DM as Facilitator or as Adversary?

[gizmo33]

I do stupid things all the time and am not afraid to admit it or to call it stupid.

I do all sorts of things to myself that I try not to do to someone else. Or at least I try to ask permission first.

 

[diaglo]

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

Yes.

 

[EricNoah]

I see people want to add political correctness by trying to claim they are a facilitator, but that is just utter delusion.

Then I choose to live in my politically correct, deluded world. Woe is me! But I still have fun!

Quick question: When you are running friendly NPCs, people who are genuinely out to help the PCs as much as they can -- are you still the adversary?

Another way of stating my position: the game just lies there, in pieces, without the DM to facilitate play. That's what I mean by facilitator.

 

[Rel]

Then I choose to live in my politically correct, deluded world. Woe is me! But I still have fun!

Quick question: When you are running friendly NPCs, people who are genuinely out to help the PCs as much as they can -- are you still the adversary?

Another way of stating my position: the game just lies there, in pieces, without the DM to facilitate play. That's what I mean by facilitator.

I agree completely.

When I am sitting in the GM chair, I always ALWAYS want the PC's as a group to win. I don't want it to be easy and it doesn't bother me if some of them die sometimes if that's the way the dice fall. But I'm always hoping that they'll pull some bit of cleverness or miraculous dice rolling out when defeat seems assured. It is those moments that live on in our memory as "great times we had gaming".

That is not to say that when I am portraying the evil villian that I'm pulling any punches and I clearly take on the role of plotting to exploit the tactical or strategic situation the PC's are in at the moment with whatever resources are available to me. But this is "devil's advocacy" in it's purest form. I have no vested interest in the bad guy winning and in fact I hope it doesn't happen. But for the PC's and the Players to have a good experience overall, they need a worthy adversary. And in that moment I'm giving it to them.

But that is all simply a means to an end. And that end is for the players to have fun while I have fun too. And in that regard we are all, most certainly, on the same team.

 

[Mercule]

I'm not sure that "facilitator" is the word I would have chosen, but "adversary" definitely is not. If there's a wrong way to play D&D (and I'm not sure there is), it'd have to be with the GM actively competing with the players, which is what "adversary" means to me.

 

[DragonLancer]

I voted Facilitator but a DM needs to be both in equal measure.

 

[EricNoah]

I have no vested interest in the bad guy winning and in fact I hope it doesn't happen.

You know, if I have a weakness as a DM, it may be that I assume PC victory. And when they fail I'm often stumped because I haven't explored that possibility when I'm mentally flow-charting plotlines! Gotta work on that...

 

[was]

Both...

 

[FireLance]

The DM is the facilitator.
The monsters are the adversaries.
The PCs get cut, burned, smashed, bent, folded, mutilated, and occasionally hurt very badly during the course of the adventure.
The players (hopefully) have a blast.

Any questions?

 

[diaglo]

I'm not sure that "facilitator" is the word I would have chosen, but "adversary" definitely is not. If there's a wrong way to play D&D (and I'm not sure there is), it'd have to be with the GM actively competing with the players, which is what "adversary" means to me.

enabler.

D&D is a drug, mang.