The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[Mannahnin]

I get - and agree with - what you're saying but "disinterested" still isn't the best term for it, in that a DM can be very interested in what's going on (in fact, I'd hope she is!) and yet still dispassionate and-or neutral in her running of the game.

Just for the record, hoping to put this to bed, the primary definition of "disinterested" (and the one Yora was using) is "not influenced by considerations of personal advantage." Not having a bias or predisposition toward a certain outcome.

 

[Mannahnin]

In common usage these days 'disinterested' generally carries the connotation of uncaring while 'uninterested' is rarely heard as a word any more.

My experience and the dictionary seem to disagree.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My experience and the dictionary seem to disagree.

Assessment of semantic loading is inevitably going to be somewhat individualized. When it comes to semantic association, dictionaries are almost always behind the times. For what its worth, my experience of the usage of dispassionate is closer to Lanefan's than not.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You seem to place primacy on the rules as written in the book. So I pointed out that the rules as written in the book give the referee authority over the rules, including interpretation and changing thereof. Many other games have similar explicitly stated text. Some don't, sure. Most traditional games and even some non-traditional games have similar text. It's mostly in the indie scene where this norm is broken. So while technically true that not every game has this setup, it's basically irrelevant as the vast majority of games as written and games that are actually played do.

I feel this is all kind of semantics. I'm not looking to be "technically" right. I'm talking about how things go at the table.

While I have no doubt that there are plenty of groups out there where the players simply accept that the GM calls all the shots, I have equally no doubt that there are many tables that wish that was not the case and don't realize it doesn't need to be, and equally no doubt that there are tables that already don't have that paradigm.

The referee's authority derives from the social contract. Everyone agrees that this person will be in charge of the game. They trust the referee to run the game, provide interesting experiences, etc. Some players insist that trust goes only so far as following the rules to the letter, reducing the referee to some kind of wetware to run the software of the rules. Others are a bit more...open minded about things.

I think this speaks to a misunderstanding of the role of GM in many games besides D&D and similar games. The GM role is vital in those. And I would say that advocating for only one way to GM as you seem to be doing here....and appealing to the majority as if that actually matters.... is the more closed-minded approach.

The point of having a person run the game instead of a computer is that freedom of choice. The ability to go off the map. To zig when the module thinks you can only zag. To create and run unique adventures molded to the PCs at the table instead of a generic party. To be creative and make rulings that suit the table. So why lessen that flexibility? Why would you? Just run a solo game at that point or play a video game.

That's what you assume they will do. Literally no one's said that's what they will do or even want to do. I certainly haven't.

You said players have two options. Accept the GM's decision or not play.

You keep saying things like this as if without the rules as written being followed perfectly, only, and precisely it's inevitable anarchy and chaos. I get that exaggerated rhetoric is just a thing on the internet, but come on. Which is why I quoted chapter and verse earlier. You really seem to be into the RAW as authority above everything else. I'm pointing out that's simply not true.

No, that's not what I'm saying. The GM may need to make a ruling. May alter a rule. But they must do so responsibly. They are still subject to the rules and the players in this regard. Yes, responsibility is subjective, that doesn't change that it's the group as a whole that decides how the game will proceed or if it won't.

They go back to having one choice: stay or walk.

You're wrongly assuming it's perfectly one extreme or the other. There's a vast, vast excluded middle you're leaping right over.

No, I'm kind of talking about that whole middle ground as being the reality. You're the one framing this as either/or, as above.

 

[pemerton]

I mean the GM is always restricted in how to adjudicate

Are they?

Yes.

Can you elaborate? I'm curious as to your take on this.

Well, one part of it is what @Ovinomancer posted:

The only constraint on GMs in D&D is the social contract.

But I think that understates things a bit. After all, in the context of the typically voluntary, leisure activity of RPGing all that ever makes rules binding is an agreement to play the game by the rules. And in the context of some D&D play, as much as any other RPG, there can be a social agreement to be bound by some rules.

As an example, I think in most D&D games, the GM is obliged to accept the PC sheet as a prima facie statement of the PC's mechanical capacities within the game. The GM has some liberty to secretly add to the sheet (eg the PC has a curse or a blessing the player doesn't know about yet) but is not entitled to do so in an arbitrary manner. For instance, the GM isn't normally allowed to make that sort of decision in the course of working out whether or not a roll to hit succeeds against a target's AC, or in the middle of a resolving a climb walls roll. And we can explain where the constraint comes from in at least some detail: making the roll to hit, or to climb walls is something that occurs at the table that, and in that moment of actually rolling the dice and then consulting the relevant material (stat blocks, look-up tables, whatever they might be) nothing has occurred in the fiction that might make a secret change to the PC and hence to the PC sheet.

@hawkeyefan gives similar examples to the ones I've given, in post 114.n

There are also constraints that relate to the narration of consequences of attempted actions. @Campbell gave examples in post 117. In a classic AD&D game, for instance, a GM is not generally permitted to adjudicate a failed roll to climb walls as the cliff starting to crumble and collapse on the character - whereas that might be fair game in Burning Wheel! The constraint here is something along the lines of: narrations of failure are expected to be narrations of how the character failed to manifest sufficient skill and/or luck in performing the attempted task, and not as circumstances or the larger environment conspiring against the character. Another example I once posted that caused much outrage on these boards: narrating a failed Diplomacy check as it starts to rain, and so the crowd can't hear your words and drifts away to find shelter. In standard D&D play that sort of narration of failure is not permitted.

Once we get beyond adjudication to other aspects of the GM's role, like framing and presenting adversity, @Campbell gives further example of what is out of bounds in standard D&D play. This is harder to state as a rule, but there are clearly widely accepted principles at work.

EDIT:

nature doesn't care one way or the other.

There's a constraint that typically operates on a D&D GM, that does not operate on a Burning Wheel one!

 

[pemerton]

The type of rules you are speaking to here are not the constraints I'm speaking to. GM facing mechanics are basically pixie dust* (much of the time). They make us feel better, but they aren't really all that binding.

As per my post just upthread, I think that there is a bit more to the pixie dust than you are allowing here. But I also agree with you about the other sorts of constraints - which go to adjudication, but also to framing and the presentation of adversity.

 

[pemerton]

It's not the end-result outcome that would be at issue, but rather the (lack of) level of detail and perceived arbitrariness in jumping straight to said outcome without any intervening play and-or opportunities for the players/PCs to change their situation (for better or worse!). Further, the jump as written assumes none of the PCs act independently (e.g. to try to escape, or to suicide-rush a guard to cause a distraction so others might escape, etc.) and that they are all captured en bloc.

I don't allow skill dogpiling in D&D. The rule at my table is "settle on a strategy and I'll tell you what to roll (if necessary); if you fail you don't get to roll again unless you change your strategy." Some situations, of course, don't allow for changing strategies because of the consequences of failure. But there's no need to skip the series of actions and reactions that COULD lead to the PCs being captured.

If the players settle on a strategy (say, an ambush), and then fail, and then are allowed to have more rolls to avoid being captured, how is that not skill dogpiling?

Or to put it another way: given that it is up to the GM to decide the consequences of failure, how can those consequences act as a constraint on whether or not the GM allows more checks? That's literally saying that the players can make more checks unless the GM decides they can't!

And this isn't just a theoretical or verbal objection. As a referee of Rolemaster I've found myself stuck in these situations, where the rules don't tell me whether or not to allow more checks, and so whether or not the PCs suffer a hard failure is literally up to me to decide! (RM isn't always like that. It depends on the particular skill table and resolution process at issue: RM has many of those!)

 

[Lanefan]

You said players have two options. Accept the GM's decision or not play.

Well, they do have other options but none are really any better than either of the above:

--- constantly argue with the GM about the decision
--- "accept" the decision and then quietly but actively work to undermine it during play
--- ignore it and just keep playing as if it never happened (i.e. in effect thumb their collective nose at the GM)
--- mutiny and replace that GM with another one, either with someone from within their number or external.

 

[Lanefan]

If the players settle on a strategy (say, an ambush), and then fail, and then are allowed to have more rolls to avoid being captured, how is that not skill dogpiling?

The way it was presented there wasn't any "settling on a strategy" beforehand, instead someone just pulled a gun. Next thing, the PCs are all captured and under interrogation.

If the idea of such a surprise attack was agreed on beforehand as the party's plan then I suppose one could consider it a group action (even though only one PC does it) and apply a group-level success or fail to it.

But if one player just has their PC haul off and pull out a gun without warning, it seems only fair that everyone else should get a chance to react in character.

Or to put it another way: given that it is up to the GM to decide the consequences of failure, how can those consequences act as a constraint on whether or not the GM allows more checks? That's literally saying that the players can make more checks unless the GM decides they can't!

Keep in mind that those checks can also go against the PCs. Playing it out in more detail doesnt necessarily mean they're automatically going to improve their lot; they could in fact make things much worse for themselves than they already are.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, they do have other options but none are really any better than either of the above:

--- constantly argue with the GM about the decision
--- "accept" the decision and then quietly but actively work to undermine it during play
--- ignore it and just keep playing as if it never happened (i.e. in effect thumb their collective nose at the GM)
--- mutiny and replace that GM with another one, either with someone from within their number or external.

I had more of a "talk with the GM and come to a reasonable compromise" kind of thing in mind, but sure, we can just assume everything is negative all the time. Cool.