The "DM as antagonist" characterization, which in my experience is typically negative, may be due to misunderstanding -- or simply disliking -- the approach to the game as a game dependent on a combination of skill and chance and with a significant strategic aspect.
In a truly competitive game, much of the challenge and interest comes from dealing with the other side's attempts to win. At the opposite extreme, we have the view of the DM's role as one of helping players along, preventing disappointments that might be seen as "losing".
The original conception of the referee's role is not invested in any outcome. It is to offer a range of challenges, with (in game terms) associated risks and rewards; let players choose what to undertake; and then adjudicate fairly, favoring neither the players nor "the world".
Player choice is a key factor here. They can stay on the first dungeon level, or go down to the sixth. They can proceed haphazardly or with a plan; with daring or with caution; seeking fights or seeking to avoid them; and so on.
"Here's the scenario, where you must go and what you must do; go to it" is an accommodation to practical considerations of convention (especially tournament) play. Tournaments in particular are most easily and objectively scored on the basis of how far from the starting point bodies fall. To make the comparison of different teams' performances on as uniform a basis as possible, a fairly linear scenario is generally desirable. As the purpose is to test players' skill, random factors should have minimal influence. Tomb of Horrors splendidly fulfills all those criteria!
Having signed up for a convention game, one should expect (or at least not be dismayed by) something along those lines. Usually, one is going to play a pregenerated (and probably pre-equipped) character; in any case, the "one shot" is something quite apart from the campaign.
When the campaign itself loses its old character and becomes a mere series of just such DM-determined situations, the DM really does have some blame to take for outcomes. If it's not my choice to go through the Gauntlet of Devious Death Traps or get into a fight with the Monster Unvanquishable Save by One Magic Item, but rather the DM's decision, then the question of what's "fair" gets a bit askew.
When the expectation is of being told a story in which "the heroes" survive and triumph, their meeting ignominious ends in the "first act" is clearly unacceptable. If the expectation is of telling such a story as an "author", then the DM's contrary story-telling may be even more offensive.
Neither expectation is really compatible with playing a game in which the fortunes of pawns hinge on a combination of skill and chance to the extent that "failures" and even "deaths" are to be expected in the regular course of affairs.
In a truly competitive game, much of the challenge and interest comes from dealing with the other side's attempts to win. At the opposite extreme, we have the view of the DM's role as one of helping players along, preventing disappointments that might be seen as "losing".
The original conception of the referee's role is not invested in any outcome. It is to offer a range of challenges, with (in game terms) associated risks and rewards; let players choose what to undertake; and then adjudicate fairly, favoring neither the players nor "the world".
Player choice is a key factor here. They can stay on the first dungeon level, or go down to the sixth. They can proceed haphazardly or with a plan; with daring or with caution; seeking fights or seeking to avoid them; and so on.
"Here's the scenario, where you must go and what you must do; go to it" is an accommodation to practical considerations of convention (especially tournament) play. Tournaments in particular are most easily and objectively scored on the basis of how far from the starting point bodies fall. To make the comparison of different teams' performances on as uniform a basis as possible, a fairly linear scenario is generally desirable. As the purpose is to test players' skill, random factors should have minimal influence. Tomb of Horrors splendidly fulfills all those criteria!
Having signed up for a convention game, one should expect (or at least not be dismayed by) something along those lines. Usually, one is going to play a pregenerated (and probably pre-equipped) character; in any case, the "one shot" is something quite apart from the campaign.
When the campaign itself loses its old character and becomes a mere series of just such DM-determined situations, the DM really does have some blame to take for outcomes. If it's not my choice to go through the Gauntlet of Devious Death Traps or get into a fight with the Monster Unvanquishable Save by One Magic Item, but rather the DM's decision, then the question of what's "fair" gets a bit askew.
When the expectation is of being told a story in which "the heroes" survive and triumph, their meeting ignominious ends in the "first act" is clearly unacceptable. If the expectation is of telling such a story as an "author", then the DM's contrary story-telling may be even more offensive.
Neither expectation is really compatible with playing a game in which the fortunes of pawns hinge on a combination of skill and chance to the extent that "failures" and even "deaths" are to be expected in the regular course of affairs.
