D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Maxperson]

Can a referee be a fan of a sportsman and still be a neutral arbiter?
Can a father be a fan of their kid and still discipline their child when need be?

No. Not without bias. Being a fan is a conflict of interest. I mean, you can discipline your child, but not without some pretty strong bias being present.

 

[Lanefan]

Can a referee be a fan of a sportsman and still be a neutral arbiter?

No. That's why in some leagues the refs have to disclose which team(s) they support, and are then not assigned to work those teams' games or, ideally, games which could overly affect those teams.

Can a father be a fan of their kid and still discipline their child when need be?

Only to a point.

 

[pemerton]

Pemerton wanted to know what 10 seconds of inventory management might look like. I chucked in an example.

But it's not actually 10 seconds, is it?

Player: "I spend 75 g.p. reloading my basic gear and equipment to the original amounts and conditions on my character sheet - full quivers, full rations, replace a few bits showing wear and tear, that sort of thing."
DM: "OK. Chalk off the 75. If you're looking for anything more pricey, check the equipment guide for prices and take care of it on your own while I sort out what Jocasta's doing."

Implied in this dialogue is a whole lot of other stuff: maintaining lists of gear and of money, to begin with.

And that's before we spend time on whatever is going on with Jocasta.

 

[pemerton]

I suppose, at the end of the day, this is why things like morale rules don't apply to PC's. I believe that they should. I absolutely believe that PC's should be affected by Persuasion checks (or whatever the system uses) and the system should reward players who do so.

There's no way to enforce this. A PC can accept being persuaded and then change their mind back to their original position later on. A PC can accept that morale is broken and run away and then immediately restart their attack. If there's a reward or penalty, the players will weigh the benefits of actually changing their PCs' minds or accepting the reward or penalty. Even in the most narrativist, most immersive game imaginable, they'll do this. And if the rules and penalties or actual gameplay are too boring or too unfun or get in the way of the players doing their thing, they'll simply switch games.

I play multiple RPGs where players, in the play of their PCs, are bound in the sorts of ways that @Hussar describes. In Classic Traveller, players have to make morale checks for their PCs, and are bound by the outcome. In Burning Wheel, PCs can be bound by the result of a Duel of Wits; similarly, in Torchbearer 2e, PCs can be bound by the outcomes of Convince and similar social conflicts. In Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic, PCs can suffer mental stress, emotional stress, and social complications, which impede their rolls and can even result in them being taken out of a conflict. Etc.

The way these are enforced is the way any other rule in a game played for fun among the participants is enforced.

 

[AnotherGuy]

No. Not without bias. Being a fan is a conflict of interest. I mean, you can discipline your child, but not without some pretty strong bias being present.

No. That's why in some leagues the refs have to disclose which team(s) they support, and are then not assigned to work those teams' games or, ideally, games which could overly affect those teams.

Only to a point.

Lanefan and Max, you can honestly say you are not a fan of any of the PCs at the table in which you run games?

Do you not find ways to include PC background in setting story?
Do you not find ways to be supportive to associated NPCs including animal companions, familiars, constructs, intelligent weapons etc?
Do you not find ways to align or interweave PC goals/desires with setting story?

Adhering to story and setting logic for the above is a given.

 

[SableWyvern]

Lanefan and Max, you can honestly say you are not a fan of any of the PCs at the table in which you run games?

Do you not find ways to include PC background in setting story?
Do you not find ways to be supportive to associated NPCs including animal companions, familiars, constructs, intelligent weapons etc?
Do you not find ways to align or interweave PC goals/desires with setting story?

Adhering to story and setting logic for the above is a given.

If doing the things you listed means you're being a fan of the PCs, then the implication is that if you aren't a fan of the PCs you'll do the following:

• Refuse to include PCs background in the setting story (even if they make sense).
• Refuse to support associated NPCs, including animal companions, familiars, constructs, intelligent weapons, etc (just because you can).
• Refuse to allow PC goals or desires to be aligned with the setting story (even if it would make sense to do so).

My problem with "be a fan of the PCs" is that in order to defend it against people who say they don't subscribe to it as a philosophy, it always ends up being explained as just doing basic things in a reasonable fashion. At that point, it's really just saying the GM shouldn't be out to mess with the PCs in arbitrary ways that will ruin the players fun, in which case a much better pithy saying is the more general, "don't be a dick."

I am absolutely a fan of the PCs inasmuch as I enjoy my players enjoying playing their PCs. But I don't feel that I need a special phrase to describe this or point out how important this is. It's just basic stuff.

I'm certainly never thinking, "How can I show I'm a fan of the PCs when I make this ruling?" which is what I would expect from someone who genuinely believes that being a fan of the PCs is of critical importance. If any type of bias is creeping in along those lines, it will absolutely not be about the PCs, it will be, "How will my players feel about this?"

In summary: There is nothing wrong with the idea that "be a fan of the PCs" is a particular GM style you might want to support and encourage. But for that to mean something, it should mean more than just not being out to ruin or disregard what your players enjoy. Claiming every GM should be a fan of the PCs is either watering the phrase down to the point where other terms would serve better, or pushing your own preferences as universal.

 

[Maxperson]

Lanefan and Max, you can honestly say you are not a fan of any of the PCs at the table in which you run games?

I want the players to have fun. But I'm not a fan of them, no. Now, I'm using fan in the same sense that I would be a fan of a football team. If fan=like, then sure. I like their characters, but I'm not a fan as in the sense of being a fan of something or someone.

Do you not find ways to include PC background in setting story?

Sure. When appropriate. That's not being a fan, though. I don't do it because I'm a fan of Yoyo the Bard, I do it because something in Yoyo's background would make sense to tie into what's going on or a place that they are going. It also helps give the players a sense that their characters are connected to the world they adventure in.

Do you not find ways to be supportive to associated NPCs including animal companions, familiars, constructs, intelligent weapons etc?

I'm not sure what this means.

Do you not find ways to align or interweave PC goals/desires with setting story?

They decide their goals and desires and let me know by pursuing those things. I react to the players. If they tell me that they are seeking out a wizard to find out what an artifact they found is/does, we will pursue that goal. They may find someone who knows, or they may not. I'm not going to make sure they succeed or stack it heavily in their favor, though, which is what being a fan would entail.

 

[AnotherGuy]

In summary: There is nothing wrong with the idea that "be a fan of the PCs" is a particular GM style you might want to support and encourage. But for that to mean something, it should mean more than just not being out to ruin or disregard what your players enjoy. Claiming every GM should be a fan of the PCs is either watering the phrase down to the point where other terms would serve better, or pushing your own preferences as universal.

Right, so what is your take on the comment upthread about you cannot be a fan and a neutral arbiter?

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm not going to make sure they succeed or stack it heavily in their favor, though, which is what being a fan would entail.

You think that is what RPGs mean when they say be a fan of the PCs?
Make sure they succeed or stack it heavily in their favour?

EDIT: My take is that it is just good basic table advice for a GM. As there is good basic table advice in the DMG.

In fact page 6 of the DMG (2014) at the top "...and let their characters do awesome things"
I'm sure I can find many more examples of this!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

(Emphasis mine.) Alternatively, 'instead of that flowing into new directions, as the party leverage other abilities and everything they've learned so far...'

Which is to say that helping yourself to negative characterisations of that which you don't like is distracting rhetoric. To me it's more compelling when the best cases are compared. Assassins are more than capable of leaving a sting with the party on simple-fail because play continues.

I don't understand what "leaving a sting with the party" means, so I can't respond to this.

As for the argument, you're asking me to do something I literally cannot do. Fail Forward is specifically meant for the times when the common approach breaks down.

This is like telling me to only make arguments for quality spare tires by presuming that every car has a brand-new set of tires, or fire extinguishers for a building made exclusively of concrete. You are telling me to only make arguments based on the situation when FF is completely and utterly pointless, because we have presumed the problem it's there to fix doesn't happen. I'm not, in any way, characterizing things as "the traditional way ALWAYS FAILS". Hell, I'm not even presenting the traditional method in a bad light! This is just a known, pervasive problem that doesn't really have a solution within that traditional method, and FF is the solution for it.