D&D General Dungeon Master or Referee?

[Bedrockgames]

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.

This really strikes me as a reductio absurdum argument. If you think embracing some biases is fine, by all means, do so if it adds to your game. But I think telling people who try to be fair and impartial, and who find that adds to their game, that they never are because everything is bias, isn't particularly persuasive or helpful for either position in the discussion. Of course bias can enter in at any point, but you can also hold it in check. I think few people worry about it at the adventure design stage (though obviously fairness can be a consideration here too: for example is this challenge one where the players have a reasonable chance to discover they are being followed by a spy, etc). I think at any of those points, you can work to keep your biases in check. Again, just because you don't achieve 100% bias free in that moment, doesn't mean there is not a more biased way to handle it, and a less biased way to handle it. And I do think we would all agree fun is the end goal here, but what that means will vary. For a lot of us, an impartial ref is an important part of making the game more fun.

 

[Reynard]

This really strikes me as a reductio absurdum argument. If you think embracing some biases is fine, by all means, do so if it adds to your game. But I think telling people who try to be fair and impartial, and who find that adds to their game, that they never are because everything is bias, isn't particularly persuasive or helpful for either position in the discussion. Of course bias can enter in at any point, but you can also hold it in check. I think few people worry about it at the adventure design stage (though obviously fairness can be a consideration here too: for example is this challenge one where the players have a reasonable chance to discover they are being followed by a spy, etc). I think at any of those points, you can work to keep your biases in check. Again, just because you don't achieve 100% bias free in that moment, doesn't mean there is not a more biased way to handle it, and a less biased way to handle it. And I do think we would all agree fun is the end goal here, but what that means will vary. For a lot of us, an impartial ref is an important part of making the game more fun.

Is "fair and impartial" a desirable goal? I think that depends on the particular group, but I also think most people would say that the GM should be on the side of the players, making decisions with their fun in mind rather than being strictly impartial.

I am a "rolls in the open, dice fall where they may" GM in combat, but that doesn't mean the way I run the game broadly speaking isn't pro players.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Is "fair and impartial" a desirable goal? I think that depends on the particular group, but I also think most people would say that the GM should be on the side of the players, making decisions with their fun in mind rather than being strictly impartial.

I am a "rolls in the open, dice fall where they may" GM in combat, but that doesn't mean the way I run the game broadly speaking isn't pro players.

I am not saying everyone needs to play this way. There are lots of ways to enjoy RPGs, and some of them include styles where the GM is partial to the PCs. That isn't a problem at all for me. What I take issue with is folks dismissing the idea of impartiality and saying those interested in it shouldn't even bother because of arguments like the one in your post or arguments built around this notion that impartiality is never truly 100% attainable (neither of those are positions people who believe in being a fair GM are making: we are saying you strive for it, you make it a goal). And there is a spectrum here. You an be fair and impartial during combat but be someone who is pro-players. I've found I don't like that as a player and as a GM I try to provide as much impartiality as I can. This results in more character death on the one hand, but also results in things like less railroading, and me being surprised by outcomes more because I do strive to take every thing the players attempt seriously (without allowing my bias for a particular outcome or path to get in the way). That means I often pause when the players propose something that doesn't seem initially like it would happen and say to myself "wait as second, let's give this a fair hearing". Again this is a style preference. It isn't the only one. But it is a style that is functional and can be done.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think that depends on the particular group, but I also think most people would say that the GM should be on the side of the players, making decisions with their fun in mind rather than being strictly impartial.

Most people probably would say this. And if they've examined the question and that is their honest answer. More power to them. But I think a lot of folks haven't been exposed to this approach, or haven't seen it done well. Giving it a fair shake is all I would ask of anyone. If it is not for them, it is not for them. Like anything else.

 

[Reynard]

I am not saying everyone needs to play this way. There are lots of ways to enjoy RPGs, and some of them include styles where the GM is partial to the PCs. That isn't a problem at all for me. What I take issue with is folks dismissing the idea of impartiality and saying those interested in it shouldn't even bother because of arguments like the one in your post or arguments built around this notion that impartiality is never truly 100% attainable (neither of those are positions people who believe in being a fair GM are making: we are saying you strive for it, you make it a goal). And there is a spectrum here. You an be fair and impartial during combat but be someone who is pro-players. I've found I don't like that as a player and as a GM I try to provide as much impartiality as I can. This results in more character death on the one hand, but also results in things like less railroading, and me being surprised by outcomes more because I do strive to take every thing the players attempt seriously (without allowing my bias for a particular outcome or path to get in the way). That means I often pause when the players propose something that doesn't seem initially like it would happen and say to myself "wait as second, let's give this a fair hearing". Again this is a style preference. It isn't the only one. But it is a style that is functional and can be done.

It does raise interesting corner case questions.

An real world example from my current Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign: the PCs were fighting a bunch of duergar. We use FG so all rolls are open by default, but I don't fudge in combat anyway. The duergar HATE the dwarves in the area, and the PCs in particular. The PCs have proven in past encounters in this dungeon that they do not take prisoners of the duergar. So, when the PC dwarf cleric got dropped and failed 2 death saves and there was one duergar left, that duergar chose to go out killing the dwarf cleric rather than make a likely ineffectual attack against a different PC.

Is that "fair and impartial" under your definition, since the duergar was acting in character? Was it pro-player?

 

[Bedrockgames]

It does raise interesting corner case questions.

An real world example from my current Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign: the PCs were fighting a bunch of duergar. We use FG so all rolls are open by default, but I don't fudge in combat anyway. The duergar HATE the dwarves in the area, and the PCs in particular. The PCs have proven in past encounters in this dungeon that they do not take prisoners of the duergar. So, when the PC dwarf cleric got dropped and failed 2 death saves and there was one duergar left, that duergar chose to go out killing the dwarf cleric rather than make a likely ineffectual attack against a different PC.

Is that "fair and impartial" under your definition, since the duergar was acting in character? Was it pro-player?

I don't know Rime of the Frostmaiden and I am just going by an isolated example but if the duergar would have killed the PC because that is what it made sense for him to do, he had the opportunity to do it, then that seems impartial to me (unless the player wanted to go out in a blaze of glory and you were facilitating that, but nothing says a pro-player choice and an impartial choice can't align from time to time). I think when you are choosing for NPC actions it can be complicated though. Most of us have forks in the road like that in our own lives (obviously usually the stakes, action and drama are lower) and we sometimes surprise ourselves with our own decisions (and in hindsight the decision that was in our best interest or most logical wasn't the one we made-----so I think there is rarely a 'perfect' NPC decision). For me impartial here is very much about the intentions and what you were trying to do. If you were trying to do what you thought the Duergar would honestly do, and being fair in handling rolls and rulings during the fight, I say that is striving for impartiality. And also, I am not saying other things can't be a factor, you don't have to have just one priority. I sometimes like to make have drama and melodrama in my games, but because that can get dicey I always remind myself to be fair when injecting that (a good example of this might something like family members of the PCs factoring into an adventure or plot in some way: I think if you are constantly using family members as plot hooks and effectively having them cause bad, but potentially very exciting, things to arise in the players lives, it is being less impartial than if you are also looking for opportunities to play up the positive side of these attachments (so impartiality and fairness is also I think at work even when the GM is playing an active role introducing exciting and fun elements to the game).

 

[Charlaquin]

What I take issue with is folks dismissing the idea of impartiality and saying those interested in it shouldn't even bother because of arguments like the one in your post or arguments built around this notion that impartiality is never truly 100% attainable (neither of those are positions people who believe in being a fair GM are making: we are saying you strive for it, you make it a goal).

So, this isn’t what I was trying to do, and I apologize if that’s how I came off. Rather, my intent to suggest that, because it’s impossible to act without bias, it is a more effective strategy to try and be aware of your biases than to try to be unbiased. If you are introspective and critical of your own decisions, asking what biases are going into them, you can make more informed decisions - including acting against your biases, if that’s your goal. That’s what I mean by “being intentional with your partiality” - being aware of how your biases are influencing you, and choosing when to act on those influences and when not to, rather than striving to not be influenced by any biases.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, this isn’t what I was trying to do, and I apologize if that’s how I came off. Rather, my intent to suggest that, because it’s impossible to act without bias, it is a more effective strategy to try and be aware of your biases than to try to be unbiased. If you are introspective and critical of your own decisions, asking what biases are going into them, you can make more informed decisions - including acting against your biases, if that’s your goal. That’s what I mean by “being intentional with your partiality” - being aware of how your biases are influencing you, and choosing when to act on those influences and when not to, rather than striving to not be influenced by any biases.

That I would agree with. I think this is part of being impartial, is understanding "I really, really want the players to go into the city of Port Sul" and understanding how that might be impacting what you are doing in terms of throwing things at them, or even potentially steering them towards the city. Same during combat, treating one player different than other players, or any other part of the game. Being away of your biases can be useful. That is why I find referee useful, it causes me to pause once in a while and evaluate these things, asking myself if I am being as fair and impartial as I ought to be

 

[Helldritch]

Hiya!

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

Copy and paste everything said above. I too, am 51 and started at 10. And the:" Be Fair" rule has always been my go to rule. Be fair to the players, be fair to the monsters. A DM does not take sides. A DM presents challenges and situations and the players decide how they will solve the encounters. The dice will be means by which fate will be decided. I never fudge for it would not be fair for the players and their foes.

If a campaign ends because of a TPK, so be it. Good does not always win. But creating a new group of adventurers to try to succeed where the first group failed is also part of the game and a good way for the players to get their revenge.

 

[pemerton]

Be fair to the players, be fair to the monsters.

This doesn't really make sense, does it? I mean a GM can be fair to the players - they're real people - but the monsters are purely imaginary and so aren't vulnerable to mistreatment.