D&D 5E The Neutral Referee, Monty Haul, and the Killer DM: History of the GM and Application to 5e

[overgeeked]

I think that one can be a fan of the PCs and still be aspire to the goals of the Neutral DM. It's possible to design an adventure with the PCs in mind, but allow events to unfold as the dice fall without showing any favoritism to either the players or the world.

These are contradictory though. By designing an adventure with the PCs in mind, you are showing favoritism to the PCs. To be neutral, the referee has to ignore the PCs when constructing the world. However the PCs happen to move through it is up to them. If they go into an orc encampment without a healer and start attacking...they're going to have a bad time. Designing that adventure with the PCs in mind would be changing the world to suit these specific PCs and their abilities, hence showing favoritism towards the PCs.

 

[RuinousPowers]

These are contradictory though. By designing an adventure with the PCs in mind, you are showing favoritism to the PCs. To be neutral, the referee has to ignore the PCs when constructing the world. However the PCs happen to move through it is up to them. If they go into an orc encampment without a healer and start attacking...they're going to have a bad time. Designing that adventure with the PCs in mind would be changing the world to suit these specific PCs and their abilities, hence showing favoritism towards the PCs.

Well, I certainly wouldn't have anticipated the PCs to attack an orc encampment without proper preparation, but if they did then they would face the consequences.

But as I said, I believe one can design an adventure appropriate for the PCs while also letting the dice fall where they may. You can have an overarching story without taking steps to ensure it plays out to completion if the PCs choose to attack orc encampments, for example.

 

[payn]

I like all GM styles; until they suck at it.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I try to be as neutral as possible when I DM, but I still fudge a roll if the end result might lead to a TPK

 

[overgeeked]

Well, I certainly wouldn't have anticipated the PCs to attack an orc encampment without proper preparation, but if they did then they would face the consequences.

I've seen weirder. Especially lately. The idea that everything is tailored to the PCs and that there's not only a chance but a very good chance that they can win any and every fight has thoroughly seeped into the players I've encounter in the last decade.

But as I said, I believe one can design an adventure appropriate for the PCs while also letting the dice fall where they may.

Well, that's not quite what you'd said before. Referee neutrality prevents designing an adventure tailored to the PCs, but letting the dice fall where they may is definitely neutral referee behavior.

You can have an overarching story without taking steps to ensure it plays out to completion if the PCs choose to attack orc encampments, for example.

We must be using "story" differently then. When I say story I mean a set plot with predefined beginning, middle, and end. To me, that's not something a neutral referee does. The neutral referee will create situations, events, factions with goals, etc...put those into the world and set things in motion, but how that all plays out is entirely a reaction to how the PCs handle things. If they ignore a problem, it gets worse. If they ignore a faction, it accomplishes its goals. Nothing waits for the PCs to show up, if that makes sense. If there's a sacrifice scheduled for the new moon, it happens on the new moon, regardless of where the PCs are. The world isn't paused while the PCs goof off.

 

[prabe]

I think there are two stages of GMing, and whether "neutrality" is one's preferred ideal may vary between them.

The first stage is when one is working out the situation/s the PCs will find themselves in. These might be crafted to present themselves immediately to the PCs, or they might require some going-and-finding, or they might be entirely or partially procedurally generated. One might work out situations specifically to appeal to the players one has, or to their characters; or one might not.

The second stage is when one is running the situation/s the PCs have found themselves in. One might run them entirely neutrally, or one might run them with one's thumb on the scale one way or another. One might root for the PCs, or one might not. One might fudge, or one might not.

As for me, I work out situations with the idea the players (via their characters) will engage with and enjoy them, with an eye also to having them make sense both in the world and in the narrative. I run them as neutrally as I can. I see no contradiction here.

 

[Voadam]

In Skilled Play, the conception is that the challenge is not to the character, but to the player (it's a measure of player skill). That's why it requires the DM to be a "neutral referee" or a "neutral arbiter."

The DM, then, cannot ad hoc the area that is being explored, the DM cannot ad lib, and the DM should not be a fan of the players in Skilled Play. The DM is, for all practical purposes, the world that the players are interacting with through their characters. For this reason, the game cannot have mechanics for the players to seize narrative control of the world. The world exists independently of the player's conceptions and desires, and they (the players) are using their Skilled Play to overcome the obstacles within the world.

For that same reason, the DM must commit to preparation. This division of authority requires trust from the players to the DM that the DM is not changing the world or engaging in illusionism to help or hinder the players.

Finally, in addition to that dichotomy, there was also further erosion of the neutral referee in the 70s as we saw movements both towards "DM as storyteller" (the rise of illusionism) as well as certain early improv styles of play. But that requires far more words than I'm willing to write. Which ... wow.

I am not sure at all that skilled play requires a DM to avoid ad libbing and improv running what goes on.

Improvving things seems very in-genre to the style in the foundational inspiration literature of Jack Vance in particular.

Ad libbing elements could be placing a thumb on the scale to hinder or benefit PCs, but it could be neutral filling in elements and adjudicating how the PCs deal with that situation.

Fundamentally all 1st person roleplaying talking interactions are going to be at least partially ad libbing and improvving. Guided by whatever is already known about them and situations, but even the most detailed NPC is usually not running a predetermined script.

A lot of the times the descriptions of predone or random chart stuff is very limited and requires fleshing out on the part of the DM on the spot as the PCs interact with it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I am not sure at all that skilled play requires a DM to avoid ad libbing and improv running what goes on.

Improvving things seems very in-genre to the style in the foundational inspiration literature of Jack Vance in particular.

Ad libbing elements could be placing a thumb on the scale to hinder or benefit PCs, but it could be neutral filling in elements and adjudicating how the PCs deal with that situation.

Fundamentally all 1st person roleplaying talking interactions are going to be at least partially ad libbing and improvving. Guided by whatever is already known about them and situations, but even the most detailed NPC is usually not running a predetermined script.

A lot of the times the descriptions of predone or random chart stuff is very limited and requires fleshing out on the part of the DM on the spot as the PCs interact with it.

Reading the main section you are responding to holistically with my emphasis:

The DM, then, cannot ad hoc the area that is being explored, the DM cannot ad lib, and the DM should not be a fan of the players in Skilled Play. The DM is, for all practical purposes, the world that the players are interacting with through their characters. For this reason, the game cannot have mechanics for the players to seize narrative control of the world. The world exists independently of the player's conceptions and desires, and they (the players) are using their Skilled Play to overcome the obstacles within the world.

For that same reason, the DM must commit to preparation. This division of authority requires trust from the players to the DM that the DM is not changing the world or engaging in illusionism to help or hinder the players.


Read completely, the emphasis is not on the idea that the DM cannot "ad lib" dialogue from an NPC (for example) or "ad lib" additional details about what a room looks like. Instead, it's that the world exists independently of the players, which means that:
1. The DM should, to the extent possible, rely on preparation (and/or other outside materials or tables) when it comes to exploration. They should not ad hoc or ad lib an area being explored.
2. When the DM does not have this material, the DM must make rulings that are "true to the fiction" regardless of whether that would help or hinder the players. And when that ruling is made, then that becomes a "truth" in the world. If the DM has established that a chalice is green, then the chalice is always green from that point on. The players can trust that the DM is not going to change the color of the chalice (or the location of rooms) later on.
3. This is different than the "improv" games I reference, which allow players to seize narrative control of the world.

 

[overgeeked]

the world exists independently of the players

This is a huge piece of the puzzle that prevents people from grokking this style of play.

The world exists independently of the players and their characters.

This is also one big reason why neutral referees use random tables and random rolls, to remove even the potential of their thumb being on the scale. You design your charts and table independently of the players and characters. When the PCs interact with a space, you roll on that table, whatever comes up, comes up. You don't stack the tables for or against the PCs. You make them as neutral as possible. As honest to that part of the world as possible. If you're in the mountains, things that live in the mountains go on the wandering monster chart...regardless of what HD or level the monsters are and regardless of what level the PCs are.

For example, the PCs are on their last legs, down all spells, have few hit points, and are trying to rest to recover...but they got into an argument and start screaming. So the referee rolls a wandering monster check, yep something's out there. Roll again, it's orcs. Roll again for number appearing...ouch. The referee rolls 117 orcs...so that's what there are. The referee rolls on the reaction table, they're immediately hostile...so that's what they do. That's what they're dealing with now. Not because the referee decided to, but because the referee is neutrally following the procedures of the game.

If the GM decided there was a warband of 117 orcs over the next ridge because the PCs start screaming and shouting at each other, then decided that warband will hear and will come to attack, most people would agree that's terrible GMing. The opposite of that is the GM who decides that no matter what the PCs deserve a break and will refuse to roll for wandering monsters. Padding and softening the adventure to suit the PCs and their current state, most people seem to think that's good GMing...but I disagree.

It's a game, you play to find out what happens. You don't decide before hand what's supposed to happen...good or bad.

 

[Mort]

With all that in mind (mainly because I have other things to do today) I will throw this out- what do you think of the neutral referee in 5e?

I think 5e definitely has room for the neutral referee in 5e. It is 100% possible to design fun, interesting challenges and then be neutral when running them.

What principles do you use when running the game?

My main principle is to design fun, interesting challenges for the players to encounter and use that for the players to take their characters through the world. I think it's best to "yes and" whenever possible and find that helps maintain neutrality much more than saying no all the time (which, IMO, both comes off as adversarial AND means trying to protect "my situations" way too much).