Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8345713"><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>