To Kill or Not to Kill (PCs): That is the Question...

[Daztur]

As often as I see the "DM as neutral, dispassionate arbiter" claim, I still don't think it really holds water. The DM has far too much influence on the game world and the actions of NPCs to claim impartiality. You may not fudge the die rolls, but you decide on the enemy's strategy and tactics. You may not fudge the results of encounters, but you place the possible encounters in the first place. You may not decide what the characters do but you do make rulings as to what works and what doesn't. Arguing that these things have no effect on the characters' chances of survival is untenable, I think.

"Dm as neutral arbiter" sounds good in theory, but I don't think it can happen in D&D, which requires a great deal of human decision-making to make it work properly.

Well that's the point of all of the random tables in old school D&D. If you combine those with more sandbox play the DM really isn't "placing the possible encounters" all that much. It strips out a lot of that DM-side decision-making. The last campaign I played through it was amazing how passive the DM was (in a good way), so every time we nearly got ourselves killed it was our own damn fault. Of course DM rulings and whatnot play a role here and complete impartiality is impossible, but the goal here is to make the players think that whether they died or not depended on random chance and their own kill, not the DM and I think that that level of even-handedness is achievable.

This is a matter of scope and authority: I imagine people will choose the groups they are comfortable with. If democratic gaming floats your boat...by all means give it a go.

My Awesome Meter has a discerning palette, is tempered by age, and informed by my friends at the table. People come back due to the success of the game.

Well personally I like both "democratic" story games in which metagaming "Awesome Meter" power is spread around and old school D&D in which the DM uses their "Awesome Meter" very little. I tend to not like games in which the DM is directing the story of the game and shapes events to make them more awesome. That's not to say that some use of the "Awesome Meter" is a bad thing, but when it gets to the level of the DM's idea of what is cool or not being the main thing that determines if my character lives or dies then that's too much for me.

If taken to too much of an extreme, I know that anytime my character dies it's because the DM thought it would be cool for my character to die and that anytime my character almost dies I know that there's a big chance that the reason he isn't dead is that the DM thought it would be cool for him not to die rather than because of anything that I did or didn't do. Personally I'd rather thave either cut and dry rules with no mercy (including save or die) or something like: SotC SRD and SotC SRD than having things be up to the DM's Awesome Meter.

 

[Argyle King]

My point is essentially that there is no way to do this without your own biases and perceptions entering into it. There is simply no neutral arbiter of "what they would do." You can consider the specific enemy as much as you like, but your own stuff will always enter into the decisions, at least over the long haul. Just because you decide it's what they would do, doesn't mean other DMs would agree with you. There is not usually a right answer as to what they would do.
.

I'll just have to agree to disagree here. I believe it most certainly is possible to make decisions for a character who is not me. I do so when I play PCs. While I do often make PCs who share some of the experiences I have, I've also often played PCs which have completely different skills sets and thought processes than I do. I look at the world through their eyes and make decisions. I see no reason why doing the same while GMing is not possible.

I'm not asking for other DMs to agree. I'm simply doing what makes sense for the NPC. You mentioned the long haul; over the long haul, I think things become easier because I gain a track record upon which to base what the character's experiences and thoughts might be. If it comes to a point where I do not feel I can make a decision or that I might be bias when I do not want to be, I roll the dice and allow chance to be a completely neutral arbiter. However; 90% of the time, I do not feel I have any difficulty with being neutral.

Now, as said in a previous post, there are exceptions. One I gave was to cut a new player a little slack if they make a bad decision, but that decision was based upon faulty understanding of the game rules and/or the game world. In such a case, I as out-of-game entity GM recognize that out-of-game factors such as the player not understanding the rules caused a poor in-game decision.

Though, again, I'll point out that I'm not basing my answers on D&D. One of the things which made me start playing other games is because I wanted a gaming experience with a game system which was built in such a way that I could play in the manner I'm speaking of. I do feel there are things built into D&D which do not always mesh well with my preferred style. While I am aware I can house rule and whatnot, there's only so many nails you can pound with a screwdriver until it starts to make more sense to just buy a hammer.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well that's the point of all of the random tables in old school D&D. If you combine those with more sandbox play the DM really isn't "placing the possible encounters" all that much.

Who designed the sandbox then, if not the DM? If it's a published one, who decided to use it in the game?

It strips out a lot of that DM-side decision-making. The last campaign I played through it was amazing how passive the DM was (in a good way), so every time we nearly got ourselves killed it was our own damn fault.

I've seen the claim that sandbox campaigns must include enough information available to the characters in order to make informed decisions about which challenges to take on at a particular time. If there's an ancient red wyrm nearby, the 1st-level party had better avoid it. Of course, it's up to the DM to provide that information in the first place, which again places a great deal of the responsibility on the role.

I'll just have to agree to disagree here. I believe it most certainly is possible to make decisions for a character who is not me. I do so when I play PCs. While I do often make PCs who share some of the experiences I have, I've also often played PCs which have completely different skills sets and thought processes than I do. I look at the world through their eyes and make decisions. I see no reason why doing the same while GMing is not possible.

One's own biases and proclivities are generally subconscious. Human beings generally don't even recognize their own biases, or that other people might not see certain things the way they do. Since it's a human thing, it'll come into play when a human DMs.

I'm not asking for other DMs to agree. I'm simply doing what makes sense for the NPC.

My point is, if other DMs would not agree with the decision, despite them also considering themselves neutral arbiters, then the idea of neutral arbitration is largely an illusion.

If it comes to a point where I do not feel I can make a decision or that I might be bias when I do not want to be, I roll the dice and allow chance to be a completely neutral arbiter. However; 90% of the time, I do not feel I have any difficulty with being neutral.

And again, deciding when you can make a decision is based on the DM. And deciding what the chances are when deciding to "let the dice decide" is also based on the DM.

To be clear again, I am arguing against the "I am a completely neutral arbiter as DM" position, which I have seen intoned many times on these boards. It seems you are not making such a statement about your own DMing.

 

[Daztur]

Who designed the sandbox then, if not the DM? If it's a published one, who decided to use it in the game?

Well let's say that one GM runs Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (high lethality system) and another one runs Spirit of the Century (how lethality system) but the Warhammer Fantasy GM fudges rolls to keep characters from dying so that both games have the same death rate in actual play. Same thing? Deciding something before play starts (we'll use Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, I'll put that nasty dungeon over there and I'll use this nasty random critter chart for this area over there) feels a lot different to players dealing with it (at least to me it does) than the DM adjusting stuff on the fly.

Creating a world (or choosing which world to use) and deciding on what laws that world obeys (the rules of the game) are different than how the DM actually runs the game face to face. If the DM chooses a different world and a lethal rule set, that does't stop the DM from being impartial in how he/she actually run the game since the world and the ruleset are independent of the players.

I've seen the claim that sandbox campaigns must include enough information available to the characters in order to make informed decisions about which challenges to take on at a particular time.

Information is essential. However, the information should be AVAILABLE if the players go look for it (or there should be clues if the players take the time to investigate them like burned trees or whatnot) but it's not the DM's responsibility to make sure that the players have a certain set of information before entering a certain area.

Also you don't have to have a perfect level of impartiality and just because the DM can't be perfectly impartial doesn't mean that some level of impartiality isn't a good thing. In the last campaign I played in the DM wasn't perfectly impartial (I assume, I can't read his mind) but he was impartial enough that I always felt that all of the bad and good things that happened to my character were because of my own decisions or luck and not because of the DM. That made me happy. I want to feel that kind of happiness when I play D&D. If I'm wrong about how impartial my DM is, that doesn't stop me from feeling happy.

My point is, if other DMs would not agree with the decision, despite them also considering themselves neutral arbiters, then the idea of neutral arbitration is largely an illusion.

Of course it's an illusion, that my character is real is an illusion, but it's a FUN illusion that I want to cultivate and I think that the best way to strengthen that illusion is for the DM to be as neutral as possible (unless I'm playing FATE or somesuch, which should operate according to the Rule of Cool).

I'm not a completely neutral DM, I just try my best to be (and I screw up sometimes like with the 5ed playtest I got too many rules mixed up to keep the damn wizard behind the curtain where he belongs).

 

[Argyle King]

One's own biases and proclivities are generally subconscious. Human beings generally don't even recognize their own biases, or that other people might not see certain things the way they do. Since it's a human thing, it'll come into play when a human DMs.

I disagree. I feel it is completely possible for me to (for a lack of better words) stop thinking as myself and instead put myself into the mindset of someone different. I've had many people tell me that doing so is impossible, but I can only respond that it must be possible if I'm capable of doing it.

Do I as a person have biases? Yes, but the person I am is not the same person as a different character who will have their own biases, skills, and/or experiences.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Well personally I like both "democratic" story games in which metagaming "Awesome Meter" power is spread around and old school D&D in which the DM uses their "Awesome Meter" very little. I tend to not like games in which the DM is directing the story of the game and shapes events to make them more awesome. That's not to say that some use of the "Awesome Meter" is a bad thing, but when it gets to the level of the DM's idea of what is cool or not being the main thing that determines if my character lives or dies then that's too much for me.

I tend to look at it more like playing music with friends. There is a give and take, there is an improvisation and there is a simulation; it depends on the feel of the game at the time. Certainly, things can go wrong--and will--but that is part of learning and growing as a gamemaster (and player).

The play style example I usually hear, in regards to the opposition of fudging, entails either a certain clumsiness by the GM or a certain intuition from the PCs. This to me is like saying you don't like driving because people get in accidents...it is true; but, it doesn't really affect the act of driving or its enjoyment: unless there is a complete lack of trust...or failure of implementation.

Just like any play style it takes dedication to master. I strongly believe that new GMs should follow the rules explicitly: not because it is the right thing to do but because it will make them better GMs. After there is a keen understanding of the game (not necessarily the rules...but that helps too) you develop a feel for the ebb and flow of narratives, encounters, dialogue, and suspense. When you start feeling the flow of the game you start to realize that some rules hinder the feel of the game (at times) and others add to it (at times).

And this isn't a rule of consistency (like a universal rule that should be applied for balance): I would never advocate any absolutes. This is an understanding that role playing games can be more than a set of rules...and are. These can change from group to group...even including a complete adherence to the written rules.

So, when I hear "I don't like it when my character was saved" I can't help but think the GM did a poor job of running that small section of an encounter. Because you should never 'know' when a character was saved: not because it is wrong and should be hidden...but because it was right...and blends seamlessly with the rest of the fun adventures that you've already been having.

It is my firm opinion that no one should be able to tell the difference between a fudged game and a non-fudged game if done well. The real key to both is immersion and fun.

 

[Fifth Element]

Deciding something before play starts (we'll use Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, I'll put that nasty dungeon over there and I'll use this nasty random critter chart for this area over there) feels a lot different to players dealing with it (at least to me it does) than the DM adjusting stuff on the fly.

Absolutely, I'm not claiming equivalance in everything here. Just that claims of impartiality tend to be exaggerated.

Information is essential. However, the information should be AVAILABLE if the players go look for it (or there should be clues if the players take the time to investigate them like burned trees or whatnot) but it's not the DM's responsibility to make sure that the players have a certain set of information before entering a certain area.

Of course, and that's not what I said. But since the DM bears the responsibility for even making that information available, that means he bears a great deal of the responsibility for how things go in the game. Maybe he thinks his clues are very clear but they end up being mistifying to the players, even when they have all the information the DM had made available.

Also you don't have to have a perfect level of impartiality and just because the DM can't be perfectly impartial doesn't mean that some level of impartiality isn't a good thing.

No value judgments on my part either! Striving to be impartial, as much as is humanly possible, can certainly be a good thing. Claims of perfect impartiality, on the other hand, are self-deluding.

I disagree. I feel it is completely possible for me to (for a lack of better words) stop thinking as myself and instead put myself into the mindset of someone different. I've had many people tell me that doing so is impossible, but I can only respond that it must be possible if I'm capable of doing it.

Or, logically, that you don't realize you're not actually doing it.

Listen, I'm not saying it's wrong to not be completely impartial. No one is. But saying you're a completely impartial DM, and that any dangers that befall characters in your game are of their own making (as if often done, not saying you're doing it) would seem to be absolving yourself of any responsibility for things that happen in the campaign.

 

[jasper]

As the Great Barber S. Todd said, "Kill Kill Kill". Most of times I would fudge but my players knew that was my gold standard.

 

[haakon1]

I remember one post on this forum talking about whether to fudge if a fight gets too hard and someone saying that they'd had well over a 100 fights in the campaign he was DMing and that he was proud to have planned them out well enough so that only one had been too hard. That left me scratching my head and thinking "how the hell can a DM plan out a session so that you know what each fight will be and how hard it will be before the PCs ever show up? Does what the PCs do during the adventure not make any difference?"

I rarely know precisely what the PC's will do in a session.

Last live session (my live campaign rarely meets, email campaign is close to continuous) is a good example of the "not exactly expected." They had a choice to negotiate with some monsters, or fight them. (I had prepped for both eventualities.)

They actually chose to negotiate, but have the monsters use a gate to come out of the dungeon to more neutral ground. The PC's couldn't decide whether to take the deal or not, until the Rogue loosed an arrow over the heads and the monsters decided to "counterattack". In the fight, the PC's tried to use the gate (a platform like the Star Trek transporter pad, but voice activated, and only by a Dwarf standing on it) to get rid of the Big Bad, but screwed up (they forgot how it worked), and the Big Bad ended up taking the paladin and the druids dog through, fighting them 2:1 until the other PC's managed to follow.

No, I had not predicted the fight would go like that, in the teleport room, with gating back and forth - I wasn't even sure there would be a fight, with it turning out the party wasn't sure they should either. Good on them for finding a memorably way to play through the challenge (and all survived, with no fudging).

In my experience players don't like winning a tough fair fight as much as they like cheating and getting away with it.

Being clever, not cheating. It's like the difference between tax avoidance (a multi-billion dollar effort by an army of accountants and lawyers) and tax evasion (a felony by actual cheating).

 

[haakon1]

I feel it is completely possible for me to (for a lack of better words) stop thinking as myself and instead put myself into the mindset of someone different.

Nod. Isn't that kind of the point of D&D? I know two roleplayers from college who went on to be philosophy professors . . . philosophizing about "Theory of Mind" (can you understand another POV? what is understanding? etc.) and role playing aren't exactly antithetical pursuits.