D&D 5E The Neutral Referee, Monty Haul, and the Killer DM: History of the GM and Application to 5e

[Mort]

That's where the contradiction comes in. I'm not neutral if I'm okay with the system being wildly stacked in the players' favor. That's not neutrality. That's being biased for the players. To then run that biased game "neutrally" is to accept the utterly biased outcome...so not being neutral.

But D&D isn't the referee vs. the players. It's the players, through their PCs, taking on the world at large. The system favoring the PCs in no way prevents a DM from running the system in a neutral manner. It just means, if the system is in fact biased toward the PCs, that run neutrally they have a much better chance of prevailing.

Now those odds can easily be modified and then run neutrally from there too, but the system itself can be player biased and still run in a neutral way.

Compromise is not when one side simply gives the other what they want. Compromise is when both sides move and give and adjust so that the other is accommodated. If the players say "we want epic fantasy superheroes" and the referee says "I want a grim and gritty AD&D game" it's not a compromise to run 5E...it's running the game exactly as the OC players want and in an opposite manner to what the referee wants. That's not a compromise.

You can run 5e so it's not superheroes or Grim and Gritty (or you can as either of those), you can absolutely compromise and run in a way that's fun for both. Or not, and find a group that fits your exact style.

This is why deciding to play together as a group first so often leads to everyone being disappointed. The referee says they want to run a particular style of game. If the players want that style of game, they play, if not, they don't. Simple. If the players want something different they can run the game. The referee is under no obligation to run the game for the players in a style they don't enjoy...nor are the players obligated to play in a game or style they won't enjoy.

Or the DM can run in a style more in line with what the players want but put his own touches on it. If the DM is all "My way or the highway..." he can't be too upset when the players choose the highway!

 

[Jack Daniel]

Reading the main section you are responding to holistically with my emphasis:

The DM, then, cannot ad hoc the area that is being explored, the DM cannot ad lib, and the DM should not be a fan of the players in Skilled Play. The DM is, for all practical purposes, the world that the players are interacting with through their characters. For this reason, the game cannot have mechanics for the players to seize narrative control of the world. The world exists independently of the player's conceptions and desires, and they (the players) are using their Skilled Play to overcome the obstacles within the world.

For that same reason, the DM must commit to preparation. This division of authority requires trust from the players to the DM that the DM is not changing the world or engaging in illusionism to help or hinder the players.


Read completely, the emphasis is not on the idea that the DM cannot "ad lib" dialogue from an NPC (for example) or "ad lib" additional details about what a room looks like. Instead, it's that the world exists independently of the players, which means that:
1. The DM should, to the extent possible, rely on preparation (and/or other outside materials or tables) when it comes to exploration. They should not ad hoc or ad lib an area being explored.
2. When the DM does not have this material, the DM must make rulings that are "true to the fiction" regardless of whether that would help or hinder the players. And when that ruling is made, then that becomes a "truth" in the world. If the DM has established that a chalice is green, then the chalice is always green from that point on. The players can trust that the DM is not going to change the color of the chalice (or the location of rooms) later on.
3. This is different than the "improv" games I reference, which allow players to seize narrative control of the world.

Blogger Sandra Snan coined a name for this kind of prep-focused, principled restraint — blorb.

(Excellent summary of the neutral referee in the OP, BTW, SZ. I'll throw another bard on the BBQ for ya.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

But D&D isn't the referee vs. the players. It's the players, through their PCs, taking on the world at large. The system favoring the PCs in no way prevents a DM from running the system in a neutral manner. It just means, if the system is in fact biased toward the PCs, that run neutrally they have a much better chance of prevailing.

Now those odds can easily be modified and then run neutrally from there too, but the system itself can be player biased and still run in a neutral way.



You can run 5e so it's not superheroes or Grim and Gritty (or you can as either of those), you can absolutely compromise and run in a way that's fun for both. Or not, and find a group that fits your exact style.



Or the DM can run in a style more in line with what the players want but put his own touches on it. If the DM is all "My way or the highway..." he can't be too upset when the players choose the highway!

And vice versa. The DM can always walk too.

 

[Mort]

And vice versa. The DM can always walk too.

Well sure, it absolutely goes both ways.

But, personally, I've seen orders of magnitude more DMs be inflexible in their DMing style than inflexible players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well sure, it absolutely goes both ways.

But, personally, I've seen orders of magnitude more DMs be inflexible in their DMing style than inflexible players.

In my experience, DMs tend to compromise more than players, simply due to social pressure.

 

[Charlaquin]

In my experience, DMs tend to compromise more than players, simply due to social pressure.

The social pressure goes both ways though, or at least that has been my experience. There is an implicit understanding that the DM is doing a lot of work for the benefit of the players, so the players should be willing to let the DM run the game the way they want; on the flip side, there’s an understanding that the players are there to have fun, and won’t stick around if the game isn’t fun for them. Both parties need to be willing to compromise at least a little in order to accommodate each others’ desires.

There’s also the fact that it’s generally easier to find 3-5 players than to find one DM. At least in meat space; I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case online, but I would be surprised if the opposite was true there.

 

[overgeeked]

In my experience, DMs tend to compromise more than players, simply due to social pressure.

Exactly. Players are told “no gaming is better than bad gaming” while DMs are told to tailor their games to suit the players. And the pressure is greater on the DM through sheer numbers. One DM or 4-X players.

 

[Mort]

Exactly. Players are told “no gaming is better than bad gaming” while DMs are told to tailor their games to suit the players. And the pressure is greater on the DM through sheer numbers. One DM or 4-X players.

Have you actually seen players bullying a DM (such that the DM has to bend to what they want)?

I really haven't. I've certainly seen DMs bullying players (well I used to see it, before getting a great, fun, steady group - a long time ago). But I haven't seen players bullying a DM into doing much of anything.

 

[clearstream]

I started a bit late for the proper neutral referee days (the Hickman Revolution was already brewing), but that's how I saw games run for decades and how I've always tried to run games myself. It's simply not the job of the referee to try to force story, story structure, or drama onto a game. Whatever story is generated by game play is emergent, not forced. Forcing story requires limiting player agency and railroading. Which are bad refereeing, though it's exactly what you have to do for the GM to be a storyteller.

To me this rests on how you tell stories in RPG. GM can curate a situation from which stories of one kind rather than another emerge. I think of that as storytelling; it's just not predetermined linear storytelling.

 

[guachi]

My absolute favorite way to play and run a game is as close to neutral as possible. It's probably why I gravitate towards published adventures to run. I find it easier to be a neutral referee for an adventure someone else wrote.

I find I can get some real tension the closer I get to neutral. It's fun! I'm the DM and I don't know what's going to happen, just like the players. Obviously, I have the adventure in front of me but there are many situations where I genuinely have no idea what's going to happen.