D&D General The DM is Not a Player; and Hot Topic is Not Punk Rock

[Umbran]

Why make a conscious effort, though? Why not just play in the moment from adventure to adventure, and see if it hapens to string together into a coherent story in hindsight?

Because, for some, that doesn't generally lead to as pleasing an outcome. So, those people shouldn't do it that way.

That's the answer for most questions of "Why do you do it your way? Why don't you do it MY way?!?" in gaming.

 

[Jack Daniel]

That isn't something that's inherently good or worth keeping that way.

The DM's authority is not an inherent good, I'll grant you that. But it can be an essential factor in making a game good. For that reason alone, it's not worth summarily discarding either. "I don't like this, therefore everyone must get rid of it" is not a reasonable position to hold.

I can't agree, honestly. Both players and GM have the same goal: to craft a cool memorable story.

This is hardly the only way, or even the "best" way, to play D&D.

A DM is in no way analogous to a neutral arbiter. A neutral arbiter is hired to settle a contractual dispute. The neutral arbiter, had no hand in drafting the language of the contract. The neutral arbiter played no part in the actions that lead to the dispute.

A DM, is fulfilling the role of arbiter, but no reasonable person would classify the DM as a neutral arbiter.

But the DM's neutrality is the most important rule!

That's just simply wrong.

Group can (and certainly should) make conscious effort to forge a story, with structure, characters arcs and naughty word without a pre-scripted plot. Well, pre-scripted plot on a hard rail ultimately contradicts this goal.

That's just simply narrow-minded, to assert that every group can and should play your way.

 

[nevin]

The DM's authority is not an inherent good, I'll grant you that. But it can be an essential factor in making a game good. For that reason alone, it's not worth summarily discarding either. "I don't like this, therefore everyone must get rid of it" is not a reasonable position to hold.


This is hardly the only way, or even the "best" way, to play D&D.


But the DM's neutrality is the most important rule!

View attachment 130329


That's just simply narrow-minded, to assert that every group can and should play your way.

I don't agree it's not fair to change the rules without buy in from everyone. I will accept that Dm should make the rules clear before game starts so that players can decide if they are willing to play there or not. The thing most people miss in these arguments is requiring the DM to run a game a certain way is no less unfair than requiring a player to play a certain way. As long as everyone communicates before the game starts and are ok with the rules then the group will be fine.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But the DM's neutrality is the most important rule!

Fairness is emphatically NOT neutrality, not in this context anyway. Not even in the same zip code.

A non-fighting nation in a war can treat all casualties fairly while not being neutral at all, or can be a formally neutral party while providing (non-military/indirect) support to only one side. "Fairness" means lack of bias, "neutrality" means not taking any (official) position. The DM does take an official position, she's required to. But she does so while being fair to her players.

You'll note the word "fair" shows up repeatedly in that snippet. The word "neutral" never appears.

 

[Jack Daniel]

You'll note the word "fair" shows up repeatedly in that snippet. The word "neutral" never appears.

Semantics. "A Dungeon master must not take sides" and "without favoring the monsters or the characters" are clear exhortations to be neutral.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Semantics. "A Dungeon master must not take sides" and "without favoring the monsters or the characters" are clear exhortations to be neutral.

Not at all. I clearly articulated the relevant difference between being fair and being neutral. The DM creates and runs the opposition. They cannot be neutral. They comprise all possible thought and decision on one side of a conflict! They are of necessity "taking part" in the conflict, directly contradicting Dictionary.com's definition of the word. But they can be fair and unbiased despite their participation. They make decisions for the opposition, but do so in a way that does not grant that opposition undue advantage, nor undue self-sabotage. The DM is not neutral, they participate actively and their decisions almost always set the terms for the shape and direction of the conflict--but they are also, as DW puts it, supposed to "be a fan of the characters," just as a TV show fan wants to see what struggles and failures and triumphs the cast will experience and wouldn't want things to just go badly or just be rosy 100% of the time.

Hell, I would even say that being a participant trying to make sure that the regular players are having fun is proof enough that the DM isn't neutral. They are actively engaged with the interests of BOTH sides, not actively avoiding ANY side.

 

[Zsong]

If there is anything controversial, rebellious, or anti-authoritarian about d&d it is in a home game and not online or in a company product. If they would accidentally so such a thing they would apologize and edit the error out of the product. The environment is too political at present to tolerate view points and ideas that don’t fit the narrative.

 

[Charlaquin]

If there is anything controversial, rebellious, or anti-authoritarian about d&d it is in a home game and not online or in a company product. If they would accidentally so such a thing they would apologize and edit the error out of the product. The environment is too political at present to tolerate view points and ideas that don’t fit the narrative.

What on earth are you on about?

 

[Zsong]

What on earth are you on about?

Um... too many screens and tabs up and posting in the wrong place.

 

[Charlaquin]

Um... too many screens and tabs up and posting in the wrong place.

Fair enough.