The role of the GM

[trooper6]

I wanted to expand upon the idea of neutrality this is important to the way I see the GM role.

I think it is important for the GM not to be invested in anything that happens internally in the game. I think the GMs investments should all be meta.

What I mean by this is: the GM should not be invested in the success or failure of any NPCs. They should not be invested in the plot going this way or that. They should not be invested in the survival of this NPC or that town. A GM can be invested abstractly, in that they created this world, but they shouldn't be invested in particular outcomes. If I have a big bad and the PCs kill that big bad on turn 1...that is fine...because that is what happened. The PCs decide to avoid this town? Okay...that is what happened.

For me, the GMs investment should be in meta concerns: are the players being challenged, are they all getting spotlight time, are they all having fun. Is the game working for everyone?

The one place where I am more heavy handed is in campaign creation. I propose a couple of campaign frames and get player buy-in. Then I am pretty active in making sure the character concept the player comes up with fits the frame. I will reject or ask for reworkings of characters that conflict with the frame. I was running a cyberpunk campaign and a players wanted to run a character who was really a prince of the fey realms. I said no to that. I was going to run a Banestorm where the players were on a three hour boat tour and one player wanted to play a serial killer so he could go on a murder spree once through the banestorm. I also vetoed that one. But once the PCs are approved and the campaign buy-in is settled, players can do whatever they want and I won't tip the scales one way or the other.