DM as Facilitator or as Adversary?

[Ourph]

because i am a referee. not an adversary. in no game is the referee the adversary.

if he is. he is doing it wrong.

and if you are treating him like he is. you are playing the game wrong.

Isn't that a little disingenuous diaglo? After all, in American rules football the referee doesn't call the offensive plays for the other team or decide who to substitute in when someone is injured. The job of a D&D "referee" goes far beyond the normal scope of the referee in other games/sports. The monsters and BBEGs of the campaign aren't deciding which spells to cast or which PC to mop the floor with by themselves, that's something coming from the adversarial role the DM assumes when adjudicating those encounters.

And for the record, I voted "adversary" and I don't think I kill any more than the usual number of PCs in the games I run judging from my experience as a player and the comments I see in various threads around ENworld.

 

[Treebore]

Let me try this again. You can be 'responsible for the adversity' and not be an 'adversary'. An Army drill instructor is responsible for piling adversity onto his recruits. He's not their adversary however, he's an instructor. Its done for their benefit (well, theirs and the Army's). He's not out to 'beat' them, unlike, say, an enemy soldier during a time of war, who is rightly considered an adversary.

Likewise, a DM piles adversity onto his players. But he's not to beat them, he's trying to provide them with an enjoyable gaming experience.

If you don't like my drill instructor analogy, check out my response to buzz re: the chess vs. D&D.

I get your point, but even a drill instructor will tell you they take on a "adversarial role" while training recruits because it is found to be the most effective way to separate the wheat from the chaff and to determine which recruits are most likely going to be able to handle the military way of life.

So as a DM you take on the "adversarial role" to separate the deserving from the undeserving and award xp's accordingly.

My problem is the people in this thread who tries to insist they do nothing of an adversarial nature as a DM. That is totally baloney. You can't avoid it. Calling it facilitating doesn't change reality, just their perception of it. IE self delusion.

Plus many seem to think you can only be an adversary and have only the goal of total destruction. Not true. Refer to your drill instructor example. Yes, they are in your face, pushing you, exhausting you, doing incredibly stupid and irritating things, but it is all to test you and see if your fit and able to handle serving in the military. They are adversarial to the point recruits hate them, even talk about beating the tar out of the instructor and even talk about killing them.

So I find it impossible to accept the insistance that there is any TRUE separation between the DM and being an adversary. They can insist on using all the different words they want, but they will always fit the definition of, and be, an adversary.

Plus like a have said before. Being an adversary is not a bad thing. Its taking the adversarial role too far that makes it bad. So accept that truth rather than insisting on a reality that only exists because people insist on using denial and alternate words to create the illusion of it not existing.

Yes, a DM is a facilitator, but that in no way removes or over rides being the adversary as well. They are two parts of the many parts that makes a complete DM. To deny the reality of it is just delusion.

So if your happy with self delusion, like Eric Mona said he is, fine. It isn't like I can change it unless any of you want to be changed anyways. By the same token don't expect me to buy into or support the delusion.

 

[Mark]

Yes, a DM is a facilitator, but that in no way removes or over rides being the adversary as well. They are two parts of the many parts that makes a complete DM.

The poll says just that and asks, "Is the DM meant to be more of a Facilitator or an Adversary?" Most (90%+) belief the DM more of the former than the latter. Perhaps that is because aside from the obstacles the DM creates and opponents the DM runs, the DM is also the players' conduit to the entirety of the environment in which the PCs exist. Not a sight, sound, smell, tatse or tactile sensation is had but by the facilitation of the DM. I think you might just be hung up on the word "Facilitator" and others accept it as a fair descriptor to use for the function served.

 

[Treebore]

Very true. There are those who have also insisted that there is a total disconnect between the two. That you can be a facilitator without being a adversary. Impossible. You perform both roles, and more, as a DM.

Anyways, i've said all I really want to say. If someone wants to debate/argue anymore specifics PM me. If the PM thing doesn't work hunt me down in another thread that I am active in and let me know.

I do like to debate/argue, but i've also gotten to the point where if I keep going I'll feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall. I don't like headaches.

Have fun!

 

[Mark]

Very true. There are those who have also insisted that there is a total disconnect between the two. That you can be a facilitator without being a adversary. Impossible. You perform both roles, and more, as a DM.

Anyways, i've said all I really want to say. If someone wants to debate/argue anymore specifics PM me. If the PM thing doesn't work hunt me down in another thread that I am active in and let me know.

I may get to meet you at Gencon.

 

[Thandren]

I think the DM should be a Facilitator in that they should provide a good gaimng experiance.

I don't like DM's with stupid ego's that have fun in killing the party.

I don't like a DM that would so obviously change what was happening in the adventure detail to bugger up the players good idea's. The players then give up hope because they know the world (i.e. the DM) is so stupidly stacked against them. It's like oh no not anouther grappler, or is that the 10th impossible trap in the last five rooms. Let the DM make the game challageing yes but not stupidly so all the time.

 

[hong]

Yes, a DM is a facilitator, but that in no way removes or over rides being the adversary as well. They are two parts of the many parts that makes a complete DM. To deny the reality of it is just delusion.

So if your happy with self delusion, like Eric Mona said he is, fine. It isn't like I can change it unless any of you want to be changed anyways. By the same token don't expect me to buy into or support the delusion.

In other news, Treebore is not in fact an elf, he just plays one in D&D.

 

[Zerovoid]

I don't see the DM as an adversary. When I am preparing for adventures, I don't flip through the Monster Manual and say, hmmm, how can I beat the PC's this time? 10 Tarrasques are sure to do it!!! I also don't pick an CR and then try to build the most effective combat machine that I can with that CR. When I do that sort of planning, I am NOT trying to beat the PC's, so I don't see how that can be an adversarial role.

When playing the monsters against the party, I do take on an adversarial role, but since most of the time spent preparing and playing DnD is not spend running monsters in combat, I cannot classify the job of the DM as adversarial overall.

I think the overall job of the DM is to be the facilitator. In this way, the adversarial role is simply a subset of the facilitator role. This is why I voted for facilitator.

I don't know how many of you played the Heroquest boardgame when you were younger, but there is a good example of an adversarial DM. In that game, the "DM" plays Zargon, and evil wizard who is out to destroy the party with fiendish traps and monsters. Zargon actually wins by killing all your heroes, or forcing them to retreat, and he loses if you beat the mission successfully. Zargon doesn't pull any punches, he is out for blood. DnD isn't like that.