D&D General How Impartial a DM Are You?

[tetrasodium]

That window of discourse is not what I meant. I think you knew that.

No I really don't, that's why I liked 63 the other day & held off on hitting post until waking up to see 78.

 

[Remathilis]

If I wanted an impartial arbiter who just presents a world and stands back like the Unmoved Mover watching creation take it's course, I'd play WoW. Give me a DM who shapes the story around the PCs.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, in a way. This was 3.5. High level. 10+ year campaign. The PCs were making their first foray into the Astral (which was more like space than Dr. Strange nonsense) and were trying to free some prisoners from a multiversal prison. Demon marauders attacked and I ran the fight by the book, rolls open, etc.

I swear this is true: over 6 hours later the fight was unresolved and I had to leave. It was a depressing, limp end to a long running campaign rather than the bold start of a new era.

Was this intentionally scheduled as The Last Session? If no, then why not just leave off mid-combat - taking very careful notes on everyone's status, of course - and pick up at that exact point next session?

 

[Reynard]

Was this intentionally scheduled as The Last Session? If no, then why not just leave off mid-combat - taking very careful notes on everyone's status, of course - and pick up at that exact point next session?

In those days I was traveling 500 miles a few times a year to cram as much table time into a long weekend as possible. This was Sunday night.

 

[Lanefan]

Have any of you ruined a session for your players because you were impartial??

If a TPK represents a ruined session then yes, once.

My impartiality has certainly ruined the careers of many a promising character, though. The players are used to this and mostly take it in stride, ready to roll up another and carry on. I think they'd be more annoyed if I wasn't impartial.

 

[Lanefan]

If you're really being impartial, then that means you won't intervene to alter things just because the players are having a bad time because of things. Like, "As an impartial DM, I must not unjustly alter the situation; even if it means the players will suffer greatly."

Flip side: you also won't intervene if the PCs are having it too easy and rag-dolling your BBEG without working up a sweat.

Impartiality runs both ways.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Flip side: you also won't intervene if the PCs are having it too easy and rag-dolling your BBEG without working up a sweat.

Impartiality runs both ways.

I agree, but that's part of why I defined "impartiality" differently compared to most OSR fans.

For me, there are things where absolute impartiality is simply not desirable. I don't write "plot" because plot means I'm expecting the players to do specific things in a specific sequence--but I do prepare events/situations that I think are likely to be compelling to the players. That's a form of partiality, framing scenes that will be naturally compelling to these players. Likewise, giving 100% purely random magic items is generally counterproductive in my experience; it causes players to see magic items purely as utility, and thus encourages a minmaxing, materialist play-stance, which I find reduces RP. Instead, as noted before, I try to present items that players are likely to find compelling, and then present ways they can improve (or, sometimes, sacrifice!) these beloved things.

But there are other things where I consider true impartiality essential. I don't modify monster stats once a monster enters play--and I have pretty low standards for what counts as "entering play". If they've seen it, even from a distance, then its stats are off-limits for change unless there's an in-world reason why they would change, and the players must be afforded a sincere opportunity to know that those stats changed. Likewise, I don't fudge rolls, ever--I never secretly pretend that the result of a roll is something other than what the die says. I will sometimes ignore a rolled result, but only openly, so players know that I am choosing to do something else, but even that I try to do only in times of extreme need.

This is why it's so important to actually have good monster design, incidentally. I refuse to pretend that the game is actually a meaningful challenge when the truth is that I'm actually deciding whatever happens by rigging things toward what I think is best. If the game is designed such that it can't produce the right spread of results without me rigging it on the regular, then it's not a game I'm going to run, period. I've had no problem with three different systems in this regard, so I feel quite confident in saying that any game should be able to meet that standard.

 

[Scott Christian]

No I really don't, that's why I liked 63 the other day & held off on hitting post until waking up to see 78.

I will frame it like: It is difficult to separate all of the player curated stories with not having a touch of railroading.

And, as others have stated on here, there is a bit of crossover with being partial and railroading.

Lastly, (I know, I know) the definition of railroad is now about as broad as an ocean. So take my comments as grains of salt.

 

[Lanefan]

I'll preface by saying I don't disagree with you on this as much as it may seem below, it's more that there's just a few things I want to tease out here.

For me, there are things where absolute impartiality is simply not desirable. I don't write "plot" because plot means I'm expecting the players to do specific things in a specific sequence--but I do prepare events/situations that I think are likely to be compelling to the players. That's a form of partiality, framing scenes that will be naturally compelling to these players.

Sometimes. Other times it just is what it is, in part because if it's tailored to the players too much they'll notice, and it'll come across as perhaps overly contrived.

Likewise, giving 100% purely random magic items is generally counterproductive in my experience; it causes players to see magic items purely as utility, and thus encourages a minmaxing, materialist play-stance, which I find reduces RP.

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)

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.

Instead, as noted before, I try to present items that players are likely to find compelling, and then present ways they can improve (or, sometimes, sacrifice!) these beloved things.

I try to throw in items now and then that they've never seen before either as players or characters, if only to keep things fresh. It also doesn't matter how compelling the players might find an item, if the characters being played aren't interested in it they ain't gonna keep it.

But there are other things where I consider true impartiality essential. I don't modify monster stats once a monster enters play--and I have pretty low standards for what counts as "entering play". If they've seen it, even from a distance, then its stats are off-limits for change unless there's an in-world reason why they would change, and the players must be afforded a sincere opportunity to know that those stats changed. Likewise, I don't fudge rolls, ever--I never secretly pretend that the result of a roll is something other than what the die says.

We agree on this.

I will sometimes ignore a rolled result, but only openly, so players know that I am choosing to do something else, but even that I try to do only in times of extreme need.

Same here. Maybe happened half a dozen times over 40 years of DMing.

This is why it's so important to actually have good monster design, incidentally. I refuse to pretend that the game is actually a meaningful challenge when the truth is that I'm actually deciding whatever happens by rigging things toward what I think is best. If the game is designed such that it can't produce the right spread of results without me rigging it on the regular, then it's not a game I'm going to run, period. I've had no problem with three different systems in this regard, so I feel quite confident in saying that any game should be able to meet that standard.

For me the importance isn't necessarily good monster design (whatever that is), it's having a system that's arithmetically forgiving enough to be able to handle some minor errors in my estimation of a monster's power. The TSR editions are in general much more forgiving in this way than are the WotC editions.

That, and IME adventuring parties have to be among the most resilient things ever invented.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I will frame it like: It is difficult to separate all of the player curated stories with not having a touch of railroading.

And, as others have stated on here, there is a bit of crossover with being partial and railroading.

Lastly, (I know, I know) the definition of railroad is now about as broad as an ocean. So take my comments as grains of salt.

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.

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.

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.

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.