DM as Facilitator or as Adversary?

Mark · Jul 19, 2006

Is the DM meant to be more of a Facilitator or an Adversary?

Grymar · Jul 19, 2006

Easy...a facilitator, adversarily.

He needs to be ref, creator, master planner, friend, and occassionally vile enemy of the party. The key is that he has to balance all of of those hats with one final goal...the players having fun.

If he is just and adversary, he'll always win. The challenge is to be a very good, but beatable adversary.

Ourph · Jul 19, 2006

Not a facilitator at all. An adversary part of the time, an impartial referee the rest of the time. The game and the players are the facilitators.

BluSponge · Jul 19, 2006

In play? A facilitator. The GM is akin to a host. His job is to see to it that everyone has a good time. Part of that involves producing a scenario that will challenge his players.

Tom

Mycanid · Jul 19, 2006

I'd say neither or "other" ... a DM is supposed to be EVERYTHING, but especially a good storyteller IMO (but that is off the topic I guess).

Crust · Jul 19, 2006

Never, NEVER adversary.

Endur · Jul 19, 2006

DM is meant to be a facilliator. Sometimes though, its hard to avoid the impression of being an adversary.

The DM moves the Troll. The Troll crushes the PC. The PC looks at the GM and cries. This causes an adversary impression.

Henry · Jul 19, 2006

Crust said:
Never, NEVER adversary.

I agree, in that he shouldn't be an adversary, even though he runs the adversaries himself.

If you mean "adversary" as in, "he wins if all the PCs die", then no. But he's got to learn to be as crafty as his players are going to be, or simulate it through occasional fudging, if he wants to challenge them.

Mr. Draco · Jul 19, 2006

Facilatator, no question about it.

I'm reminded of Shemmeska's story hour where I've seen quite a few people ask Shemmie why his players keep playing in such a dark campaign where evil always seems to have the upper hand and what the players thought were great victories on their part turn out to be part of the plan of the BBEG. He said it was because they knew and trusted in the fact that somewhere, deep down, Shemmie [the DM] was pulling for them, and if they weren't stupid, then at the end of the day good really would triumph over evil.

That's what makes for an excellent campaign.

Stormborn · Jul 19, 2006

Henry said:
I agree, in that he shouldn't be an adversary, even though he runs the adversaries himself.

If you mean "adversary" as in, "he wins if all the PCs die", then no. But he's got to learn to be as crafty as his players are going to be, or simulate it through occasional fudging, if he wants to challenge them.

I voted facilitator, however I think Henry's comment deserves some more emphasis. The Key Phrase is "as crafty as his players are going to be." Often on these and other boards we see posts that recommend one style of DMing or condem another. Or we see people say things like "I would never want to play in your group." All well and good, but the point here is that it should depend on the players. If all the players want a game in which they are playing "against" the DM then thats fine. I happen to think that such groups are likely rare. Certainly I think that the role of the DM as established in the DMG and other products is closer to facilitator than anything else.