DM as Facilitator or as Adversary?

[gizmo33]

Is there anyone who answered "adversary" who has, so far, failed to kill all of the PCs in their game?

 

[Jdvn1]

I didn't think there was anyone who believed a GM should be an adversary.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

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

That is my opinion as well.

 

[T. Foster]

I see the GM primarily as impartial referee or judge, secondarily as "narrator" and stage-manager, tertiarily as adversary, never really as facilitator.

 

[Zimbel16]

Neither

I find both terms inaccuarte, so I'm not voting. The GM's purpose in the game is to help entertain the other players. Although it's a different role, that's the exact same purpose that all the other players should have in the game.

 

[EricNoah]

Definitely a facilitator. He's the players' eyes and ears and in that role he must be both completely reliable and yet neutral. He needs to be able to feign ignorance as he plays the part of the opponents, even if he's hearing information that could destroy them. This isn't a game he can win, or lose; but he sets up situations where the PCs have a chance to fail, or to succeed, but forces neither outcome on them -- and either way they're having fun.

 

[Barak]

I make it a big point to appear to be an adversary. I express glee when a PC die, I express a bit of chagrin when they run over a NPC that was supposed to be tough, or easily defeat a clever trap/whatever.

Of course the truth is very different. I'm somewhat neutral, pulling for them a bit. I avoid any situation that would most likely lead to a TPK, and I'm not really gleeful when a PC die (unless it's out of sheer stupidity, but that only happened twice so far. And even then, I'm not exactly gleeful, more.. Amused).

The reason for that is that my players -enjoy- it. They like feeling like they've -achieved- something by "beating" me. They trust me and know that I'll be fair, but they also know that I won't cuddle their PCs.

 

[the Jester]

Rather than either-or, I'd say that this is actually a continuum.

No good answer for me- but if 1 is all facilitator, and 10 is all adversary, I'll call myself around a 6.

 

[EricNoah]

All of my players are also DMs, and specifically have DM'd me either a lot or at least once. For us, the illusion of "Rrarrr! I'm the adversary!! Wink-wink!" doesn't fly because we know all of the tricks of the trade. It's like designing a funhouse for guys who design funhouses for a living. We admire a good solid design, we ooh and ahh over something innovative or different, and we sympathize when something doesn't work out as well as planned.

I get the greatest pleasure, as DM, out of setting up a challenge and seeing the players stretch their tactical thinking, use their available resources (including things like environment/terrain) to their advantage, make gutsy choices, and utlimately I like to see them victorious. Doesn't mean I hand it to them. But I'm definitely rooting for them and excited when they succeed. I'm certainly not interested in beating/defeating them -- that's not part of my DM vocabulary.

 

[DaveMage]

I get the greatest pleasure, as DM, out of setting up a challenge and seeing the players stretch their tactical thinking, use their available resources (including things like environment/terrain) to their advantage, make gutsy choices, and utlimately I like to see them victorious. Doesn't mean I hand it to them. But I'm definitely rooting for them and excited when they succeed. I'm certainly not interested in beating/defeating them -- that's not part of my DM vocabulary.

Ditto that.