# The Author Is Not at the Table *Created:* 2026-10-27, *Modified:* 2026-10-27 ![[The Author Is Not at the Table (cover).png]] *Quill Ink icon © Lorc / game-icons.net (CC BY 3.0)* *Table icon © Delapouite / game-icons.net (CC BY 3.0)*  > I think you have to wonder about a Keeper changing things so that an NPC the scenario marks as a confirmed loss survives. > > That NPC's death — even the fact that no amount of effort can save them — is part of the scenario the author put together, and as long as I'm running it as KP, I want to hold the awareness that I've been entrusted with someone's important work. > > Even if I start feeling "the way these PCs handled it, maybe it's fine to let them live," changing the ending for that reason would also rob the table of what they were supposed to experience in that scenario. I feel that kind of alteration lacks respect for the work. > > Of course, I want to carefully pick up the players' actions and feelings as they tried to save them. Drawing out what that involvement left behind in the NPC, while carrying the responsibility through to an ending that can't be saved — I think that's the KP's role too. > > It's important that the players have fun. I just can't agree with the idea that "as long as it's fun, any alteration is fine." You know, I've seen this attitude show up more than once on the Japanese side of TRPGs, and every time it makes my head hurt because it avoids the whole point of playing an RPG so hard it turns the ostensible game into an entirely different experience, intentionally or not. But worse than that, it puts the focus on absolutely the wrong person in the world. Firstly, I'm an American. As a result, culturally, I am predisposed toward individualism and local personal responsibility. This is why we are generally okay with individuals having guns. Not the least reason being that tyrannical governments are generally undesirable and the means to stop them is something that you want. But also because local decisions are far more important than distant decisions. Thinking that I'm in a threatening situation and need to protect myself is far more important than thinking that the police will come and help me when I am. If I am, by then it'll be far too late. Likewise, I don't actually give a fuck what the scenario author wanted. Do you know who's important to me when I am facilitating a game? That's right, the other people at the table. Why? Because they are sitting there looking at me and hoping that I will help them have a good time, just as I'm looking at them and hoping they will help me have a good time. Do you know who's not at the table? The guy that wrote the scenario. He has nothing to do with me. At best, he has some of my money. At worst, I gave him a download. That's it. That's our only interaction. That's our only overlap of responsibility. My responsibility is to the other people at the table, just as their responsibility is only to each other and to me. None of us give a rat's ass about the scenario author, except for a vague sense of gratitude that they provided us a jumping-off point to have our own fun. That there is critical, because the whole point of playing a TRPG is to actually play the game. The process of playing the game involves players making decisions as their characters in an effort to make a difference to the world, maybe in big ways, as in stopping a global catastrophe, maybe in small ways, as in protecting a dog who's just about to be kicked. If I, as the facilitator, step in to take away their ability to change the world in gross or subtle ways, I am removing their agency in a literal sense and totally obviating the need for them at the table. After all, if the scenario author has told me exactly what is possible and how it must come to be, then what do I need players for? What difference do they make? What advantage do they provide? Why should they even bother to play the game if the players come up with a good plan that can be executed through the proxy of their characters and the challenges of the unknown are met by luck or good grace, but none of it means anything? Why shouldn't I let the characters intervene in an NPC's death just because the scenario author said no? Fuck that guy. Who cares what he said? The characters stepped up and met the challenge. Let them have the fruits of their success. Does that mean that they can change the end of the scenario? Fuck yes, that's the whole point of playing the game. Perhaps the scenario sets a potential outcome if the characters fail, and perhaps even the outcome can only be affected somewhat by character success. Okay, fine, but let them have their success. The players and I are at the table. The scenario author isn't there. I don't care what they think. I don't care what they think of the play. I don't care what they think of the characters. I don't care what they think of me. They can fuck themselves. The only thing I'm interested in is that the people at the table have a good time. That's my job, perhaps my only job within the context of playing TRPGs. I will go one step further than the position the original poster here is disagreeing with. They say that they disagree with *"as long as it's fun, any kind of alteration is fine."* I say, *"Any kind of alteration is fine for whatever reason you want to. It doesn't matter. The scenario author has no power and shouldn't. Any kind of alteration is fine."* If somebody shows up at your table and expects to have the same experience as somebody else did at their table just because you're running the same scenario, they aren't looking to play a game. They are definitely not looking to play a TRPG. Send them off with people of like mind and a copy of a screenplay to read around a table, because that's what they want to do. That will always have the same outcome. Everybody left will be grateful to be rid of them and have a better game for it. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.