D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[robertsconley]

This is why I ask people for actual play. I don’t know anything about your play if you don’t tell me exactly how you got from this situation-state to this follow-on situation-state. Telling me a fictional outcome tells me approximately zero.

What you talked about is useful information. However, when it comes to things like "character-centric story-telling," what the poster thinks it means is more important because I am having a discussion on their points, not what somebody else said about the matter.

This is exactly why I asked earlier that people state their assumptions clearly, so we don’t have to guess what someone means by terms like “character-centric storytelling.”

In the discussion I was engaged in, the poster didn’t object to my summary of what that term meant. They criticized other points, sure, but not the definition. That tells me my understanding was accurate in the context of that conversation. If they had objected, I’d have asked for clarification before responding further.

The definitions you’re referencing are useful, but when I’m replying to someone’s post, what matters most is how they are using the term, not how it’s defined in another framework. Otherwise we end up arguing over terminology instead of engaging with the actual points being made.

 

[wicked cool]

Speaking for myself I'm never intentionally not impartial. But since I'm creating the entire world, all the NPCs, hazards, obstacles and opportunities I am consciously or unconsciously influencing direction. Some of that is intentional because I don't care for murder-hobo dungeon crawling so we talk about that in our session 0. There are certain borders to my sandbox, if you want to take over the local mafia and run a criminal racket I'm not the right GM for you. I guess that would be the simplest example that some people would call not being impartial.

So this has come up in campaigns in my world as well. I’d like to test your boundaries. The heroes beat the gang etc but then want to roleplay threatening say the rest of the gang . Do you allow that?
I change my campaign world to fit my players as 99% of the time I have a plan in my head how the adventure will go and it always fails. We discuss rules as I’m usually impartial. I have redone encounters etc based on circumstances especially if I left something out

For example
-player forgot they had advantage on a roll. We basically redo the roll or they didn’t describe the spell completely and there was something that affected the area etc etc

The players had their torches on but planned on sneaking after but forgot to say we turned off the torch

D&d etc game system isn’t Simon says(old reference so I apologize) . This is a game that impartially needs to be considered all the time and common sense

-no you didn’t sleep with your shield strapped on so when the goblins invade the camp you don’t have your bow notched

But it is your job as the gm to set that expectation for them before.
-you have bill the horse and your going into the tiny cave what do you do with bill and your tents etc

 

[wicked cool]

The impartiality comes in because I modified part of the world so the player could complete their quest. Previously, the ice was impassable; then, the player wanted to bypass it; therefore, I changed the world so it could be bypassed.

If my notes had said "no one sails due to dangerous ice, but crazy captain Ramius will risk it for extreme fees", then it would still be objective. Or something like "believed to be impassable (false)". Or "roll on this table to determine whether it is navigable".

I think that’s fair. Did you set the players antidote quest or did they

Now if the player had said I need to find a fresh red rose and it’s a ice world than their expectations might be unrealistic

 

[Bedrockgames]

Finally, how I heard of D&D in the first place was—I was walking home when a frenemy waved what I now know was an OD&D white box at me and teased that he was going to play D&D and I was not. I had no clue what he was talking about, but I didn’t let him know that. Later, I figured it out at Boy Scout camp during the winter of ’77–’78. The long evening hours meant there was a lot of D&D being played.

I was tricked into it. My friends told me bout this amazing game where they were doing amazing things in a futuristic setting, and it sounded like they were talking about a video game (this was when consoles were HUGE). I must have been in 3rd or 4th grade (whatever grade you are in when you are like 10). I went to my friend's house, saw the pens and pads of paper, then some dice. I felt like Joe Pesci in Goodfellas when he walks into the room to get made. I thought it was going to suck. Because it looked like a math heavy record keeping game. But it turned out great. The moment we actually sat down to play all that stuff fell by wayside and I was in this whole world. Pretty sure we were playing MechWarrior or some variation of it because it was 86 and the GM told us we were playing "Robotech"---at the time Robotech was a popular cartoon. He switched us to D&D about six months later. I think it was a version of basic but I could be wrong. He was the type of GM who had everything in his binder, so I never actually saw much of the books (all our characters were pregens that we got to choose from). I mean he had them but I it wasn't like we each had a copy.

 

[The Firebird]

I think that’s fair. Did you set the players antidote quest or did they

Now if the player had said I need to find a fresh red rose and it’s a ice world than their expectations might be unrealistic

Let's say it was an established part of the lore that the horn could cure this disease. But they didn't know until they were in the north for unrelated reasons, and heard from a sage. Then they decided to try it out.

 

[bloodtide]

So this has come up in campaigns in my world as well. I’d like to test your boundaries. The heroes beat the gang etc but then want to roleplay threatening say the rest of the gang . Do you allow that?

I do...not that it would be 100% successful, but sure they can do...or try it

I change my campaign world to fit my players as 99% of the time I have a plan in my head how the adventure will go and it always fails. We discuss rules as I’m usually impartial. I have redone encounters etc based on circumstances especially if I left something out

I find I don't have to change much as I set up nearly everything to be just right.

For example
-player forgot they had advantage on a roll. We basically redo the roll or they didn’t describe the spell completely and there was something that affected the area etc etc

I tell the player "too bad, pay more attention next time"

The players had their torches on but planned on sneaking after but forgot to say we turned off the torch

The characters get so spotted. My world is the hard luck life

-no you didn’t sleep with your shield strapped on so when the goblins invade the camp you don’t have your bow notched

I'm "combat is war"....players that act the goofy "combat is a silly pee wee sport" have dead characters quick

-you have bill the horse and your going into the tiny cave what do you do with bill and your tents etc

I kill mounts and animals often......

 

[hawkeyefan]

Since 2 or more of you are arguing about impartial can you give examples of when you are not?

I don't know if I am impartial. At times, sure... I try to be fair and I try to portray the world as it's been established... so I think those are examples of impartiality.

But overall, my approach to GMing is not an impartial one. I am a fan of the characters. I want to see if they succeed, just as I would if I was watching a film or reading a book. But I don't want to see that be easy... I want them to struggle, I want them to be tested... I want to see them work for and suffer for their successes. I want to see them fail at times, and hopefully rise back up.

This is probably why I tend to focus so much on the system in these matters. The system is impartial.

Knowing that means I can push the characters. I can test them. I can make things tough for them. And I can enjoy their victories, and be sad at their defeats. When impartiality is needed, the dice and the system can help.

The impartiality comes in because I modified part of the world so the player could complete their quest. Previously, the ice was impassable; then, the player wanted to bypass it; therefore, I changed the world so it could be bypassed.

If my notes had said "no one sails due to dangerous ice, but crazy captain Ramius will risk it for extreme fees", then it would still be objective. Or something like "believed to be impassable (false)". Or "roll on this table to determine whether it is navigable".

Isn't that the opposite of impartiality? You changed things based on the player's desire.

I'm not saying that you were in any way wrong to do so. I probably would have done the same thing (I'd likely avoid any kind of absolute in the first place, but still). I don't think that changing things is being impartial. I think impartiality would have dictated that you not change things based on the player's desire. That this is how things are, and that's the way they will remain, regardless.

 

[Faolyn]

So I want to come back to the way I framed it before...are statements like "the GM adjudicates the world" and "the GM adjudicates the rules" railroading? The key point to me here seems to be that the GM is not adjudicating successes; the players are.

Consider an example: your players are in a port city and want to hire a ship for a week-long passage.

Prep-DM wrote his city in advance, and he has a list of ship types, how many are are in port (roll for), and the costs associated with the journey. He consults the tables, rolls, and gives the players the options based on ship type.

Improv-DM made his city 20 minutes ago, so he doesn't know. He rolls up three NPC captains to give the players a choice, then picks ship types and fees that strike him as reasonable in the moment.

There's a third option here:

Prep DM wrote an overview of her city in advance. She knows there's a busy port. She doesn't bother to list what ships are there unless a ship is actually important to the events in some way, and then looks up how much ship's passage costs when and if the PCs actually try to hire one.

 

[robertsconley]

Isn't that the opposite of impartiality? You changed things based on the player's desire.

Depends on what her creative goals are. If I did that based on what I wrote about my creative goals you would be right to question my impartiality. But reading back up the discussion chain, it looks like @Faolyn has her own take that differs from mine.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Depends on what her creative goals are. If I did that based on what I wrote about my creative goals you would be right to question my impartiality. But reading back up the discussion chain, it looks like @Faolyn has her own take that differs from mine.

I suppose. This is why I asked the question!

But how do you see impartiality changing according to the goals of play?

Like I said, if I made the change that @The Firebird described, it might absolutely be because it matched my agenda for play... to push the characters and the premise... but I wouldn't say what I did was impartial. I would say that I made the change because I wanted to see what would happen as a result. That level of interest in the outcome, that curiosity... I don't see how it can be classified as impartial.