Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="John Quixote" data-source="post: 8153045" data-attributes="member: 694">What you've articulated is, in the context of playing D&amp;D, a distinction without a difference. The end result is the same, whether you choose to term it &quot;fairness&quot; or &quot;neutrality&quot; or &quot;impartiality&quot;: the referee is neither the players' fan nor their enemy. That's the upshot here.Depends. If the GM is rolling wandering monster checks out in the open, rolling on the encounter tables and rolling for the number of monsters appearing, plainly out where everyone can see, are the monsters really appearing &quot;by the GM's will&quot; in any meaningful sense? When the GM makes a reaction roll or a morale check for the monsters, can it really be said that the GM will &quot;comprise all possible thought and decision&quot; for the monsters? I very much doubt it.And if the GM has set themselves up not as &quot;the opposition&quot; to the players but as merely a referee for the game's rules and a maintainer of the fantasy milieu (the one &quot;running the simulation,&quot; to use a very crude analogy that I don't like at all), it makes no sense whatsoever to compare the GM being neutral between PCs and NPCs/monsters to the GM being neutral between &quot;themselves and the players.&quot; The GM is not the NPCs/monsters, and they are not merely some &quot;aspect&quot; or &quot;avatar&quot; of the GM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="John Quixote, post: 8153045, member: 694"] What you've articulated is, in the context of playing D&D, a distinction without a difference. The end result is the same, whether you choose to term it "fairness" or "neutrality" or "impartiality": the referee is neither the players' fan [I]nor[/I] their enemy. That's the upshot here. Depends. If the GM is rolling wandering monster checks out in the open, rolling on the encounter tables and rolling for the number of monsters appearing, plainly out where everyone can see, are the monsters really appearing "by the GM's will" in any meaningful sense? When the GM makes a reaction roll or a morale check for the monsters, can it really be said that the GM will "comprise all possible thought and decision" for the monsters? I very much doubt it. And if the GM has set themselves up not as "the opposition" to the players but as merely a referee for the game's rules and a maintainer of the fantasy milieu (the one "running the simulation," to use a very crude analogy that I don't like at all), it makes no sense whatsoever to compare the GM being neutral between PCs and NPCs/monsters to the GM being neutral between "[I]themselves [/I]and the players." The GM is [I]not[/I] the NPCs/monsters, and they are not merely some "aspect" or "avatar" of the GM. [/QUOTE]

Verification