D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[dave2008]

You are welcome to feel that way, but in D&D that is not what I want, as a DM or a player.

I assume your are just talking about not wanting your players ideas and creativity and that you can in fact separate the characters identities from the players identities.

If that is the case, while a respect that you have a method you prefer, it might open you up to new ideas if you share the reigns a bit. I definitely started gaming as the DM that created the world, cosmos, and had control of everything. I do in fact really enjoy world building. However, I found that my world's became even more lively, engaging, and immersive when I shared some of that task with others. Reality has a multitude of opinions and perspectives, it is hard (actually impossible) for one person to recreate that diversity in a fantasy world. DMs can do it well enough for the purposes of a game, but I found that the realities I create for our games became "more" when I added other perspectives as well.

Now, as part of session 0 or sometimes even before, I share my ideas of the world/cosmos with the group and take in feedback and ideas. I then incorporate those ideas into the world. It has made my worlds, and my games better.

 

[dave2008]

Right. Because design by committee is always better.

Reality has a multitude of opinions and perspectives, it is hard (actually impossible) for one person to recreate that diversity in a fantasy world. DMs can do it well enough for the purposes of a game, but I found that the realities I create for our games became "more" when I added other perspectives as well.

 

[dave2008]

Well, you are welcome to your option.

As are you of course

A multiverse hit squad made sense and is creative, realistic, interesting, and fun for millions of people, other then you.

I have to disagree with that.

Now, it is possible you didn't give a creative, realistic, or interesting description in your telling here and the at the table explanation was much better. I can't know that.

It is also possible for something that us uncreative, unrealistic, and not particularly interesting to be fun at the table.

However, from your own description it wasn't fun for the group (and let's be honest - you have no idea if it would be fun for millions of people).

Reading people is a skill. To one that has the ability, people are an open book.

I don't completely agree or disagree; however, you don't seem to have that skill. Or if you do, you don't practice good judgement with that knowledge. It sure didn't help you create an encounter that reflected this group that you read like an open book.

Seems doubtful.

I am sure you do. I have enough skill in reading people to guess that would be your response.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm a fan of basketball. I like watching good basketball. Can I be a neutral referee while also being a fan of basketball?

Yes, if you're refereeing hockey or umpiring baseball. Quite possibly not if you're refereeing basketball, as your biases toward what you like and-or find interesting is almost certain to influence the job you do as ref.

I think that it's important to remember that the DM in D&D is being asked to be a referee with respect to the rules and making rulings. However, the DM in D&D is also being told advice such as...

And I don't necessarily completely agree with that advice. I'd far rather it go more along the lines of* "Prepare a game, campaign, and-or setting that you think will be interesting, then turn the players loose on it through their characters to make what they will of it."

In other words, prepare the game neutrally, as if you don't know who will be playing in it or what specific characters they might have. IMO you'll end up with a more robust setting and campaign as a result, if for no other reason than you'll be more easily able to handle some player turnover as the campaign goes along.

Flip side is that if you bespoke the campaign/setting to suit the players who start out, then two years later two of them have to leave leave and two others come in, suddenly it's not bespoke to the two new ones which could leave them feeling somewhat adrift or second-class.

* - but better-worded than my off-the-cuff attempt here.

Wait? Making play revolve the characters and make the players come back for more? Tailor things for the players' preferences? How is any of that behavior for a neutral referee?

It isn't. Refereeing, narrating, and DMing neutrally should by itself be more than enough to bring the players back for more, provided you've a) given them a worthwhile setting to bash around in and b) given them both opportunity and freedom to do interesting things there.

That said, the GM in PbtA games is not described as a neutral referee nor are they expected to be one. The GM in PbtA games are meant to fill the PCs' lives with adversity and adventure. Some PbtA games go as far as describing the role of the GM as being a firehose of adversity that is pointed against the PCs. That goal is likewise at odds with something that a "neutral" referee would do. Here is how "Be a Fan of the Characters" is described in Stonetop:

The description doesn't quote, but on reading it my beef is with the term "fan". You can't in good faith both oppose the characters ("firehose of adversity") and actively want them to succeed (which is what a fan does), because if either one of those things is true the other is a sham.

Sure, because many people here are long-time players who have internalized D&D's terminology and deviations from "plain English" as normal. So when these people see other games using different terminology, it accuses these other games of a scary misuse of "plain English" while ignoring the presence of such features in their own games. It's about like someone from Culture A accusing Culture B of having Weird Custom Z while ignoring that their own Culture A also has Weird Custom X and Weird Custom Y. We tend to ignore our own cultural blindspots while noticing them in other cultures.

Of course we do. We're sitting here in a Culture A setting talking about Culture A using its own terms and definitions, meaning that if someone wants to reference Cultures B, C, and-or D it's on them to explain what they're talking about.

Were this a "General" thread, however, I'd be far more in agreement with you.

 

[Lanefan]

I haven't said anything about whose preference should override whose.

Upthread you said that you allow players full control over their PCs. You also said that you don't allow players to play their PCs in a way that you judge to be evil. All I'm saying is that those two claims are contradictory: the second one entails that the first is false. Players can't play their PCs as they like.

Whether or not that's good or bad isn't something I've expressed a view about.

In my feed the above-quoted is all of post 598.

At the moment there are 5 "likes" on that post, including mine, from five people with very divergent viewpoints for whom this is likely the first time they (edit to add: plus you as the poster) have ever all together agreed on anything.

When hell freezes over, as it seems to have now, it's probably worth taking notice.

 

[Lanefan]

What else would the game revolve around?

The party* as a whole, regardless of which characters happen to be in it at the time.

* - or parties, in a multi-party campaign.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I haven't said anything about whose preference should override whose.

Upthread you said that you allow players full control over their PCs. You also said that you don't allow players to play their PCs in a way that you judge to be evil. All I'm saying is that those two claims are contradictory: the second one entails that the first is false. Players can't play their PCs as they like.

I really do not see why you have a difficulty with this, no one really allows player characters uncontrolled freedom to act as they may imagine. They are at least constrained by the rules of the game. In older editions of D&D for example, it was explicit in the rules that player characters had alignment and if they acted contrary to that alignment the DM would change their alignment.
@Oofta has a houserule that player characters that become evil become NPCs. This is now a constraint on play, a rule of the game, just like alignment change was of yore.

Whether or not that's good or bad isn't something I've expressed a view about.

 

[Lanefan]

Oye, you all complain about terminology! Here's what Dungeon World actually says:

"Be a fan of the characters
Think of the players’ characters as protagonists in a story you
might see on TV. Cheer for their victories and lament their defeats.
You’re not here to push them in any particular direction, merely to
participate in fiction that features them and their action."

Its not being nice to them, its not 'wanting it to win' etc.

Except, yes it is. The bolded sees to that, in that it's normal human nature to want to cheer rather than lament; thus this advice introduces and then reinforces a bias towards wanting them to win and-or going easy on them (because cheering is more fun than lamenting) rather than simply presenting things neutrally and letting the chips fall where they may.

Particularly for new GMs, I think this is poor advice; other than the last sentence "You're not here to..." which is very sound.

 

[Lanefan]

To my mind, being a fan of a character doesn't mean always wanting them to win

Then a different term is needed, because "being a fan of" does mean you want whatever it is you're a fan of to succeed.

(or worse, throwing the game in their favor); it means wanting them to be cool. It means running them through the wringer so they look even more bada$$ when they succeed, not because you think that they need to spend all their resources before they take a rest. If they die, they should have awesome deaths, not just die because they triggered a trap you stuck in a room because you had two empty rooms already and you didn't want a third. If they succeed, they should succeed in a way and against a foe that makes them feel really awesome, not just "OK, we cleaned out another nest of goblins and got the reward, ho hum."

Those moments arise organically now and then, which is great. But any attempt to force or script or arrange for them to happen would almost certainly be pretty obvious, and cheapen the moment.

Also, those moments are only special because they're infrequent. If they happened all the time they wouldn't be special any more.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't think its any more arcane than 'class', 'level', 'hit points' 'armor class', 'DC', 'ability check', etc. I mean 'move' comes STRAIGHT out of basically every other sort of games there are, its very vanilla! It doesn't mean 'what does your character do' either, it means 'you did something that is covered by a special rule'. Actually there isn't a specific word for "my character does something", we usually use the term 'action', but DW often just says "what you did" or "if you do it, you do it". Its a rather informal and non-jargony game IME.

I would also add terms like "campaign" and "saving throw" to the list.

Yes, if you're refereeing hockey or umpiring baseball. Quite possibly not if you're refereeing basketball, as your biases toward what you like and-or find interesting is almost certain to influence the job you do as ref.

So you undoubtedly agree that you probably shouldn't be refereeing D&D, since you find that interesting, which could unduly influence your rulings and judgments? Glad we cleared that up.

And I don't necessarily completely agree with that advice. I'd far rather it go more along the lines of* "Prepare a game, campaign, and-or setting that you think will be interesting, then turn the players loose on it through their characters to make what they will of it."

Regardless. That advice is there in the 5e DMG whether you like it or not, and I suspect that things will only lean further that direction in the remastered 5e D&D.

It isn't. Refereeing, narrating, and DMing neutrally should by itself be more than enough to bring the players back for more, provided you've a) given them a worthwhile setting to bash around in and b) given them both opportunity and freedom to do interesting things there.

The 5e DMG says that the DM is wearing many hats. They are not solely or exclusively serving as the referee. And when they are the referee it is in so far as they are an arbiter of the rules and having to make rulings. That doesn't mean that they are neutral when it comes to the players. After all, if that were the case, then there wouldn't be the culture of the DM "fudging" or making sure that everyone is having fun.

The description doesn't quote, but on reading it my beef is with the term "fan". You can't in good faith both oppose the characters ("firehose of adversity") and actively want them to succeed (which is what a fan does), because if either one of those things is true the other is a sham.

Nah, you can. Consider this. As a player, I am a fan of my own character. I want them to succeed. But as a player I also put my character into challenging situations because success is all the sweeter when it has been earned through hardship. But as a player I also like being a fan of other players' characters. I likewise enjoy seeing their characters overcome adversity. The same is true when I GM. Even in D&D, I am a fan of the player characters. I want to see them succeed; however, I also want to see them challenged. They may not always succeed, because we don't know the outcomes, and that's fine. Despite what you insist, I remain unconvinced that these are contradictory. When I design or run a dungeon, for example, I want the players to be challenged and I am secretly pulling for for them to succeed but I also don't (a) presume their success nor (b) put my thumb on the scale to ensure their success, because (c) as a GM I am also playing to find out what happens and I too want to be surprised.

Do you think that Matt Mercer, for example, is neutral when it comes to the successes of his players? Do you think that he isn't a fan of his players' characters?

Of course we do. We're sitting here in a Culture A setting talking about Culture A using its own terms and definitions, meaning that if someone wants to reference Cultures B, C, and-or D it's on them to explain what they're talking about.

However, I believe we generally regard the sentiment of "oh those foreign cultures and their customs are so weird!" to be xenophobic.