Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The DM is Not a Player; and Hot Topic is Not Punk Rock
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8153083" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>The GM, I had thought, always has the <em>choice</em> as to whether they use these things or not. They don't just blindly invoke them like a computer would. If a reaction roll doesn't make sense despite the rules calling for them, the GM can negate that. And, likewise, if a situation arises where the GM feels a reaction roll <em>should</em> happen even though the rules don't officially call for one, she can enforce that. I don't feel any differently about random monster rolls, and none of that would say much of anything about either the fact that the monsters <em>literally can't exist or act</em> without the GM's direct participation--as is the case with all parts of the world that aren't the PCs.</p><p></p><p>Unless you mean to say that old-school rules somehow <em>prevent</em> the GM from using them as they see fit? That would certainly be a surprising reversal compared to the statements made pretty much everywhere else by everyone else that favors such things.</p><p></p><p></p><p>First: If you don't like the analogy at all, why use it? It would seem very much to mean several things you <em>don't</em> want it to mean.</p><p></p><p>More importantly, I don't see how "it makes no sense whatsoever." Everything that is run by the GM--meaning, <em>everything</em>, more or less, except the PCs--exists by and for the GM's interests. They cannot be neutral with regard to things that their <em>active and continuous assent and participation</em> are required for. They are, very simply, <em>involved</em>.</p><p></p><p>That doesn't make them the opposition <em>personally</em>. I would say exactly the same thing regarding a game where the GM never participated directly in combat at all--where all opposition were different groups of player characters fighting one another. The GM is still <em>involved</em> because the world--terrain, visibility, supply lines, weather, and adjudication of both edge cases and unexpected deviations from standard procedures--<em>needs</em> the GM's constant, active involvement, and these things directly impact both sides. They aren't <em>staying out</em> of the conflict; they're <em>facilitating</em> it, ensuring that it works out in a way preferable to them (namely, one fun for everyone involved). Even your example GM is nowhere near as "neutral" a party as an arbitrator or judge, and certainly not anything like a country trying to avoid participation in a war.</p><p></p><p>"Neutral" means non-participation: literally, <em>not taking part</em>. That's literally part of the definition of the word. "Unbiased" means you don't treat any participant with favoritism.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8153083, member: 6790260"] The GM, I had thought, always has the [I]choice[/I] as to whether they use these things or not. They don't just blindly invoke them like a computer would. If a reaction roll doesn't make sense despite the rules calling for them, the GM can negate that. And, likewise, if a situation arises where the GM feels a reaction roll [I]should[/I] happen even though the rules don't officially call for one, she can enforce that. I don't feel any differently about random monster rolls, and none of that would say much of anything about either the fact that the monsters [I]literally can't exist or act[/I] without the GM's direct participation--as is the case with all parts of the world that aren't the PCs. Unless you mean to say that old-school rules somehow [I]prevent[/I] the GM from using them as they see fit? That would certainly be a surprising reversal compared to the statements made pretty much everywhere else by everyone else that favors such things. First: If you don't like the analogy at all, why use it? It would seem very much to mean several things you [I]don't[/I] want it to mean. More importantly, I don't see how "it makes no sense whatsoever." Everything that is run by the GM--meaning, [I]everything[/I], more or less, except the PCs--exists by and for the GM's interests. They cannot be neutral with regard to things that their [I]active and continuous assent and participation[/I] are required for. They are, very simply, [I]involved[/I]. That doesn't make them the opposition [I]personally[/I]. I would say exactly the same thing regarding a game where the GM never participated directly in combat at all--where all opposition were different groups of player characters fighting one another. The GM is still [I]involved[/I] because the world--terrain, visibility, supply lines, weather, and adjudication of both edge cases and unexpected deviations from standard procedures--[I]needs[/I] the GM's constant, active involvement, and these things directly impact both sides. They aren't [I]staying out[/I] of the conflict; they're [I]facilitating[/I] it, ensuring that it works out in a way preferable to them (namely, one fun for everyone involved). Even your example GM is nowhere near as "neutral" a party as an arbitrator or judge, and certainly not anything like a country trying to avoid participation in a war. "Neutral" means non-participation: literally, [I]not taking part[/I]. That's literally part of the definition of the word. "Unbiased" means you don't treat any participant with favoritism. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The DM is Not a Player; and Hot Topic is Not Punk Rock
Top