The GM is BOTH an author AND a referee.
The author creates a setting, adventures, NPCs, etc. - even rules.
The referee enforces the setting and rules.
As you can see, GMs do both - but these roles are somewhat incompatible.
How can you be expected to be the impartial judge with rules you create yourself?
One method many GMs use to deal with this is separating the functions in two distinct moments:
- I'm an author during "prep", when I create worlds, dungeons, NPCs, or even random tables to sue during play.
- I'm a referee during play. I stick to the rules, respect the rolls, and do not changing the HP of an important NPC during a combat.
But, since you are expected to play both roles, some GMs prefer do to BOTH AT ONCE.
This is what "improv" is about. You cannot improv as a referee - when you do that, you are in author stance.
To each their own - but I find that confusing.
For example, an author can definitely "fudge" the dice. If he can create a dragon (or nation) out of nowhere, deciding a single hit missed is well within his powers.
This solves a lot of problems.
For example, the classic "quantum ogre". There are two doors. The PCs choose the door on the right. Can the GM decide there is an ogre behind it AFTER the PCs choose?
For example, the classic "quantum ogre". There are two doors. The PCs choose the door on the right. Can the GM decide there is an ogre behind it AFTER the PCs choose?
Well, author-GM can, but referee-GM cannot.
Likewise, is changing the result of a random encounter roll adequate? It is for the author-GM, but not for the referee-GM.
And what about "balancing" encounters to suit the level of the PCs? Same thing.
Come to think of it, this separation is the reason why I avoid "improv".
I want to use the author stance as little as possible during the game.
Maybe that is also why I feel the need to write (and sometimes publish) my own material, despite my constant urge to tinker and house-rule.
[Basic Wilderness Encounters was created precisely because of this reason. I didn't want to "author' encounters during the game. I wrote it is an author, and I use it as a referee].
And why I prefer to run other peoples' modules - and even campaigns - rather than creating my own.
To be clear, I LIKE to be an author-GM, just not during the game.
Anyway, I cannot be the first to have this thought, but I think the distinction should be more popular, and probably more discussed in game master's books.
There are probably more things to tackle around this subject.
For example, I am thinking players have a specific stance during the game (they are almost NEVER authors in my games), but it is fine to give players author role between sessions, while writing a backstory, or when scheduling a game (e.g., agreeing in advance WHICH dungeon the PCs will tackle next).
But I think this is enough for today.
I've always thought of this as wearing the "worldbuilder" (and "game-designer") hat(s) when away from the table and the impartial "referee" (and to a lesser extent, critical "game-design evaluator") hat(s) when actually at the game-table.
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly - these are two separate tasks.
DeleteThat's a well-written, pithy and usable definition. Nice work.
ReplyDeleteThank you!
Delete