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

[MGibster]

Obligatory NO ONE READS THE DMG!

Reading is for nerds.

With all that in mind (mainly because I have other things to do today) I will throw this out- what do you think of the neutral referee in 5e? What principles do you use when running the game?

I'm not a neutral DM. I want the players to have fun and I'm biased in their favor. I don't believe there are many neutral DMs around these days. I don't mean that in the sense that we can't be perfectly unbiased, but that it isn't even something to strive for. Fairness? Sure, I'll try to be fair. But I'm not neutral.

PS: It's nice to see the Mad Hatter avatar back. I'm not going to have tea with her, because I think she'd chop off my toes to use as sugar cubes, but it's still nice to see it.

 

[MGibster]

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.

If you're DMing a new group, you need to approach the biggest player character in the group and just punch them as hard as you can. Once you do that, all the other player characters will respect you.

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

Pressure isn't the same as bullying. If I tell players I'm only allowing races from the PHB, but one of them wants to be a Goliath and brings up that possibility, that's peer pressure. And, yes, it's a mild example, but it's still there.

 

[Mort]

Pressure isn't the same as bullying. If I tell players I'm only allowing races from the PHB, but one of them wants to be a Goliath and brings up that possibility, that's peer pressure. And, yes, it's a mild example, but it's still there.

I would hope most DMs can handle that question and those like it without much hassle. If not, they need to learn to - it's not like they won't be fielding harder ones from the players as play gets going.

Lets take that one. The player asks to play a Goliath. If the DM says no and provides a reason then great (ranging from anything like "sorry Goliaths have never been seen in this world" to even "no, sorry don't like them, never made room for them in my world."). If the player pushes and keeps pushing? Well, it's good you learned they might not be a good fit for your game early!

That said, if the DM says no but can't really provide a good reason? Maybe they need to rethink their knee jerk no?

 

[Shiroiken]

It's funny how definitions change. I'm considered a Killer DM because I'm a neutral referee, since I don't hold back to save the PCs. I've probably had about two dozen PC deaths in 6 years, but about half of them were overcome with Revivify, Raise Dead, and Wish.

I ascribe to the 3 Hats philosophy: the DM is an adversary, storyteller, and judge at different times. The DM takes up the adversarial role when designing adventures, devising challenges that the characters need to overcome. During the game, they are a storyteller, describing the world they've built via the adventure. Whenever the players interact with the rules of the game, the DM needs to be as neutral as possible when judging the outcome. Obviously there's a lot of leeway, since a DM could design an adventure to counter the PCs abilities, or to highlight them, but IMO the ideal is the design for the world itself.

 

[MGibster]

I would hope most DMs can handle that question and those like it without much hassle. If not, they need to learn to - it's not like they won't be fielding harder ones from the players as play gets going.

Yeah, and if a DM always sticks to their guns you're going to hear a lot of people here say that he's being too inflexible.

That said, if the DM says no but can't really provide a good reason? Maybe they need to rethink their knee jerk no?

Yup, no pressure here.

 

[Mort]

Yeah, and if a DM always sticks to their guns you're going to hear a lot of people here say that he's being too inflexible.

"Always" is a pretty big term. And if it really is "always," that IS inflexible. Especially if you can't provide a passable reason as to why you're sticking to your guns.

Yup, no pressure here.

I prefer "yes, and..." whenever possible.

A player that asks about one of the DMs campaign rules isn't applying pressure, they're asking a question. A question that the DM can (or at least should), hopefully, answer easily. And if the DM can't, maybe they need to give the question some thought so they can?

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Always" is a pretty big term. And if it really is "always," that IS inflexible. Especially if you can't provide a passable reason as to why you're sticking to your guns.


I prefer "yes, and..." whenever possible.

A player that asks about one of the DMs campaign rules isn't applying pressure, they're asking a question. A question that the DM can (or at least should), hopefully, answer easily. And if the DM can't, maybe they need to give the question some thought so they can?

"Yes, and" is held on such a high pedestal these days that it's like any other style of play is considered automatically lesser than. Not every table needs to be an improv show.

 

[MGibster]

A player that asks about one of the DMs campaign rules isn't applying pressure, they're asking a question. A question that the DM can (or at least should), hopefully, answer easily. And if the DM can't, maybe they need to give the question some thought so they can?

I think you're a little hung up on the word pressure, but I honestly don't know of a better word to use.

 

[Malmuria]

For a neutral referee to be possible, the system itself needs to be designed in a neutral way. 5E does not want neutral referees. It's designed for storytellers and Monty Haul DMs who are fans of the players and their characters. It's designed to prevent Killer DMs with easy access to healing, high PC hit points, death saves, easy access to resurrection, etc.

I would disentangle a couple different things here. 5e (and 3e and from what I know 4e) have a sort of built-in monty haulness to them, in that what used to be powerful magic items are now just character features. The power level of the characters doesn’t really rely on the dm handing out magic items, especially in 5e.

Neutrality is a separate issue. Death saves don’t incentivize against dm neutrality. In fact, in theory, it should be the opposite: the DM can assume the monsters know what they are doing and play them aggresively, knowing that the system will mitigate against actual character death. However, it seems there is a play culture that insists on balance in all aspects of the game and has a specific idea of what that looks like.

 

[Mort]

"Yes, and" is held on such a high pedestal these days that it's like any other style of play is considered automatically lesser than. Not every table needs to be an improv show.

When something is shown to be a good idea, why not tout it?

And "yes and..." In gaming Is a better target than just saying no all the time, even though you don't always hit it.

I've found DMs who at least TRY to say yes provide a better gaming experience than those who answer with a no the great majority of the time.