DM as Facilitator or as Adversary?

[buzz]

Maye we should call the truly bad adversarial DM's the "slaughter DM's" instead.

I'd agree. An "adversary" is part-and-parcel of a game; you need to be competing against something (be it a person [i.e., a "game"] or the game itself [i.e., a "puzzle"]).

I think the typical "killer" DM isn't so much an adversary as they are a cheating bastard. IME, they usually achieve their ends* by manipulating the game in unfair ways. "Ah, but the fireball actually burned the straps that hold your platemail on, so your AC is really only 13! C'mon, that's what would realistically happen!"

But, merely throwing difficult circumstances my way that tests my strategic acumen... them there's good D&D, son.


* Self-esteem at the expense of others, wish-fufillment, or whatever the heck else. I've never understood the behavior.

 

[Insight]

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

I have never killed ALL of the PCs in my game, certainly not at once. PCs die over the course of a campaign. I have not had a TPK in a very long time.

 

[buzz]

'Adversary' is an inadequate term for what do, so I chose facilitator instead. "Host with the most' wasn't an option.

Despite my agreeing with Shaman and Treebore, I voted "facilitator" as well. While I may feel D&D is at it's best when I'm being challenged by the DM, I also realize that this is a preference that varies from group to group. Ultimately, you're facilitating whatever makes the game "sing" for your group... though I still think adversity/challenge/conflict is what really drives good D&D sessions.

 

[diaglo]

What is so hard about accepting that doing so is an "adversarial" role?

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.

 

[Mallus]

... though I still think adversity/challenge/conflict is what really drives good D&D sessions.

So do I, though in the games I run I like to add in a healthy dose of exploration, and interaction that isn't strictly adversarial in nature.

I like giving players a sense that they're mucking about in a "world of fantastical adventure". I'm writing that with a straight face. Mostly...

Which isn't to say I don't play adversaries to the best of their, or my, as the case may be, abilities.

D&D isn't chess. In chess I'm your adversary. I don't care if you get a chance to shine, play the game you really want to play, etc. I'm out to crush you. When running D&D, I have a completely different set of priorities. Though I'm not averse to crushing you from time to time. For the sake of your own enjoyment, of course...

 

[buzz]

D&D isn't chess. In chess I'm your adversary. I don't care if you get a chance to shine, play the game you really want to play, etc. I'm out to crush you. When running D&D, I have a completely different set of priorities. Though I'm not averse to crushing you from time to time. For the sake of your own enjoyment, of course...

I'm down with this. (He said, trying to appear "hip".)

 

[shilsen]

D&D isn't chess. In chess I'm your adversary. I don't care if you get a chance to shine, play the game you really want to play, etc. I'm out to crush you. When running D&D, I have a completely different set of priorities. Though I'm not averse to crushing you from time to time. For the sake of your own enjoyment, of course...

Crushing "you"? Is that what we're calling Rackhir now?

 

[Treebore]

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.

Wow! I guess I would find your games really boring with no monsters or bad guys to fight or traps to avoid or disable. I prefer a game with obstacles for my characters to overcome. Adversity builds character, and all that.

 

[Treebore]

Because as DM, I play their NPC allies as well as their adversaries. In fact, I try to play a wide range of different characters for the players to interact with, from the ridiculous to the sublime to the benign-yet-amusing. Mainly the ridiculous, but that's neither here nor there.

'Adversary' is an inadequate term for what do, so I chose facilitator instead. "Host with the most' wasn't an option.


Because its inaccurate. I take the adversarial role when its appropriate, but its not the only role I play, so I don't characterize my overall role as DM as such. What's so hard about accepting that?


Then we agree.


Because playing the adversaries != being adversarial.


Which truth? That your afraid to be mistaken for a Sensitive New-Age kind of guy? You've got nothing to worry about

Actually I'm trying to keep the definition of adversary from being changed to facilitator.

Plus I am sensitive, to my wife and kids needs. I don't really care about anyone else if it conflicts with my wife and kids. I'm pretty much neutral to everyone until I decide to like them as a friend or otherwise.

On these boards I'm pretty neutral. I only know 4 of the posters personally. The rest of you I can't really know unless we meet in person. So until then your pretty much just a "poster" with and avatar that I can either agree or disagree with. Kind of neat, actually.

I am finally going to GenCon this year. I hope to meet a lot of you. I hope I like everyone I meet and I hope they find me likeable. Its going to change the whole "feel" of ENWorld if I actually get to meet a dozen or two of you. I'll actually have to start giving a crap about your feelings for one. I think it will be a price worth paying though.

 

[diaglo]

Wow! I guess I would find your games really boring with no monsters or bad guys to fight or traps to avoid or disable. I prefer a game with obstacles for my characters to overcome. Adversity builds character, and all that.

wow. those are setting pieces. not the DM/referee.

obstacles to overcome are setting pieces.

wow.