D&D General Dungeon Master or Referee?

[aco175]

DM. Been that way for 40 years. I guess if we played other RPGs, I could go with GM.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

The term "referee" generally refers to a non-player in a game who ensures that official rules are strictly followed between two antagonistic sets of players. I think it's not really a good fit for what a Dungeon Master does as a) I believe they are themselves a "player", just one with a very different role; b) I believe that even at a table where it is agreed that official rules are strictly followed this agreement should still be secondary to ensuring that the game is fun, etc, in a way not comparable to the rules enforcing mandate of a referee in most games that traditionally employing such a person, and c) I hope few D&D tables involve two antagonistic sets of players who need a neutral arbiter between them.

And whether or not you agree on these particular points or not, I hope anyone can agree that there are a number of ways in which the role of a DM is not particularly like the role of a referee in, say, a basketball game, and thus it makes sense to not use the same term for the two, and fortunately we have terms like "Dungeon Master" and its various equivalents in other ttrpgs so that we don't have to awkwardly refer to them as "referees".

I sense the reason some people are perhaps drawn to the term is because they like the implications it makes about the particular ethos with which they approach their role. I would say this is precisely why the term is a dangerous one to use, as it interpolates a lot of implications into how the Dungeon Master should operate that don't necessarily fit, simply on the basis of a familiar word used when the hobby was new and "Dungeon Master" did not yet have a meaning that readers would readily understand. By all means DM more "like a referee" than the norm (whatever that is) if you like, but please don't decide to do so on the basis of ill-fitting 1970s terminology.

 

[Reynard]

I think a lot of folks in this thread are conducting analysis based on the false premise that they can apply general use definitions to jargon. You just can't do that. It doesn't matter what a referee is in sports or day to day use. What matters is what the term was used for in tabletop RPGs at their inception and how, if at all, the term has evolved.

On that note, are there any modern games that still use the term?

 

[robus]

In older D&D books the person behind the screen is often called the Referee, which implies an impartial stance but also contains authority (final word). Dungeon Master doesn't have the neutral connotation and puts a higher emphasis on authority (master). Do you see yourself as a referee or a dungeon master? Or are they both just the same thing?

I see myself as a Referee.

This is because the game has its origins in war gaming where two opposing “generals“ would put their armies against each ither and a referee was needed to ensure fair play.

The dungeon master evolved from that as now teams were instead pitted against a pre-planned dungeon.

Now things are much more free-form so neither fits well, but DM is a better fit.

Game master is much better as it encompasses the role of being in charge of the game itself, wherever it might be.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

In older D&D books the person behind the screen is often called the Referee, which implies an impartial stance but also contains authority (final word). Dungeon Master doesn't have the neutral connotation and puts a higher emphasis on authority (master). Do you see yourself as a referee or a dungeon master? Or are they both just the same thing?

I see myself as a Referee.

If I'm playing any version of "D&D", then I'm a Dungeon Master. Otherwise I'm a Referee/Game Master/Keeper/Fate/etc. Whatever the game refers to 'my job' as.

How do I FEEL when I'm in this position? Pretty much always DM.

That said...I disagree with your initial "Dungeon Master doesn't have the neutral connotation...". Now, this is probably because I've been DM'ing for about 41 years now (started when I was 10, now I'm 51). DM has ALWAYS had the "neutral connotation" simply due to the fact that it was the DMs job to "present interesting and fun stuff to the Players, but with challenges and a real risk of death to their PC's". It was always stated that the DM's job was to BE FAIR!

As it said in the (1983) Basic D&D DM's Book 2, "The Most Important Rule", page 2:
-----------------
"There is one rule which applies to everything you will do as a Dungeon Master. It is the most important of all the rules! It is simply this:
BE FAIR.
A Dungeon Master must not take sides. ... The Players are not fighting the DM!"
-----------------

I do not see DM as 'confrontational' or 'non-neutral' in any way. YMMV, obviously!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Shiroiken]

A DM is an author, storyteller, and referee, each at a different point of the game. When planning the adventure, the DM is an author, designing whatever challenges he feels is appropriate (from easy to killer DMs like me). During the game, the DM is a storyteller, advancing the game with descriptions and narrations, that hopefully immerse the players into the setting. When an action is being taken, the DM becomes a referee, determining the outcome, as noted by the rules of the edition and houserules.

The importance of the term referee is that when determining the outcome of an action, the DM is intended to be a completely neutral arbiter. In theory, this means that the DM should not fudge dice or make adjustments on the fly to "enhance" the game experience. If a character dies due to a critical hit (as happened in my game earlier today), they die. In the reverse, if the players are crushing your BBEG, you shouldn't give him more HP or boost his attack/damage. This hearkens back to the idea that this is a game, not just improve storytelling. It has become quite common for DMs to have a bias, especially for the sake of their designed story, since the emphasis on the "game" of RPG has been diminished.

 

[pemerton]

The importance of the term referee is that when determining the outcome of an action, the DM is intended to be a completely neutral arbiter.

This depends on edition, and on the action in question.

In every edition, for instance, when it comes to hit points of damage dealt the GM is meant to maintain the appropriate tallies.

But what about narration of a failed check, particularly in a non-combat situation? In 4e D&D, the way the GM narrates the consequences of a check in a skill challenge will depend on (i) whether it succeeds or fails, and (ii) whether it resolves the challenge or leaves it still ongoing.

This is one of the ways in which 4e is closer to "indie" RPG techniques.

 

[John Quixote]

I don't see a difference in meaning between the terms, but I personally prefer "referee" over "DM." I like the connection to wargaming and the connotation of impartiality.

Now, "fighter" is a stupid name. Person who fights. How did we end up with "fighter" instead of "warrior"?

How is fighter any worse than warrior? It isn't like they made up the term, fighter has just as much currency as warrior (probably more in serious conversation)

"Fighter" does have currency, but it usually means "boxer" or sometimes "martial artist" in the common idiom. "Warrior" is a much more accurate description of what the D&D fighter is, and I wish it were the standard. But we have "fighter" because it's a gender-neutral bowdlerization of the original rules' "fighting man," which is almost certainly drawn from A Princess of Mars, where Burroughs' narrator describes John Carter thus (with this particular example coming from the book's foreword):

He was a splendid specimen of manhood, standing a good two inches over six feet, broad of shoulder and narrow of hip, with the carriage of the trained fighting man. His features were regular and clear cut, his hair black and closely cropped, while his eyes were of a steel gray, reflecting a strong and loyal character, filled with fire and initiative. His manners were perfect, and his courtliness was that of a typical southern gentleman of the highest type.

And that's merely the first of many instances of the term "fighting man" in Burroughs' corpus.

 

[loverdrive]

I'm a GM. Gay Mistress.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Dungeon Master. (Or Game Master, but I usually default to saying "DM.")

Referees are for sports, and other things where a totally impartial, dis-interested authority is necessary.

The person running a game of D&D (and various similar games) is neither impartial nor totally dis-interested. They have an active interest in producing an enjoyable game for all participants, including themselves, which means they are automatically not impartial. Further, they both create and operate the opposition to the players; by definition they cannot be dis-interested authorities.

A good referee has no stake at all in whether the match is enjoyable, boring, frustrating, or whatever else--their only concern is ensuring the rules are fulfilled fairly. And a good referee is never going to be someone actively organizing or controlling one of the teams involved in the match.

I get what the early editions were going for by using the term "referee." I just think it's genuinely misplaced, in part because they were trying to hold onto functions and traditions from tabletop wargaming that have no place in D&D (and its family of games).