Thanks for the reply, but it’s worth pointing out that you didn’t actually refute the argument I made. Instead, you shifted the conversation, reframing my position and softening your own, without addressing the core contradiction I raised.
Let’s break it down:
You Avoid Refuting My Point by Shifting the Frame
Rather than address my claim that your authority functions the same as a traditional referee’s, you pivot to tone and presentation:
As you’ve described it, what your games are about is the material that you’ve prepared… You’ve described your desired experience for the players is that they feel like they visited another world. Your world.
You emphasize phrases like “what you’ve prepared” and “your world,” while minimizing player agency with “yeah, the players will select…” The implication is that my campaigns are rigid, GM-driven experiences where players are just along for the ride.
This framing avoids the actual issue: the presence and use of referee authority. You’re focusing on aesthetics and tone, how things feel, rather than engaging with what’s structurally occurring at the table.
You Recast Your Authority as Benevolent, But Don’t Deny It
You then present your intervention as neutral facilitation:
“If something stalls out, if a player is unsure what to do and is therefore spinning their wheels, then I’m going to work to get things going again.”
That’s a judgment call, your call, about whether something counts as play worth continuing. That’s fine. I do the same thing. But let’s not pretend that isn’t GM authority in action. It’s the exact kind of discretion that traditional referees exercise, just framed more gently.
And to show I’m not simply defending “my way,” here’s a quote from my own Majestic Fantasy Basic Rules:
“Be prepared to coach the players from time to time, particularly if your campaign has a lot of setting details that are important. Otherwise, the players may become uncomfortable as they don’t understand how you are going to rule when they try something as their characters.”
Just like you, I work to keep players engaged and supported when they hit decision fatigue or uncertainty. I just use different procedures to do it.
Player Input Matters in Both Our Games
You write:
“The characters remain the focus of play. The players’ input constantly matters. That I don’t roleplay out a shopping scene or every other interaction with an NPC doesn’t change that.”
And again, no disagreement. I’ve said as much myself. Here’s another passage from my Basic Rules:
The key thing to remember is that you can’t assume your players know what you know. It works out best if you are prepared to explain your reasoning and willing to listen to your players’ opinions on what factors are important for what the player wants to do.
The difference lies not in values, we both want players to matter, but in the structure we build around those values.
You Concede the Core Point But Call It Something Else
You write:
It’s not a matter of there being GM authority… it’s simply when and how it’s applied.
And that’s exactly what I said. The when and how may differ, but the existence of that authority is not in dispute. We both intervene, frame, pace, and redirect when we feel it’s needed. You call it “keeping play focused”; I call it adjudication within a living world. Same function, different terminology.
Where We Truly Differ
If there’s a meaningful difference, it’s this:
You’re willing to override the direction players take when you judge it to be “aimless” or lacking stakes. You use your authority to shape focus and momentum based on your sense of what matters.
In contrast, I let the players trash my setting if that’s what they want to do. I don’t intervene to shift tone or reframe focus unless it breaks the internal consistency of the setting or what character can do in the setting.
My authority is focused on three things:
- Determining plausible consequences.
- Roleplaying NPCs according to their goals and personalities.
- Adjudicating specific actions of the players as their characters in context.
And all of that is open to player questions, negotiation, and discussion. That’s my idea of creative collaboration: players interacting with a consistent world.
Two Paths
You have two options now:
- You can keep trying to reframe the debate, selecting quotes to paint me as a controlling old-school referee, while presenting yourself as the enlightened facilitator of a player-focused 21st-century table, supported by modern systems that guide the group toward creative synergy.
- Or you can recognize that we’re not so far apart.
Yes, our structures and procedures differ. But our goals, engagement, shared fun, and meaningful player choice, techniques, and depth of play, overlap far more than you’ve acknowledged.
And when you strip away terminology, our referee roles are structurally similar. What varies is emphasis, not authority.
Wrapping it Up
This will probably be my last post on the topic for now. The ball’s in your court. Only you can decide what you want to take away from this conversation.
But I hope, at the very least, that it’s clear the line between “traditional referee” and “modern facilitator” isn’t as sharp as it first appeared.
