D&D General How Impartial a DM Are You?

[EzekielRaiden]

For me, this is a feature not a bug. Were the characters real - which is how I approach the whole affair, that they're real people in a real world - the items they find wouldn't be necessarily tailored to them; instead they might have to adapt to the item or simply accept that the best thing they can do with it is sell it off and split the proceeds. (one of 5e's stupidest by-the-book rules is that magic items can't be bought or sold)

Sure, but sooner or later, you're pretty likely to find something that happens to be a solid fit for you--or could become a solid fit, with some elbow grease.

I very very very much find it a bug and not a feature to encourage materialistic thinking. That, in my experience, specifically encourages viewing items only in their gameplay value. That thinking then metastasizes: people, powers, wealth, all of it just becomes the minimally-forethought grasping for ever-greater numbers. Materialistic thinking is the positive spark for murderhoboism and knowingly disruptive behavior. GMs failing to attach consequences to actions is the negative, permitting side. The two together are spark and kindling and nearly always start fires IME. Of course, I have never had that problem as a GM, because there are consequences for choices at my table (that's literally the single most important reason I run games, is to find out what consequences the players bring about!), and because I encourage values-based thinking rather than cutthroat materialism (I should say, eliminative economic materialism, but this is usually just summarized as "materialism" by everyday folks.

Hyper-materialist thinking is all about treating everything as objects to be used and ruthlessly exploited. Everything: equipment, resources, people, morals, rules. And that door, once opened, is nearly impossible to close. If the players see the rules as tools to be ruthlessly exploited, they can and will try to warp those rules all the time, constantly, forever. That kind of mental arms race, of always having to have an iron grip on the party lest they discover how to destroy the whole structure in the name of pure self-advancement no matter what, doesn't appeal to me. I find it wearying and pretty much the definitional opposite of fun.

It's when the players care about things for their intrinsic value, not for their instrumental value, that you get actually interesting stories. "Will hyper-materialists do insane, horrible things in the name of greater acquisition? The answer literally cannot surprise you." That's been my experience with every group that fosters a materialistic mindset. Every single one.

IME this doesn't encourage min-maxing but it does encourage materialism; again, a feature not a bug when running a setting where money often equates to power. It also doesn't reduce RP that I've noticed.

I've seen it too many times. Oh, you'll still get roleplay. But the roleplay slowly but surely gets subsumed into the materialism too. The roleplay becomes purely instrumental, merely a tool to further other materialistic aims. The bare minimum effort to ensure that you get what you actually want, the sweet sweet numbers that prove you're better, stronger, faster, smarter, whatever.

As you can probably tell, I don't have a super high opinion of hyper-materialistic perspectives. I find them corrosive to human life.

 

[Scott Christian]

I'm not sure what you mean by "railroading", which might be part of the problem...so I'll give what I mean by it.

Railroading is when the GM requires that the party engage in specific behavior in order for the game to play out "correctly", and takes increasingly forceful measures to ensure the party does in fact exhibit that behavior. This, yes, does mean that there is a vanishingly low probability of a GM who is eager to railroad, but the players coincidentally always do precisely what the GM predicted, and thus despite the GM's eagerness no actually railroading was required. I don't see that as a meaningful criticism of the definition. Further, note that this definition doesn't require that it be heavy-handed, just that the measures of control get increasingly forceful as divergence mounts. It is quite possible to railroad in ways that keep the players fairly well in the dark--for a while. No shield that depends purely on ignorance is impenetrable forever.

Like I said, it means something different to everyone at this point because no one ever agreed to a common definition.

If one has no specific details one is forcing to occur, then there is no railroading. That's how I run Dungeon World--and how I keep things still clear. That doesn't mean I never employ narrative control, of course I do, I prepare new enemies with plots and ploys all the time. I just never mandate that specific player action is required--only that the players are exposed to threats and must make decisions. Their decision could be to just cut and run. My players aren't really like that, so it's exceedingly unlikely that they would choose that. But I've made clear that they could decide to do that if they wanted. They'll just probably hear about bad news from "back home" sooner or later, because things will definitely get worse without heroes willing to stand up.

That is great and all, but we are discussing D&D here, at least that is where my initial comments came from.

Under these lights, all I have to do is take the inputs my players give me, and actually use them somehow. So I have an amnesiac Shaman? Cool, his amnesia is probably related in some way to the evil Druid faction, and the fact that there have never been any Shaman allied with that faction. (Perhaps he was secretly the only one? Perhaps he was a mole? Perhaps he was a believer once, but then saw the truth, and had to cut out his own memories to escape? Who knows! I certainly don't.)

Each character's story can get little nods here and there, alongside whatever the main focus is for the moment. And then, when the timing is good and the fiction is compatible, sometimes one character's story does become the main focus, for a little while. Never any one player for too long, never pushing it where it isn't warranted. I have far more than enough inspiration to have to push things. Just, on occasion, when the time is ripe, weave those personal details into the grander stuff. Or don't! Sometimes it's just "Zarif needs us now, he's been there for us time and again, we can't let him down", even when the adventure itself is hardly more than just what one party member cares a lot about.

Which, in a game like D&D, it is traditionally the DM's role to determine that evil druidic faction. And you can play as if you don't know, but you are the one making up the druidic faction. What if the player suddenly says, "Oh, I was thinking this whole time it had to be demons. After all, I dropped all these hints that it should be demons, from the description of boots to the book I carry. But okay, druids it is." Are you railroading? Are you just completely dismissing the druid faction connection you built and changing it to demons?

That is my problem with even using the term railroading in a game about a story - some parts have to be contrived prior to seeing any type of player urgency (whatever that is). Unless you are completely randomly rolling for every setting, every article in the setting, every NPC the PCs have contact with, every motive of the NPC, every creature they encounter, and every magic item they get, then you are, in essence, "railroading" based on some people's definition. Which of course, no one plays D&D that way.

So in my view, all DMs are railroaders. It is built into the nature of the game. That said, some DMs single track for too long, and that is what gets some players upset.

So...I don't see the need for forcing stuff to happen. Just means I keep an ear out, and I think carefully when I'm preparing the adventure fronts for a given adventure. How could this story change our fast-talking ex-Celestial Bureaucracy con-man? How could it change our ultra-serious Battle Master? Etc. And if those answers reasonably align with personal story stuff for one or more characters, more's the better.

See the bold.

And look, I am being a bit picky. But for good reason. It's a ridiculous debate/argument on all fronts. As a community, we would be much better off simply talking about the adventure we're running with other DMs. Such as: I am running Crystal Staircase. I have a character with this backstory. Any ideas on how to incorporate it? Or: I just made my first town. Here are the conflicts within the town. Does anyone see any continuity errors or have suggestions on something I missed?

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, but sooner or later, you're pretty likely to find something that happens to be a solid fit for you--or could become a solid fit, with some elbow grease.

Of course, but it'll most likely be by random chance rather than anything I-as-DM specifically put in there.

The exception to this - which comes up every once in a blue moon - is when the characters are being rewarded by someone powerful (e.g. a deity) that can in-setting tailor those rewards, in which case those rewards will very likely be tailored to the specific characters receiving them.

I very very very much find it a bug and not a feature to encourage materialistic thinking. That, in my experience, specifically encourages viewing items only in their gameplay value. That thinking then metastasizes: people, powers, wealth, all of it just becomes the minimally-forethought grasping for ever-greater numbers. Materialistic thinking is the positive spark for murderhoboism and knowingly disruptive behavior.

I'm fine with murderhoboes both as player and DM, so not much common ground there I think.

GMs failing to attach consequences to actions is the negative, permitting side. The two together are spark and kindling and nearly always start fires IME. Of course, I have never had that problem as a GM, because there are consequences for choices at my table (that's literally the single most important reason I run games, is to find out what consequences the players bring about!), and because I encourage values-based thinking rather than cutthroat materialism (I should say, eliminative economic materialism, but this is usually just summarized as "materialism" by everyday folks.

Oh, there'll be consequences for murderhoboing if the players/PCs are stupid about it and do it where the big fish can notice. Oftentimes, though, the PCs are collectively the most powerful thing and-or biggest fish in the neighbourhood or even the nearby region; meaning that if they want to fireball the village pub where the 'law' consists of a single 0th-level constable and her dog, who's gonna stop 'em?

Hyper-materialist thinking is all about treating everything as objects to be used and ruthlessly exploited. Everything: equipment, resources, people, morals, rules. And that door, once opened, is nearly impossible to close. If the players see the rules as tools to be ruthlessly exploited, they can and will try to warp those rules all the time, constantly, forever.

Again we diverge, as in any judgment-based game or sport (of which D&D is certainly one) I see it as the players' job to try to exploit the rules and the DM's or referee's job to stop them. In D&D, if one plays the same system/edition long enough, it eventually comes to an unspoken truce because all the exploits they can think of have been dealt with and ruled upon.

That kind of mental arms race, of always having to have an iron grip on the party lest they discover how to destroy the whole structure in the name of pure self-advancement no matter what, doesn't appeal to me. I find it wearying and pretty much the definitional opposite of fun.

Which, while a very reasonable and rational take in the real world, doesn't altogether fly in a game setting/system which is, at the core, largely built around personal advancement: acquiring levels, acquiring wealth, acquiring status or renown, etc.

As you can probably tell, I don't have a super high opinion of hyper-materialistic perspectives. I find them corrosive to human life.

In real life, I agree with this.

In D&D, however, I think materialism and self-advancement are foundational baseline conceits that can't really be excised without kitbashing both the system (no more level advancement or mechanical character improvement) and the play philosophy (no more wealth-gathering, no more pursuit of honour or renown, etc.) into unrecognizability.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which, while a very reasonable and rational take in the real world, doesn't altogether fly in a game setting/system which is, at the core, largely built around personal advancement: acquiring levels, acquiring wealth, acquiring status or renown, etc.

Sure it does.

Why else do you think the vast majority of characters are good people choosing to do heroic things?

It sure as hell ain't because GMs are somehow mind-controlling players into nearly always picking such options.

In real life, I agree with this.

In D&D, however, I think materialism and self-advancement are foundational baseline conceits that can't really be excised without kitbashing both the system (no more level advancement or mechanical character improvement) and the play philosophy (no more wealth-gathering, no more pursuit of honour or renown, etc.) into unrecognizability.

I have no idea why. Genuinely, sincerely heroic adventurers, who see lives as valuable in and of themselves, are enormously common and by far the preference of most players. Statistical evidence consistently backs this up, even in contexts where players are being observed without their explicit direct approval (e.g., achievement statistics in video games overwhelmingly demonstrate that players favor being a good person even if the rewards for wicked/selfish deeds are greater.)

If D&D is so hyper specialized that it cannot handle what most players demonstrably want, perhaps it is D&D that is at fault, not the players?

Remember that having ambition is in no way the same as being a materialist. Materialism is effectively a nihilist philosophy. Nothing has value, except economic value.

And if you believe that in the real world this philosophy is abhorrent to most people, then why wouldn't we, who are trying to portray reasonable facsimiles of real people, also portray them as ones who see such materialism as abhorrent in most cases? Seems to me your emphasis on the realism of the character should mean most of your characters wouldn't do the thing you claim they all should!

Edit:

Again we diverge, as in any judgment-based game or sport (of which D&D is certainly one) I see it as the players' job to try to exploit the rules and the DM's or referee's job to stop them. In D&D, if one plays the same system/edition long enough, it eventually comes to an unspoken truce because all the exploits they can think of have been dealt with and ruled upon.

So, I'll be blunt.

Why? What's the benefit of this utterly exhausting process? If the players ever succeed at their goal, they will have ruined the game. They will have found an infinite I Win button. That's clearly not fun for anyone involved. So instead, the GM must always win. Their control must never waver. At which point, the GM is the one deciding the results anyway; because they have to, no rule system can be both imaginatively open and completely free of exploit.

So we're left with either GM manipulation, which you say you oppose, or players just breaking the system over their knees and winning forever, which I cannot believe you would desire to see, given all our previous interactions. Neither of those appear to be acceptable results. So..... what's the point?

Because as far as I can see, you're saying that it's every player's job to cheat as much as possible. I can't accept that as part of playing a game. Play should be in keeping with the spirit of the rules. Sometimes, sure, the spirit of a specific game could be that cutthroat. Most games, however, should not be.

 

[Remathilis]

Sure it does.

Why else do you think the vast majority of characters are good people choosing to do heroic things?

It sure as hell ain't because GMs are somehow mind-controlling players into nearly always picking such options.

I thought it was from determining such choices via dice rolls. "Save vs do the right thing".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I thought it was from determining such choices via dice rolls. "Save vs do the right thing".

Really? Are you trying to pick a fight again?

 

[Remathilis]

Really? Are you trying to pick a fight again?

I just find it rather ironic to argue about a character's moral philosophy when you are also against letting the player express that character's philosophy. Lanefan is at least honest his gaming style is just pure power accumulation fantasy.

But I'm not here to reignite that argument. Carry on.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I just find it rather ironic to argue about a character's moral philosophy when you are also against letting the player express that character's philosophy. Lanefan is at least honest his gaming style is just pure power accumulation fantasy.

I have never, not once, ever, at any point, said so. Never.

That's always been you tarring my position with the most actively hostile interpretation you can come up with. Which is why I asked why you were trying to pick a fight again. But you continued anyway.

But I'm not here to reignite that argument. Carry on.

"I'm going to fire shots and then bug out, peace!" is hardly reasonable participation in discussion.

 

[Umbran]

But I'm not here to reignite that argument. Carry on.

Mod note:

Enough.

If you aren't here to re-ignite an argument, you seem to be here to goad and annoy people about it, which is still trolling.

If you cannot control your impulse for such, it can be controlled for you. If that's not what you want, please don't continue in this manner.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure it does.

Why else do you think the vast majority of characters are good people choosing to do heroic things?

Somehow I suspect that were there no levelling or mechanical advancement or other game-state rewards the player base would mostly evaporate.

Characters do goodly heroic things and in return their players expect the game to reward them for doing so. They play to level up.

And I should note that in saying that I'm actually advocating a position I don't in fact hold. For me, levelling up is a pleasant side-effect of ongoing play but not the underlying reason for it. However, I believe I'm significantly in the minority in holding this view; and that for most players the carrot of levelling up and other advancements is a large reason why they continue to play in a campaign.

I have no idea why. Genuinely, sincerely heroic adventurers, who see lives as valuable in and of themselves, are enormously common and by far the preference of most players. Statistical evidence consistently backs this up, even in contexts where players are being observed without their explicit direct approval (e.g., achievement statistics in video games overwhelmingly demonstrate that players favor being a good person even if the rewards for wicked/selfish deeds are greater.)

Sure. Not knowing jack about video games, I'll ask: in those games where the rewards for wicked/selfish deeds are greater, are those deeds also a viable path to winning or completing the game? Or is it more a choice between getting rewarded and winning; in which case I think most people will choose winning.

Remember that having ambition is in no way the same as being a materialist.

I largely equate the two. The saying goes "money is the root of all evil" but I say it's more that ambition is the root of all evil, and money is just one symptom of many.

And if you believe that in the real world this philosophy is abhorrent to most people, then why wouldn't we, who are trying to portray reasonable facsimiles of real people, also portray them as ones who see such materialism as abhorrent in most cases? Seems to me your emphasis on the realism of the character should mean most of your characters wouldn't do the thing you claim they all should!

Sure, someone can portray a character that way. Good luck with that, though, because the might-makes-right ethos of the setting (which is the basis of pretty much every D&D setting I've ever seen, be it published or homebrew) is then going to fight that character every step of the way and probably end up eating it alive. You advance, or you disappear.

So, I'll be blunt.

Why? What's the benefit of this utterly exhausting process? If the players ever succeed at their goal, they will have ruined the game. They will have found an infinite I Win button. That's clearly not fun for anyone involved. So instead, the GM must always win. Their control must never waver. At which point, the GM is the one deciding the results anyway; because they have to, no rule system can be both imaginatively open and completely free of exploit.

I disagree with the bolded. I very much think it is not only possible but quite do-able.

So we're left with either GM manipulation, which you say you oppose, or players just breaking the system over their knees and winning forever, which I cannot believe you would desire to see, given all our previous interactions. Neither of those appear to be acceptable results. So..... what's the point?

The rules allow a lot of stuff. If-when a player breaks something (or if-when a DM sees it coming ahead of time) and the DM rules against it, that still mean the rules allow a lot of stuff minus one.

If someone finds a spell interaction that allows a 5th-level character to destroy a city and I-as-DM go in and tweak one of the spells such that, while still otherwise working as intended, that broken interaction is no longer possible, I hardly think that gets anywhere near the degree of "GM manipulation" you seem to be referring to. All I've done is reduced the infinite possibilities by one, and in the process achieved a more playable game.

Because as far as I can see, you're saying that it's every player's job to cheat as much as possible. I can't accept that as part of playing a game. Play should be in keeping with the spirit of the rules. Sometimes, sure, the spirit of a specific game could be that cutthroat. Most games, however, should not be.

First off, I see a big difference between outright cheating (reading the module ahead of time in D&D, or bribing the referee in hockey) and simply pushing the rules (finding an exploit in D&D or M:tG, or committing fouls when the ref isn't looking). The former is outright bad. The latter is part of playing a judgment-based game, and IMO it's on the referee or DM to push back and enforce the rules that exist.

Note that games like chess, where the rules are hard-coded with no judgment or interpretation involved, don't and can't have this occur.