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

[Snarf Zagyg]

What is "fair?"

What is "is?"

 

[Fanaelialae]

Right, but why is the former being neutral and the latter putting thumb on the scale in favour of the world? To me it seems the the opposite, the former is favouring the players in expense of representing the world "neutrally."

Like you said, the enemies certainly could be able to create pretty much undetectable traps. And what if players come up with a plan that logically is undetectable to the enemies? Would the GM then invent or introduce some contrived flaw to their plan that would telegraphs this threat to the NPCs just like they would do if the NPCs were trying to set a trap on the PCs?

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I would say that they are both examples of the DM putting their finger on the scale (the former in favor of the players; the latter in favor of the world). However, I don't believe that this in any way negates the DM's neutrality (at least insofar as neutrality is realistically possible). The reason is because other priorities of play (ie., "skilled play") exist and these take priority over strict neutrality. In other words, I believe that sometimes a neutral DM needs to put their finger on the scale, but they do so in the interest of promoting play priorities (to challenge the players) rather than out of favoritism (wanting to see the players "win").

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What is "is?"

Present tense third-person singular of be, dialectal present tense first-person and third-person singular of be and dialectal present tense plural of be.

But you act like my question is silly. It is not. It really gets to the core of this supposed "neutrality." What is the "fair" way to adjudicate what sort of traps a super intelligent lich that wants to kill the PCs comes up with? Especially as the person doing this "fair" adjudication is the same person who decides what resources that the lich has, and indeed invented the whole lich in the first place.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I would say that they are both examples of the DM putting their finger on the scale (the former in favor of the players; the latter in favor of the world). However, I don't believe that this in any way negates the DM's neutrality (at least insofar as neutrality is realistically possible). The reason is because other priorities of play (ie., "skilled play") exist and these take priority over strict neutrality. In other words, I believe that sometimes a neutral DM needs to put their finger on the scale, but they do so in the interest of promoting play priorities (to challenge the players) rather than out of favoritism (wanting to see the players "win").

I fully agree that these are exactly the sort of calls the GM has to make. But I wouldn't pretend making such calls is being "neutral." It is not, it is the GM making executive decisions regarding the tone and direction of the game. The GMs should recognise that this is what they're doing and own it. Talking about neutrality just obfuscates what's actually happening.

 

[Charlaquin]

I no longer have the time to do enough preparation to create a scenario that is extensive enough to meet some peoples' apparent Platonic ideal of a "neutral GM".

No one does. Most DMs who do strive for such neutrality use the “start small and build” model. You just design and prep enough content to get started - generally a starting town, maybe a couple of nearby settlements, a small dungeon or the first level or two of a larger dungeon (often designed primarily by procedural generation with some fraction of the content being hand-designed), some surrounding wilderness, and some random encounter tables. Then you design more as needed. A good approach is to run the campaign bi-weekly, reserving game day on the off-week as prep time for next session.

And if your definition of a "fair" encounter is that the PCs have exactly a 50% chance of success, you don't need to play a complex game like D&D. Just flip a coin. Heads, the PCs gain a level. Tails, the PCs die. What could be more fair?

Wait, did someone say that was their idea of a fair encounter? That seems quite silly to me.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Present tense third-person singular of be, dialectal present tense first-person and third-person singular of be and dialectal present tense plural of be.

But you act like my question is silly. It is not. It really gets to the core of this supposed "neutrality." What is the "fair" way to adjudicate what sort of traps a super intelligent lich that wants to kill the PCs comes up with? Especially as the person doing this "fair" adjudication is the same person who decides what resources that the lich has, and indeed invented the whole lich in the first place.

I will refer you back to the original post, which I already quoted to you.

This may come as a surprise to you, but the whole, "No one can ever be fair, or impartial, because HUMANITY" is not something you have come up with, nor is it a novel argument. It is, in fact, so tired that I started the definition in the OP by specifically stating that we wouldn't be going over it.

Somehow, we manage to accomplish this (impartiality, neutrality, fairness) in many disparate fields because it is an aspiration. To the extent you wish to keep arguing that this is heuristic of play is simply impossible because you cannot imagine it, I will exit by stating-

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Crimson Longinus, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But that's the point; sometimes, with a neutral referee ... the players don't have a chance.

That's why I took issue with your statement regarding the thumb on the scale, and with your analogy. Because the whole point of skilled play is that the decisions are meaningful, but sometimes correct and meaningful decisions ... turn out wrong.

It's about managing probabilities, and putting yourself in the best position possible. But sometimes the dice don't roll your way. Sometimes the player makes a meaningful decision at one point that they can't escape from later. It is not the DM's responsibility to ensure that players "have a chance."

You just need to make sure things are fair. It is up to the players to make sure they have a chance.

I think we just have very different conceptions of this.

I think we are simply looking at it from different perspectives.

The players cannot ensure that they have a chance if the DM doesn't allow for it. The DM has to allow for the possibility that the players have the opportunity to make an informed decision, even if it is ultimately upon the players to recognize and seize that opportunity.

The players' perception of the world is filtered through the DM. If the DM decides that there is no relevant information in the area (two identical doors) then the players cannot make an informed choice thereupon, and therefore there is no skill involved in that play. The DM needs to provide information about a topic for that information to exist. It doesn't matter what actions the players take if the DM decides that no relevant information exists.

It is the DM's choice to include information, and the decision to do so may well be informed by priorities of "skilled play" (for example), even when doing so does not align perfectly with the priority of neutrality.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm going to disagree with the 3.x not trusting the gm while 5e does claim. People have regularly have pointed at the 5e dmg suggesting it solves all gm problems if people would actually read it for several years now but unlike the 5e dmg the 3.x one actually had stuff in it & some of it was implicitly or explicitly things that armed the gm.

Spoiler: why you should sometimes improv

METAGAME THINKING
“I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap,” a player says to the others, “because the DM wouldnever create a trap that we couldn’t deactivate somehow.” That’s an example of metagame thinking. Any time the players base their characters’ actions on logic that depends on the fact that they’re playing a game; they’re using metagame thinking. This behavior should always be discouraged, because it detracts from real role-playing and spoils the suspension of disbelief.

Surprise your players by foiling metagame thinking. Suppose the other side of the pit has a lever, for example, but it’s rusted and
useless. Keep your players on their toes, and don’t let them second-guess you. Tell them to think in terms of the game world, not in terms of you as the DM. In the game world, someone made the trap in the dungeon for a purpose. You have figured out the reason
why the trap exists, and the PCs will need to do the same.

In short, when possible you should encourage the players to employ in-game logic. Confronted with the situation given above,
an appropriate response from a clever character is “I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap,
because the gnomes who constructed the trap must have a means to deactivate it.” In fact, this is wonderful—it shows smart thinking as well as respect for the verisimilitude of the game world.

It all but explicitly tells the gm that changing the world on the fly to thwart certain types of gameplay is good on page 11/12.

Nowhere in that section does it say to do this on the fly. It encourages you to try and surprise players to keep them on their toes, but it is silent on whether these surprises should be prepared in advance or made-up on the spot.

 

[JohnF]

the more rules you have, the less trust you have in the referee to adjudicate based on their own individual experience or preferences.

The truest of statements. It is revealed to me in glorious and ultra-annoying fashion every two weeks during sessions in which our GM - who works at one of the not-indie-and-very-big fantasy RPG publishers in a very-rules-significant role - is routinely questioned throughout the game by the players who are most knowledgeable about said rules. Pacing is always slowed to check the explicit wording of a thing.

You'd think they'd trust him, right? But the existence of a volume of rules virtually discourages that.

I get a lot of ENworld thread reading done during these games.

games like 3e that are high complexity might require more knowledge and/or more system mastery by the DM (and/or players), but that's not the same as trust.

Bingo.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I will refer you back to the original post, which I already quoted to you.

This may come as a surprise to you, but the whole, "No one can ever be fair, or impartial, because HUMANITY" is not something you have come up with, nor is it a novel argument. It is, in fact, so tired that I started the definition in the OP by specifically stating that we wouldn't be going over it.

Somehow, we manage to accomplish this (impartiality, neutrality, fairness) in many disparate fields because it is an aspiration. To the extent you wish to keep arguing that this is heuristic of play is simply impossible because you cannot imagine it, I will exit by stating-

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Crimson Longinus, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

You are actually not addressing my points. Insisting it is possible but refusing to even attempt to explain how is not convincing.

Also, in other fields where person is supposed to be "neutral" they are usually doing so in some very specific context, It s also why responsibility regarding such things is often divided. The judge, the prosecutor, the defence and the accused are separate people. But the GM is the main creative yet also is expected to be "neutral" about that creation. I don't think this is coherent.