In a recent RTFM episode, Chris Bisette talked about how they wish there were more session reports. However, they aren’t the session reports I’m reading out there, which are usually narrativisations of play (the kind of reports we often write as records for our play groups themselves). They’re suggesting we talk about how the referee plays the game and why.

This stirs me, a little, but the problem is, “How did I adjudicate the session I’m running?” is a hard question to answer; I don’t know how I do that. I’ve been running variations of D&D since 1993 or so, inconsistently, and since 2010 consistently, so a lot of what I do is automagical, with no real conscious consideration.

Which, like: That’s exactly the type of referee we want active conversations about how they adjudicate. Like, an unsaid part of the conversation on Trophy Gold that exploded a few weeks ago as a result of the Bones of Contention review was, is it actually that Ram/Alex/Nova are all very experience referees that makes us feel like Trophy Gold is good? Does it simply lean into the strengths of experienced referees?

So, I reached out on the socials and discord, and got a lot of responses to the question “If you wanted someone to write commentary on how they ran their elfgame, what questions would you want answered?” Thanks to everyone who contributed, I won’t name everyone here, but you know who you are. I’ll add that Chris themselves linked to their own attempts at doing so. I’m going to distill it down into a proformer, that I might be able to use to help me verbalise some things that are going on when I run. I’m not running a regular game right now, though, so it may be a little while before I have a chance to implement it (although, I am writing a Mothership module, The Tragedy of Grimsby-Almaz, right now, so perhaps we’ll get some playtests to talk about). I might just apply it to a game that I’m playing in, though, as a test.

1. What did I change about the module? Why? How successful were those changes?
2. What rulings that weren’t rulebook supported were made, and why did I make them?
3. Did I have to work around the rules in order to facilitate play? How?
4. How did I use procedures to facilitate play?
5. What did I modify “behind the screen”, and why?
6. When did I tailor things to my table instead of randomising them?
7. Were there any pain points in the session, and how did I respond?
8. Were there any emotional or triumphant moments, and did I or how did you facilitate that?
9. How did I maintain pacing during this session? Did I have to work to balance attention between players?
10. Was there any prep that felt wasted or unused on reflection?
11. When did I have the most fun this session? Why did I think those parts were fun?

I tried very hard to reduce it to 10 questions, but failed. I removed some higher level questions suggested by Chris Chin and others, as well, deciding instead to focus on within-session dynamics, on refereeing rather than designing, as much as that distinction is tenuous.

Anyway, I’ll try to remember to apply some of these questions in writing future session reports, to make them more of a study into how I referee them!

15th October 2023,

Idle Cartulary