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

[overgeeked]

It is just a fact that what “makes sense” is subjective.

"I didn't say it, I declared it!"

Makes sense in that it logically follows from previously established facts.

Superman flying in a comic book "makes sense" because it's been established in decades of previous comics that he can in fact fly. That's not subjective, that's a logical consequence of it being previously established.

Likewise, Batman suddenly taking flight doesn't "make sense" because it's been established in decades of previous comics that he cannot in fact fly. That's also not subjective, that's a logical consequence of it being established previously. If the writer later explains that inconsistency away, you either have a retcon or a previously unrevealed fact being revealed, like it was really Superman in the batsuit.

So, when talking about whether the king being a dragon or an invalid "making sense" we're talking about whether it logically follows from previously established facts. Have I as the neutral referee established any of these facts about the king? No? Then I need to before the PCs interact with the king otherwise I might contradict what I've previously established. I might be forced into a retcon, which, as a long-time comic book fan, I absolutely hate.

 

[Charlaquin]

"I didn't say it, I declared it!"

Makes sense in that it logically follows from previously established facts.

Superman flying in a comic book "makes sense" because it's been established in decades of previous comics that he can in fact fly. That's not subjective, that's a logical consequence of it being previously established.

Likewise, Batman suddenly taking flight doesn't "make sense" because it's been established in decades of previous comics that he cannot in fact fly. That's also not subjective, that's a logical consequence of it being established previously. If the writer later explains that inconsistency away, you either have a retcon or a previously unrevealed fact being revealed, like it was really Superman in the batsuit.

So, when talking about whether the king being a dragon or an invalid "making sense" we're talking about whether it logically follows from previously established facts. Have I as the neutral referee established any of these facts about the king? No? Then I need to before the PCs interact with the king otherwise I might contradict what I've previously established. I might be forced into a retcon, which, as a long-time comic book fan, I absolutely hate.

That’s… You’re still describing a subjective evaluation.

 

[overgeeked]

That’s… You’re still describing a subjective evaluation.

Well, this has been a complete waste of time. Tschüss.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well, see, herein lies the problem. “What makes the most sense in the fictional world” is inherently subjective, and therefore cannot be decided on impartially. Now, as established earlier, impartiality is more of an ideal to strive for than a goal that can be attained, so this isn’t necessarily a problem. But it does make improvisation a less neutral form of content than prepared content, which is why it is less favored in this style of play. Doesn’t mean it can’t be used, just that one has to be especially careful with it.

While I do think there's some truth to what you're saying, I don't think it's entirely accurate.

For example, say that in my prep I establish that the king always has Stoneskin. It's still subjective. Heck, I would say that the DM thinking to add that detail suggests that they may have the type of player who might just try to stab the king.

Whereas, let's say that the players do something completely unexpected. They find a scroll of teleport and on a whim decide to use it to visit the king (who is on the other side of the continent). All the rolls for teleport work out and now the DM needs to improvise because they figured that the PCs were still several sessions from their first potential visit to the capital.

The DM decides to roll a d20. On a natural 20, it's the most severe possible result (a polymorphed dragon) and on a natural 1 it's the best possible result (a 4 HP weakling). They roll and whatever the dice decide is the outcome. Now, I certainly won't claim that there's no subjectivity involved. However, I do think that there's arguably less subjectivity involved in rolling an improvised result than in choosing a result during prep.

That said, I do think that improvising the result when a player declares they will stab the king and choosing that he has Stoneskin, is extremely subjective and quite far from neutral.

 

[tetrasodium]

That’s… You’re still describing a subjective evaluation.

Freom the last few exchanges on this it feels like you are starting with a position where it can't be done so any example of doing or preparing for it must be subjective, there's a pretty good video describing how you can neutrally improv & the kinds of prep you need to have or fill to do it.

Spoiler: this ogas style might help

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Hey, @Snarf Zagyg, maybe next time make these [+] threads so it's not a constant argument.

I mean ... I didn't think it would be necessary?

Look, there is (and should be!) substantial disagreement between people about how best to practice "neutral refereeing." People can, and do, argue about it! I mean, heck, I think @Fanaelialae is incorrect in some of his descriptions about how to best achieve it (and what matters in terms of goals for that style) ... but I can at least appreciate and understand the distinctions that are being made.

To me, those are interesting conversations! Because there is a whole ethos and playstyle that goes with it. But I really didn't think we'd have another rehash of the whole, "Sure, I know it works in practice, but I object to it ever working in theory" arguments which is just ... ugh.

 

[overgeeked]

I mean ... I didn't think it would be necessary?

It's the internet.

Look, there is (and should be!) substantial disagreement between people about how best to practice "neutral refereeing." People can, and do, argue about it! I mean, heck, I think @Fanaelialae is incorrect in some of his descriptions about how to best achieve it (and what matters in terms of goals for that style) ... but I can at least appreciate and understand the distinctions that are being made.

To me, those are interesting conversations! Because there is a whole ethos and playstyle that goes with it.

Right. Discussing how best to pull it off, best practices, ins and outs, what books help, what resources are available...that's all really interesting conversation and well worth having. But we not allowed to do that, apparently.

But I really didn't think we'd have another rehash of the whole, "Sure, I know it works in practice, but I object to it ever working in theory" arguments which is just ... ugh.

Yeah. Literally everything always being a constant argument is just exhausting. People who presuppose your style of play is impossible and feel the need to tell you how you're deluding yourself and how you've been doing it wrong longer than they've been alive is so tiring.

 

[Panzeh]

Yeah, I think people get into these weird Platonic Ideals of the Neutral GM instead of talking practically, and it's not that interesting a discussion. The Lich example of just ganking a player party is an absolutely valid interpretation of what neutrality means.. that no one would use.

The improv in a more backed off style where you let the mechanics do the work is different, but not eliminated. While tables should be somewhat contextual to the situations, sometimes you have to think about it and make a good excuse- sometimes that 2d6 goblin group who's neutral in predisposition is a hunting party who's already got what they need, or they're a woodcutter group that's not really that interested in messing with a group of heavily armed mercenaries. Finding the details to add flavor to that is where you step in as a DM- you don't have to improv once the fighting starts, since it's a lot more mechanical and that'll give the flair for that part of the game.

It's not completely my style of DMing, but I definitely appreciate the craft that goes into it.

 

[overgeeked]

weird Platonic Ideals of the Neutral GM

Funny the same phrase popped into my head.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yeah, I think people get into these weird Platonic Ideals of the Neutral GM instead of talking practically, and it's not that interesting a discussion. The Lich example of just ganking a player party is an absolutely valid interpretation of what neutrality means.. that no one would use.

My intention with the lich example was to illustrate why I feel that SZ's definition of the neutral DM is incomplete.

I think that it's an absolutely valid interpretation of what neutrality means under his definition. However, the fact that, as you say, no neutral DM would do so leads me to conclude that SZ's definition is flawed. Hence why I suggested in a different post that it should be appended with:
... except where neutrality conflicts with other priorities of play.

I think that solves the issue, because now the example no longer meets the criteria of the definition. While it might meet the criteria of neutrality, it fails to meet the criteria of other priorities (in this case "skilled play" and its guidelines regarding threats that are properly telegraphed).