GM Impartiality


Gamer Life General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the things that keeps getting brought up in this thread is GMPCs ruining GM impartiality. So my question is, is GM impartiality really that important? I'm not necessarily saying this in reference to GMPCs. For example, what if the GM is rooting for the PCs, fudging things to give them the upper hand, and refuses to kill off characters? Is this a bad thing? If yes, why? Does it change things if the players are unaware of this?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ivan Rûski wrote:
One of the things that keeps getting brought up in this thread is GMPCs ruining GM impartiality. So my question is, is GM impartiality really that important? I'm not necessarily saying this in reference to GMPCs. For example, what if the GM is rooting for the PCs, fudging things to give them the upper hand, and refuses to kill off characters? Is this a bad thing? If yes, why? Does it change things if the players are unaware of this?

It's a bad thing when the players don't want it. It's a good thing when they do. Most questions like this simply don't have black and white answers, every group has its own specific needs and should be treated individually.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ivan Rûski wrote:
One of the things that keeps getting brought up in this thread is GMPCs ruining GM impartiality. So my question is, is GM impartiality really that important? I'm not necessarily saying this in reference to GMPCs. For example, what if the GM is rooting for the PCs, fudging things to give them the upper hand, and refuses to kill off characters? Is this a bad thing? If yes, why? Does it change things if the players are unaware of this?

Basically what Matt said: it depends on if the players want an impartial GM. I think it also depends on the player's definition of impartiality; is it fair for the GM to retcon an encounter if the GM realizes he designed it in an unbalanced way? What if the encounter was one or two levels below the party level, but the GMs dice refused to roll below an 18 and the players couldn't roll above a 3?

The answer is going to be different for each group. Some groups want the GM to fudge, but they don't want it to be too obvious. Others want everything to be played straight and out in the open; if they think the GM cheated (for or against the party), then it ruins their sense of accomplishment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't use GMPCs, so I can't really speak on that front. In terms of GM impartiality, though, as a GM I'm absolutely rooting for the players. I want the PCs to succeed, so the players can experience the entirety of the campaign.

At the same time, the enemies I place before the PCs don't have any such considerations. They will do their best to kill the PCs (or otherwise hinder them, when appropriate). Some times this means one or more PCs end up dead; I don't "fudge" rolls to keep them alive.

So, I'm not impartial, but at the same time I don't actively skew the odds in one group's favor (other than the way the game already gives PCs the upper hand through the CR system and wealth system).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's nothing wrong with GM partiality if it makes the story better (for everyone, not just the GM).


At this point I'm not that in favor of GMPCs. NPCs who are important characters or redshirts for the PCs? Sure.

The story is supposed to revolve around the PCs as the protagonists. If I wanted a central GMPC I might as well be playing tea party by myself like Cartman talking about how kewl I am and how awesomely I beat my own adventure. I often see/hear about GMPCs being like that guy in the Gamers 2 movie. The paladin there to babysit them and keep them on track that's super awesome.

Again if you want to push the game in one direction and win it or lose it as the DM you might as well be playing by yourself. Let the PCs succeed or fail on their own.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MattR1986 wrote:
Again if you want to push the game in one direction and win it or lose it as the DM you might as well be playing by yourself. Let the PCs succeed or fail on their own.

Could there POSSIBLY be ANY middle ground? Between a DM forcing an outcome and letting the dice fall where they may? If the DM fudges one dice roll in an entire adventure path, does that automatically instantly invalidate the PCs succeeding on their own for the entire AP?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
MattR1986 wrote:
Again if you want to push the game in one direction and win it or lose it as the DM you might as well be playing by yourself. Let the PCs succeed or fail on their own.
Could there POSSIBLY be ANY middle ground? Between a DM forcing an outcome and letting the dice fall where they may? If the DM fudges one dice roll in an entire adventure path, does that automatically instantly invalidate the PCs succeeding on their own for the entire AP?

Better question. If the GM is playing a legitimate PC with zero impartiality whatsoever, with honest dice-rolls and with player appropriate knowledge applied in game, how is that the GM playing by himself?

I don't GMPC, but I've played with GM's who've done it right and I would do so again. A properly-handled GMPC is just another party member, no better, no worse.


edit: and also my comments above had nothing to do with roll fudging.

As for partiality, every DM *Should* be partial. If you were so impartial and simulationist that you were like "well if they went to this forest there actually is supposed to be a Red Dragon. Ya they're 1st level but I can't take sides" the game would be over quickly. You are trying to create challenging situations the PCs can theoretically win at.

At some point though you need to be impartial and do what you think the Setting would do. Do I want a TPK? No. But if the party craps in the punch bowl, frenches the queen, and gives the king the middle finger, and I know that there are 20 3rd level guards in the room, they need to act how they are supposed to act. I often say that PCs make decisions and I just play out the in-game consequences i.e. how the setting would appropriately react.

I have fudged rolls in the past, especially ones that were about to send a PC to negative Con. I think the best way is to provide an appropriate safty net. I've made my current campaign very difficult and I've had them start with 3 hero points and they'll get one once per level. It means I'm not going to be fudging rolls though now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather this thread not turn into another GMPC thread. I started this one as it was off-topic for the GMPC thread.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

On the player side of the coin. I had a GM who was too impartial. Party after party was TPKed, often one after another in quick succession on the same boss in an adventure path. It got to the point where I was no longer enjoying playing the game with them because it was too disheartening and frustrating to lose character after character, and have to make a new one just because of a few bad rolls to a death spell, or something similar. TPKs interrupted the story of the AP, and in some cases made it difficult or impossible to continue. I rather he would have fudged a few rolls for the sake of the game and player morale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MattR1986 wrote:
As for partiality, every DM *Should* be partial. If you were so impartial and simulationist that you were like "well if they went to this forest there actually is supposed to be a Red Dragon. Ya they're 1st level but I can't take sides" the game would be over quickly.

When I GM, I don't run a pre-built world where things are already in place. As a player, however, if I ever found out that there was supposed to be a Red Dragon in that forest and that it was changed to save the party and provide them with an 'appropriate challenge' I would feel pretty cheated that the world shifted around me like that.

If your world is a certain way, please, let it be that way. Give the party warnings, let them know the kind of stupidity they're considering and how likely it is that somebody is going to die if they pursue their course of action. But let us choose whether or not to be dumbasses with the information you give us. Leave us to live or die by our choices.

The Exchange

Ivan Rûski wrote:
So my question is, is GM impartiality really that important? I'm not necessarily saying this in reference to GMPCs. For example, what if the GM is rooting for the PCs, fudging things to give them the upper hand, and refuses to kill off characters? Is this a bad thing? If yes, why? Does it change things if the players are unaware of this?

Basically whatever is fun for the players and the GM is fine. If everyone enjoys it then it's all good. Now me personally, as a GM, I am rooting for the PCs but I don't fudge to give them the upper hand or refuse to kill off characters. I make sure that my players know this going into the game and if they don't like it then they have to decide if they want to game with me or not. I know that my style is not everyone's style but it is the one I like and I tend to find that the majority of players I have gamed with agree. Springing stuff on people or keeping play stuff "secret" just isn't how I roll.


How often do you survey every geographical area before going through it? You may pass through that forest to be going somewhere else and not run into anyone to warn you. It kills immersion just as much to remove it as to spoon feed narrative/hints to Players where "You go through this desolate and empty town" *looks at notes* "oh wait ya there's a guy there. Bewaaaare the dragon in the forest!"

The point anyway was that you need to make an appropriate narrative that doesn't necessarily simulate a realistic environment. It becomes pretty coincidental that in EVERY show/book/movie WHATEVER, the good guy fights appropriately powered bad guys that as the hero gets tougher so do the bad guys. Or, the good guy loses to the bad guy, somehow always gets away, and is able to not be killed by the bad guy until he is strong enough to take him on.

In a "real world" there's a good chance at some point in a campaign a 18th level necromancer will come squash at least one or two of the 3rd level party. You don't do that because it's dickish and doesn't serve the story and isn't fun for anyone.


Copy/paste the first four quotes and then sixth and seventh. You've got more or less what I would have written.

Only I'd have been more needlessly pedantic and probably less clear about the things I was saying. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Copy/paste the first four quotes and then sixth and seventh. You've got more or less what I would have written.

Only I'd have been more needlessly pedantic and probably less clear about the things I was saying. :D

Someone may have stumbled on a new posting style.


Jaelithe wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Copy/paste the first four quotes and then sixth and seventh. You've got more or less what I would have written.

Only I'd have been more needlessly pedantic and probably less clear about the things I was saying. :D

Someone may have stumbled on a new posting style.

It happens from time to time. :)

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Abed once said in Community:
"The GM has to be impartial or the game loses all meaning."

But Abed tends to need black and white answers.

I try to remain impartial, and any important NPC that players recruit to join the party I try to treat the same as the PCs. Which means that I abide by the dice rolls on that character (good or bad).

I run APs and I don't add a GMPC, specifically so that players can bring along any NPC that they feel would contribute to the adventure.

Burnt Offerings is way better if Ameiko helps the PCs out.

Kingmaker is cooler if the PCs bring along NPC council members on some adventures.

Jade Regent is great for NPC allies.

BUT these guys are always NPCs, they're second fiddle to the PC heroes, and if the players decide: "It's too dangerous for them to join us on this bit", then as GM I have the NPC abide by that. It's the group's show but the PCs are the stars.

That's why it's important to be impartial, so when a party member gets torn to shreds by burning skeletal trolls, the PCs don't feel it was because you were picking on them.


My take on impartiality is that no GM can truly be impartial.

That being said, the goal to strive for is the level of partiality that most suits your group.

At my table, until we added Plot Cards & Hero Points, my players preferred I honestly gave them a slight "soft glove" treatment. They wanted the risk of dying, but not because the GM messed up encounter difficulty, or rolled four crits in a single round against a single PC.

Now that they have the extra wiggle room of Plot Cards & Hero Points, I've heard no complaints if I hit them with APL+4 encounters, and don't even think about budging a die.

Or when the APL-1 skeleton encounter resulted in each of the eight skeletal champions critting at least one PC.

So, I find when my players are pre-equipped with an agreed upon "get out of trouble" mechanic, they're far more tolerant of a very impartial GM.

That being said, even when they did hope that I fudged the occasional roll to save their skins, they want my dice behind a GM Screen, so they don't know about it.


to avoid the GM-dice being mean to players, I only let my named villains crit. regular "mobs" don't crit. However, they never fumble eighter...


I also play behind a screen, but don't fudge rolls; I do it so the players
-don't know what I rolled
-don't know why
I sometimes roll dice just to ratchet up tension lol.
I have only recently become the impartial type because I think the main appeal of my game is challenge; sure I rp, I know how to make good encounters but the challenge is now real. I'm not guiding them along and they take immense pride in that. I notice the same players that in other games not paying attention, sleep-walking through the game do the exact opposite in mine; they pay attention to and take notes so they don't miss something, they try to come up with plans, and put in serious effort; these are the same players. I guess they rise to the challenge. One thing about being partial, it can be construed as capricious; if the GM intervened to save X then I died in Y, how is that fair? The PC's get entirely dependent upon favors and missed info falling out of the sky and act accordingly, and might become entitled to favorable treatment; they might not have X because the GM will just provide.I've had players try to bribe me in real life for something in a game, it's a slippery slope. I feel it's entirely not possible to feign impartiality, you are or aren't and players will expect either out of you. You can't give one player a break on something and tell another "dem's the dice", it's inconsistent, arbitrary, and is unfair.


Personally, it doesn't make your life as a DM great when you can't stop rolling 20s in a game. Players start to get suspicious and even if you roll in a box or somewhere where they can see it, it doesn't make them feel much better. I've in the past ignored confirming crits a few times to avoid likely sending a PC far past negative con. I'm trying to play with Players, not TPK an hour in so we have nothing to play, lol.


What I was talking about when I said not being impartial was not intended to mean playing favorites. For example, I don't kill characters, unless it is the last session of a campaign. My players don't know this. I do this because I plan things, sometimes months in advance, that involve particular characters backgrounds. I make sure to touch on every PCs background at least once in a campaign, giving them a spotlight session. I dislike adding new PCs late in a campaign. And it sucks to have your character die in a lousy way. If a player came to me and said they want their character killed off, then sure I'd do it, but I've never had that happen. I have had players want to change classes, and I've let them. I'm fairly certain I've gotten more attatched to certain PCs than their players. But I've never had anyone complain that nobody died.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ivan Rûski wrote:
What I was talking about when I said not being impartial was not intended to mean playing favorites. For example, I don't kill characters, unless it is the last session of a campaign. My players don't know this. I do this because I plan things, sometimes months in advance, that involve particular characters backgrounds. I make sure to touch on every PCs background at least once in a campaign, giving them a spotlight session. I dislike adding new PCs late in a campaign. And it sucks to have your character die in a lousy way. If a player came to me and said they want their character killed off, then sure I'd do it, but I've never had that happen. I have had players want to change classes, and I've let them. I'm fairly certain I've gotten more attatched to certain PCs than their players. But I've never had anyone complain that nobody died.

I don't do that. I've killed characters in the game before, characters I liked who had subplots I was really hoping to resolve.

But it had the effect of reminding the players that their characters are in very real danger. That if they want to find out what happens to their characters they better play smart and survive.

After a certain level it doesn't even matter whether you pull your punches or not. With spells that can raise the dead, death is just an inconvenience.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
After a certain level it doesn't even matter whether you pull your punches or not. With spells that can raise the dead, death is just an inconvenience.

Just an inconvenience if the party has a divine caster capable of rezing or doesn't spend all their gold ASAP. Which neither is the case for my current group.

I'm by no means saying anyone is "doing it wrong." I am well aware that my play style in this matter is in the minority, and my reasons for doing so are quite selfish. But just because I don't kill PCs doesn't mean there are not consequences for their actions. I'm not afraid to kill NPCs, or break favorite equipment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To address the OP.

We had a horrible game master many years ago that would funnel magic items to his character via GMPC. It was obnoxious to say the least.

I don't think we have had a GM controlled PC since he got the boot.

I think whenever you have a GM controlled character you have a conflict of interest. Once you put on your GM hat your do not have room on your head for the player hat.

Besides, the GMPC is just a lazy way for the GM to keep the players on the railroad tracks of his story.

DM of the rings nailed perfectly how Gandalf was the ultimate annoying GMPC..

-MD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This lady does two hats at once just fine

That being said, YES Gandalf was a horrendous GMPC. (But trust me, not all GMPC's are bad. I've played along GMPCs who I would not have wanted to be pulled out of the game, because they were fun to play with and contributed a lot to the game as players who happened to also be GMing the campaign.)

(To the OP, sorry about the GMPC thing coming up again, I didn't start it though :P)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To a certain extent, it is about trust. If you do not trust the GM, it begs the question of why you'd play with them. I've seen that from time to time, where people talk after the game about how bad the GM was and how they hate playing .. and I always ask, "Why are you still playing with them? No one else can possibly GM?"

If you don't trust the person to play fair (for a given value of fair; for me the GM should be neutral-impartial for the most part) then someone else should bone up on the rules and step up. Let the GM know why you are unhappy, communicate and all that jazz. Being unhappy while you play is just a waste of time.


^ Add what those two (kyrt and knight) said to my previous "supposed" post, with the same alterations as listed there.

EDIT 3: add TriOmegaZero's thing right below this! Man, claiming other people's brilliance for my own is so easy!

Look Jaelithe! It's happening! It's really happening! I feel so freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

EDIT: I'm still going to make big posts, though. Someday. Soooooooooooooommmmmmmmeeeeeedaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy.

EDIT 2: like today!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Impartiality is a continuum, not a binary switch.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Impartiality is a continuum, not a binary switch.

When DMing, is it a Q Continuum? ;)

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / GM Impartiality All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion