GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing

[bloodtide]

What sorts of guiding moral principles govern how you run your games?

I'm very hard on players showing up for the game. If you say you want to play: then show up on time. Sure, something might come up...but you can call/text. And I'm not forgiving if you will always have "some problem" every week: why keep saying you "want" to game if you never show up?

Know the game and game rules. Have a character and other items.

Let the Dice Roll where they May--whatever is rolled, happens. I like randomness, more then anything else.

No Recons- If it happens, it happens. I will never as a DM recon anything, but in the game context it's possible an 'force' or 'NPC' might undo something, though nearly always with a cost. But no altering of reality.

Status Que type game--I'd more commonly say my game is not fair and not balanced. The world exists as it is, nothing is ever 'set' to the PCs level.

Consequences are always enforced- character actions, will cause things to be set in motion

There is no requirement for the characters to "do something" or "take an action" to trigger anything in the game world. And things in the game world might come after the characters for any story or plot reason.

I run a hard game. It's made to be hard, don't expect anything to just be easy or effortless. You will likely find things "too hard" or "impossible", but you should not fall into that hole. Anything can be done, if your willing to try and put in some effort.

 

[Umbran]

The connotations are purposeful. It is part of my contention that people viewing these as morals rather than preferences is part of what blinds some GMs to other perspectives.

You realize that other than the word "morals," that contention isn't present in your OP?

 

[niklinna]

You realize that other than the word "morals," that contention isn't present in your OP?

The "should" also conveys it pretty well.

Edit: Fixed a typo.

 

[pemerton]

The "should"also conveys it pretty well.

I'm reminded of the difference drawn by Kant between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

Categorical imperatives are true for everyone, because of their grounding (at least so Kant says) in reason or in morality (which, in Kant's view, is a branch of reason). "You should not lie!" is a famous example suggested by Kant. "You should not kill (without justification)!" is less contentious.

Hypothetical imperatives, on the other hand, are - as the label suggests - conditional.

"How do I find that awesome website ENworld?" "If you want to visit ENworld, you should type www.enworld.org into your web browser."

That second sentence is a hypothetical imperative.

In everyday conversation, it's fairly common to drop the antecedent, either because the goal is implicitly understood, or - and perhaps more often - the goal is imputed to the audience of the statement, because people often assume that others have the same goals as themselves, or tend to treat their own goals as if they are goals for human being as such.

This is the source of the common phenomenon of hypothetical imperatives being presented, and treated, as if they're categorical.

Which I think is what @Professor Murder may be getting at when posting this:

It is part of my contention that people viewing these as morals rather than preferences is part of what blinds some GMs to other perspectives.

Certainly in my experience of talking about RPGing, it's common to see assertions/instructions set out in a blanket (ie categorical) fashion, when in fact the assertion/instruction is useful only relative to a particular goal which need not be universal among RPGers.

I've made a couple of recent threads trying to point out some of those implicit assumptions, which - when brought to the surface - reveal certain RPG "commandments" to be purely hypothetical imperatives for how to play a particular sort of RPG.

 

[niklinna]

The connotations are purposeful. It is part of my contention that people viewing these as morals rather than preferences is part of what blinds some GMs to other perspectives.

Hm, I've been mostly a player, and only very recently started GMing. I'll see if I can take some of my guiding morals as a player and see how they are reflected in GMing.

• Accept the premise. This is my big one. Don't show up for a game and then refuse to play along with the scenario as given, and don't take action, however well justified in other lights, the fundamentally sabotages it. Applies in both campaign and one-shot/convention play. As a GM, I take this to call for making sure the premise is clear and understood, and to not switch the premise arbitrarily once play begins.
• Don't hog the spotlight, and take care of fellow players who may be less outspoken (explicitly hand the floor over to them, for example, or remind folks if someone got interrupted and bypassed). Obviously as a GM I should not shine the spotlight for too long on any one player (or NPC!), and be sure everyone has a chance to speak up, especially out of round-by-round play.
• Be ready and act decisively. Figure out what you're going to do before you have to announce it, so you don't waste time thinking through things you could have worked out during others' turns. (A sudden upset may always occur, of course.) Be clear in what info you need; don't fish for info to try to pull a fast one. As GM, being prepared is just as important, but it comes more in scenario prep, but it is also reflected in how to handle players who aren't ready and don't act decisively. That is tougher for me, as I'm not sure how to handle players who fish (repeatedly and at length) for some oddball trick rather than just doing something that's clearly in the scope of the rules and the fiction. Still very new to that side of the table.

Well that's enough for a start.

 

[Jahydin]

One of the greatest benefits of running a game as a human and not a machine is the infinite amount of flexibility we can bring to each moment of gaming, so I really lean into that. Like a musician that improvises the main solo when it feels appropriate, so do I when I DM.

For example, an AC 15 Creature has 2 hp left, and the poor player who has missed every round rolls for the killing blow... and gets a 14...
Not to spoil a fun moment, I narrate the tired and wounded creature was taken off-guard and failed to defend. And then they roll a 1 for damage...
Again, not to spoil a cool moment, I decide right then it only had 1 hp left.
Dead monster and high-fives!

I know "morals" is a word we want to avoid, but the backlash I get over this mindset really feels like I cross moral boundaries.

 

[soviet]

One of the greatest benefits of running a game as a human and not a machine is the infinite amount of flexibility we can bring to each moment of gaming, so I really lean into that. Like a musician that improvises the main solo when it feels appropriate, so do I when I DM.

For example, an AC 15 Creature has 2 hp left, and the poor player who has missed every round rolls for the killing blow... and gets a 14...
Not to spoil a fun moment, I narrate the tired and wounded creature was taken off-guard and failed to defend. And then they roll a 1 for damage...
Again, not to spoil a cool moment, I decide right then it only had 1 hp left.
Dead monster and high-fives!

I know "morals" is a word we want to avoid, but the backlash I get over this mindset really feels like I cross moral boundaries.

Because it's a lie. The high fives and celebrations are unearned. If you are the musician improvising the main solo then your players are simply your audience.

 

[Jahydin]

Because it's a lie. The high fives and celebrations are unearned.

They should have rolled that dice better!

Joking aside, it's not a lie to me. Notice I narrated the reason for the lower AC. That's a pretty good clue to my PCs this is a one time thing.

The hp total was never established. Totally up to me to decide how many hps a creature has as long as it's within the appropriate range.

Understand the strong reactions though.

 

[Manbearcat]

So something in another threat got me thinking.
So many GM style arguments come down to clashes of what can be called "Guiding Morals." What I mean is, having a few key principles of how a game should be run, priorities of play, that you are willing to bend other considerations to serve.
So these could include such things as "Challenge my players" or "Everyone has fun" or perhaps "Safety First."

What sorts of guiding moral principles govern how you run your games?

Few (sincere) questions:

1) Is the intent of this thread to smash together notions of “morals” with “amoral organizing principles for content generation” in a given TTRPG?

2) Is the intent of this thread to prescribe whatever the answer to (1) is across all TTRPGs (rather than on a game-by-game basis pending on what this particular system/game does/is)?

I'll give some answers to the lead post based on what might be answers to the above (1) and (2).

* IMO its a terribly fraught idea to attempt to smash together notions of "morals" with "amoral organizing principles for content generation" in a given TTRPG.

* Different TTRPGs should be doing different things so a clever, heterogenous, and holistic (with respect to the considerations for its place within the design of the whole game) systemizing of "amoral organizing principles for content generation" is what I want out of the TTRPG hobby at large.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There is no category of things which should/must be done in all RPGs, except to obey ordinary moral principles. So I have to interpret the OP as being a question about agenda and principles of play for GMs. I'd point out that Dungeon World and Apocalypse World SPECIFICALLY state these in plain language.