of their expressed desires on the fiction as they engage that fiction via their PCs).
There are well-known adventure modules that, as presented, speak to this sort of neutral refereeing: KotB, Hidden Shrine of Tomachan, Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, etc.
Different sorts of departures from neutrality produce different sorts of RPGing experiences which I think are broadly recognisable across the spectrum of the hobby. Eg non-neutral establishing of the scenario during play is part of scene-framing play (engage the players via the hooks on their PCs),
and PbtA-ish "fiction first" play (make their lives interesting!),
and "storytelling" play (use control over secret backstory to make sure the important scenes come online). A really early statement of this sort of non-neutrality - which contradicts some of the other statements in the rulebooks - is found in Classic Traveller Book 3 (1977, p 19): "The referee is always free to impose encounters to further the cause of the adventure being played; in many cases, he actually has a responsibility to do so." That's not neutral!
Non-neutral action resolution processes abandon "objective" DCs (eg Apocalypse World and Dungeon World, which have no difficulties; HeroQuest revised, where difficulties are set via a pacing-based feedback loop) or various sorts of "fiat" resolution (eg Prince Valiant storyteller certificates). Or they allow factors like commitment, morale, relationship to victim, etc all factor into the resolution process (Prince Valiant, HeroWars/Queset and The Riddle of Steel all have this).
GM decides based on what makes for a good story (ie the White Wolf "golden rule") is also a version of non-neutral action resolution procedures.
Action resolution where the influence of player desires extends beyond the declaration phase include all sorts of fate point systems (where these can be spent down the track), plus BW's intent-and-task resolution (narration of failures should focus on intent), or some PbtA moves (where eg the player gets to ask certain questions).
The influence of player desire extending in formal ways into setting and situation design can be scene in the AD&D OA Yakuza contact rules, or the Classic Traveller Streetwise rules, or BW's Circles rules. A more subtle, perhaps borderline, case is found in Classic Traveller Book 3 (1977, p 8): "the referee should always feel free to impose worlds which have been deliberately (rather than randomly) generated. Often such planets will be devised specifically to reward or torment players." That's not very neutral either.
When you look at how often discussions about these various departures from neutrality seem to misfire, or become very heated very quickly around what is
really RPGing, I think you are seeing the legacy of the neutrality ideal, itself inherited from wargaming.
