D&D General Dungeon Master or Referee?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

If a game doesn't have a bespoke title for the role, like Dungeon Master or Storyteller or Keeper, etc., they mostly go with Game Master and a smaller chunk goes with Referee. It's not unknown, even in modern games.

 

[pemerton]

Agon 2nd ed (John Harper) has Hero Players and the Strife Player. It advised the Strife Player of the following things to avoid:

* Don't try to tell a story to the other players. Stick to your three steps as Strife Player [the steps are Reveal, Ask, Judge] and let a story emerge naturally.​

​

* Don't worry about anyone else's fun. They're the Hero Players and you're the Strife Player. They're entertaining you, and vice versa. The whole outcome of the session isn't on your shoulders.​

​

* Don't pull your punches. Heroes are defined by adversity. If harpies attack the people and the heroes fail to defend them, then many are slaughtered. It's dark, but that's what was at stake. Follow through on the threats of the opponents.​

I think that second point in particular is a good one.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I would argue that it’s impossible for a human DM not to have a bias. They can try to second-guess their biases and compensate for them, but that’s still acting on a bias. Better to accept that the nature of the position makes true impartiality impossible and work to be intentional with your partiality.

 

[pemerton]

I would argue that it’s impossible for a human DM not to have a bias. They can try to second-guess their biases and compensate for them, but that’s still acting on a bias. Better to accept that the nature of the position makes true impartiality impossible and work to be intentional with your partiality.

I don't agree; or rather, I don't think this is really fair to @Shiroiken's point.

Perhaps pure disinterest is impossible; nevertheless this is something that a judge hearing a trial should aim towards. Contrast the role of (say) a securities regulator: the regulator should be neutral as between market participants, but not neutral as to the workings of the market as such.

Shiroiken is expressing a preference for a GM who is like a judge, while observing a preponderance of GM's who are more like regulators. I don't agree with the way that Shiroiken has expressed that preference in normative terms, but I certainly agree that the contrast is a meaningful one.

 

[David Murrell]

I use GM, but mostly because my actual initials are DM (or really DRM which causes me some amusement when I see discussions on the rights and wrongs of DRM). Mostly so I can truthfully say I am a DM who is a GM, because my sense of humour has not progressed since I was 14.

 

[Norton]

New member here, so hello all.

I prefer the term Dungeon Master for the fantasy element, as referee to me lacks the same kind of creative spark. It also introduces an element of sportsball which wouldn't always sit well with my players.

I see myself as more of a judge, so Dungeon Judge is a bit closer. In fact, I do sometimes refer to players who dig out rules minutiae for me as my "paralegals".

 

[Shiroiken]

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

Absolutely! In 5E, the DM can (and should) determine some actions are successful or impossible without rolling any dice, as stated in the beginning of the PHB. As you pointed out, 4E has specific rules on how to handle successful and failed skill checks/challenges. The point is that the DM shouldn't change a success into a failure or a failure into a success (unless specifically using a variant, like 5E's success at a cost). If the DM calls for a roll, the DM should accept the result of the roll, rather than giving the players the illusion of chance. Obviously DMs can run anyway they wish, but a referee should follow their own rules.

 

[Shiroiken]

I would argue that it’s impossible for a human DM not to have a bias. They can try to second-guess their biases and compensate for them, but that’s still acting on a bias. Better to accept that the nature of the position makes true impartiality impossible and work to be intentional with your partiality.

You can obviously have bias, but that doesn't mean you should act on them (that's what impartial is supposed to be). I've had a DM have an enemy always hit a certain PC, because they were intent on chasing the fleeing enemy. We didn't know at the time that this was the BBEG, and the DM didn't want him to die early (he poorly planned his villain introduction). We were far enough away, in snow, that it wasn't worth our effort to chase after him (he was just a mook, or so we thought). One player wasn't having it, so he gave chase. The DM had the BBEG always hit the PC in an attempt to convince him to quit attacking (he wasn't even rolling before announcing the hit), and eventually the PC gave up once he dropped to single digit HP. I don't know if the DM was ignoring the damage dealt to the BBEG, but I suspect he was.

All of this was ignoring the rules of the game because he didn't want his twist reveal (mook as BBEG) to be ruined. He could have simply said ("you chase after him for a while, but he manages to escape"), but instead gave the player the illusion of chance. His bias nearly killed the PC, and wasted our resources healing him. None of us found it to be a fair situation (not that we agreed with the player), and it really ruined the experience.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would argue that it’s impossible for a human DM not to have a bias. They can try to second-guess their biases and compensate for them, but that’s still acting on a bias. Better to accept that the nature of the position makes true impartiality impossible and work to be intentional with your partiality.

Impartiality and fairness is a standard and goal you strive for. Just because you can never attain that platonic ideal of it doesn't mean we should chuck it out the window and give into our biases. I hear people say something like this a lot to effectively say since it is impossible, there is no point in striving for it (not saying you are making this argument). But something I like to point out is impartiality is a skill. And while zero or few humans ever probably get 100% on that, it is easy to see in real life people who are more impartial and people who are less impartial. It is a skill you can cultivate and a skill you are always working on. I think in a game like D&D, when I started I was very much not an impartial GM. I wasn't mature enough. As I got older, as I got more experience, I did become much more impartial. I can see this in how I run games. I can also see the difference between GMs I encounter where there may be one who is quite good at being an impartial GM, but another who isn't. So all people really are saying when they talk about being an impartial ref is to strive to be the the former rather than the latter. I think the biggest danger here is to have too much faith in your own impartiality. You have to be open minded enough to review calls you made that might not have been free of bias or that weren't even-handed.

 

[Reynard]

Impartiality and fairness is a standard and goal you strive for. Just because you can never attain that platonic ideal of it doesn't mean we should chuck it out the window and give into our biases. I hear people say something like this a lot to effectively say since it is impossible, there is no point in striving for it (not saying you are making this argument). But something I like to point out is impartiality is a skill. And while zero or few humans ever probably get 100% on that, it is easy to see in real life people who are more impartial and people who are less impartial. It is a skill you can cultivate and a skill you are always working on. I think in a game like D&D, when I started I was very much not an impartial GM. I wasn't mature enough. As I got older, as I got more experience, I did become much more impartial. I can see this in how I run games. I can also see the difference between GMs I encounter where there may be one who is quite good at being an impartial GM, but another who isn't. So all people really are saying when they talk about being an impartial ref is to strive to be the the former rather than the latter. I think the biggest danger here is to have too much faith in your own impartiality. You have to be open minded enough to review calls you made that might not have been free of bias or that weren't even-handed.

Just the act of choosing an adventure to run is a function of your biases. Designing an adventure is an order of magnitude more dependent on one's biases. Every call you make during play is based on bias -- even if that bias is essentially "rules as written with no fudging die rolls."

As such, I don't think trying to be "unbiased" is a particularly useful goal. Exactly what a GM's job is varies from person to person, but I think most people would agree the primary function is to facilitate fun for everyone at the table (including themselves), whatever that means for the table in question. Embracing some biases and resisting others will be necessary to achieve that end.