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

[overgeeked]

With regard to using 2d6 (which generates a curve that will generate certain values more frequently than others). I think it's worthwhile to note that a curve is better for consistency, while a linear progression (ie, 1d12) will provide greater variety. There's nothing wrong with either approach (it's a subjective preference) but worthwhile to think about if you haven't given it previous consideration.

As long as you understand that 2d6 yields more reaults in the middle than at the edges, it’s a great tool. Just put things that should be more common in the middle and less common at the edges.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yeah. Tome of Adventure Design is great. There’s also r/d100.

If anyone uses Excel, you'll want to know this bit of code:

This tells Excel to reference Sheet2, column B, cells 2-856, and return with one random selection. The $ are to keep the columns and cells from shifting when you copy & paste.

Change the name of the sheet you're referencing, the column, and the cells to match wherever you're pulling from. If there’s an empty cell in your range it will error out.

These start with cell 2 instead of cell 1 because there's too much to remember so I have headers labelling all the columns.

My NPC generator has 855 occupations, 48 races, and the complete 5E DMG NPC generator. The occupations are pulled from WFRP, DCC, D&D, and a few other sources. Races from the PC races plus some others I like to use as common in civilization. With the press of a button I can return 100 random NPCs that I can then tailor if necessary.

I also have most of Worlds Without Number, Stars Without Number, and various Spelljammer books’ random charts in spreadsheets. Yes, I love random generators.

Yeah, I wrote a random NPC generator based on Crawford's Persons of Interest supplement, with a few additions like race and name. I generate about 100 NPCs at the start of a campaign, print them out, and then I have a list of random NPCs that are nice and distinctive whenever I need one on the fly. Just grab the next NPC on the list and go. It has become one of the most useful tools in my kit.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In general, I find "neutral" and "fair" to be...not quite antonyms, but generally incompatible. I very much prefer to be a fair DM over being a neutral Referee.

I also, generally, prefer a world where the PCs are beset by difficulties, but success is always achievable....if you can figure out what's really going on and approach the problem(s) from effective angle(s). Originally I wrote "correct" instead of "effective," but I prefer it when there isn't one right path, just a starting point, one or more destinations, and tools to connect the dots. As a result, fairness is much more important than neutrality at my table. I am, as the DW rules say, a "fan" of the characters. That means I want to see them struggle and grow, and that requires difficulty and handling failure.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah, I wrote a random NPC generator based on Crawford's Persons of Interest supplement, with a few additions like race and name. I generate about 100 NPCs at the start of a campaign, print them out, and then I have a list of random NPCs that are nice and distinctive whenever I need one on the fly. Just grab the next NPC on the list and go. It has become one of the most useful tools in my kit.

Exactly. It’s why I love random generators. I can put in a little more work creating a generator than a single bespoke NPC…and have as many NPCs generated from that as I will ever need. Find a list of baby names or a fantasy name generator and you’re done.

WFRP2E Tome of Corruption is great for d10,000 random mutations. And the Net Libram of Random Magical Effects. Those are great.

 

[Malmuria]

I love this generator:

Elegant Fantasy Dungeon Generator

perchance.org

 

[James Gasik]

That's where everything else 5e does to remove trust from the GM comes into play. A tool is presented to players that appears as if the GM can wield it

Spoiler: the actual RAW

With a cursory glance it seems like the italicized bit is somehow going to be a really cool puzzles involving color, but really how hard is it to perform simple inventory management for even the most mentally dump statted PC. Those kinds of puzzles might be neat once or twice but over the span of a campaign they will get old fast & the resulting annoyance will be blamed on the GM. That leaves the bold part

Wow sez the player knowing full well they can trivially see at night with a full moon (a true statement nearly everywhere people live in the world) but again the mechanical bit is that section I bolded

That has almost no impact beyond the most bland gotcha traps unless they are actually DCC funnel type instagib traps because PCs are so safe with the reduction of resource attrition/depletion being dialed to near total removal & safety of PCs in combat. Given the rarity of wisdom(perception) checks in combat it doesn't even impact one of the few areas it might pose a minor hurdle.

Much of 5e's design is rooted in that sort of "Here's this tool your GM might use" paired with a low hanging "and here's this reason(s) why it won't matter if they do unless they are a killerdm", that's the opposite of a system that trusts the GM. Unlike 3.x's "yea the merchant says he sold you the last wand of CLW & doesn't know when more will be in stock" neutral GM option 5e sets up a nontrivial cascading problem to unwind that & fill the holes that result from trying to that makes for the appearance of a non-neutral GM.

Not only does this impose disadvantage on Perception checks, but it also lowers Passive Perception by 5. This can seriously matter if there are enemies attempting to sneak up on the party or simply hide from them. I watched this in action when I started to run 5e; previously, everyone had basically assumed this was darkvision that let you see in the dark, and my entire party was full of darkvision users who thought this would make them the ultimate sneaky party- if they don't need light, then enemies can't see them coming.

Never mind that almost every enemy you would encounter also has darkvision, I looked at the ability a little closer, did my due diligence, and applied the actual rules. Fortunately, the kobolds they were up against had set enough traps, that it only took about three of them before someone decided to cast dancing lights for the Rogue.

 

[tomBitonti]

Part of the problem is that a lot of thief skills are easily taken up by casters and fighters. A locked door has at least four ways of being opened. The thief can only do one. Fighter can kick it open. Wizard can use knock. The smart player can describe taking it off the hinges if the hinges happen to be facing the group. And a lot of early DMs simply didn't run the thief skills as written, so their utility is way less than it should be. Plus they suck in fights, generally. So if you can get away with not having a thief, a lot of parties will.

A nit: Taking the door off its hinges should be a disable device roll, with disadvantage if no tools are available. I'd say that's a part of a thief's shtick, although, other classes should probably be able to do this, too.

A door which is designed to be secure ought not to be easily disabled in this fashion.

TomB

 

[Charlaquin]

It seems so.


It seems to me that some people are seriously downplaying the amount of subjective judgement calls a GM must make. To me it seems far better to be acknowledge that these cannot eliminated and are intended part of the game, and the GM takes responsibility of them.

I think everyone here acknowledges that these cannot be eliminated. Some people just enjoy gameplay where they are avoided as much as possible.

Furthermore, I don't understand how a style where the GM is basically just a random chart manager is desirable state of affairs anyway. I want the GM to actually have creative input, that's why we have a human being in there.

The “neutral referee” style GM isn’t just a random chart manager and does have creative input. It’s just that, in this style of play, their creative input is preferred to be in setting up the initial conditions, after which it’s preferred that they avoid giving creative input during actual gameplay as much as possible.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think everyone here acknowledges that these cannot be eliminated. Some people just enjoy gameplay where they are avoided as much as possible.

You remember the responses to your comments about improvisation?

The “neutral referee” style GM isn’t just a random chart manager and does have creative input. It’s just that, in this style of play, their creative input is preferred to be in setting up the initial conditions, after which it’s preferred that they avoid giving creative input during actual gameplay as much as possible.

Again, this is not what some people seem to think.

 

[Charlaquin]

You remember the responses to your comments about improvisation?

I remember a lot of Likes and one guy who seems to think what “makes sense” is not a subjective evaluation?

Again, this is not what some people seem to think.

Some people seem to think the earth is flat, that doesn’t negate the general consensus that it’s round.