Making the adventure describer and the rules referee different people

[Li Shenron]

I have a hard time thinking someone would have fun being the referee only, so it would have to also play a PC at the same time.

In that case, my preference is to keep number secrets to the players (and that means also when I am a player myself) so I wouldn't like much that the players set the DC since they would automatically know how high they should roll. But I suppose other gaming groups can be fine with this.

Number-setting aside, letting the players participate in deciding which rules to use is not bad at all. But again, I wouldn't want to be the rules referee, if that's the only thing I'm going to do at the table, and I don't know anyone who would, so I'd rather think it would be easier if "referee" is just a collective role for everybody.

 

[nnms]

Having a collective referee is definitely a good way to go and lots of people play that way without really realizing it. For example, the last few editions of D&D as well as Pathfinder have rules that are clear enough that it's pretty much easy for every player to know them and expect they'll be used fairly by everyone. I've definitely played at tables where the interpretation and application of the rules sort of naturally fell on the player's side of the DM's screen just as a matter of social dynamics.

If you do have a dedicated ref that's not the describer, it does involve a lot of active listening which some people find super boring, so it's not for everyone.

 

[the Jester]

As a long-time primary dm, I would be bored stiff to be limited to either of your roles.

 

[nnms]

So neither what you describe nor handling the rules is sufficiently interesting for you on their own? I suppose you're in a catch 22 then, because rule handling time means you're not truly freed up to describe your heart out to the point that it becomes worth doing on it's own.