Should the game be PC's vs. DM

[seskis281]

I don't think there's any hard and fast rule to answer this question - the best solution is to say that a DM manages the flow of a game to both challenge and reward the expectations of the players.

That said, I like a game with a good bit of menace. Which, in agreeing with Treebore, doesn't mean I'm out to kill the party. But I surely want them to feel the presence of danger - it is sword and sorcery and if my characters never blinked at some creepy undead I'd be doing something wrong.

It's like the difference between a good action movie and a bad one. A bad one may have all the effects, explosions and bang but if the audience sits there going "well duh, (insert generic action star) is just gonna kick ass and win" it doesn't really have a lot of staying power. Then there are films like Die Hard, where Bruce Willis got the crap kicked out of him, had to pull shards of glass from his feet, and even though deep down you probably know he'll come out on top there is a good sense of "human" struggle there to keep the audience locked in to the tension.

Above all, the last thing a DM should do is swing either way too far on the scales - simply give players open-ended ways to kick ass and always "win" or by constantly trying to kill them. The same thing is true for "story." I think it's bad to railroad a party along a narrative path, but it's also the DM's job to establish some frame and story path that the characters can get into, help create and ultimately feel that it is as much their story as the DM's.

So in essence the DM is the ultimate negotiator and improvisor, working to keep a good happy medium between the above tuggs and pulls of play.

The one last codicile is that the DM should have the final say on rules... someone has to make decisions on what's appropriate or not, and without a "ref" to make those calls you could easily have 5 people with rulebooks spending hours arguing rather than have one person who has the authority to say - nope you can't flank here.

Well, that's my two cents.... and after reactions I've gotten on other threads let me just say again - it's JUST my HUMBLE opinion... nothing more.

 

[Kurashu]

I think to an extent it should be both PC vs DM and storytelling. It it up to each group to discover their balance of the two. No story is complete without a villian; and no villian is complete without a story. Given there are certain exceptions to this. How compelling of a villian or how powerful of a villian is completely up to the DM and group.

 

[Morrus]

I mean, should the DM try to kill the pc's at most turns,

Sounds like a short game. If that were his aim, how could he fail?

"Your characters die. The end."

Or, if he wanted to string it our a little:

"Your 1st level characters are attacked by a Great Wyrm Red Dragon".

 

[seskis281]

Sounds like a short game. If that were his aim, how could he fail?

"Your characters die. The end."

Or, if he wanted to string it our a little:

"Your 1st level characters are attacked by a Great Wyrm Red Dragon".

Or, to quote the signature of someone else around the boards...

"You face death itself... in the form of 1d4 Tarrasques."

 

[GSHamster]

In my view, there are two roles that the DM plays. First, there's the DM as setup guys. This is where the DM plans out the adventure, sets up the villains, and generally lays everything out. Here the DM is not really on anyone's side, but is interested in the story and making sure everyone has fun.

The second role is that of combat adversary. Here, using the tools set up in the previous role, the DM does her level best to kill the party. So this role takes on more of a PC vs. DM slant.

The setup DM chooses a dragon of the appropriate level or type to constitute a good challenge for the PCs. The combat DM plays that dragon and tries to kill the PCs. The setup DM fails if she sends a stupidly overpowered dragon to fight the PCs. In my view, the combat DM fails if she lets the PCs walk all over an appropriately powered opponent.

 

[Someone]

Sounds like a short game. If that were his aim, how could he fail?

"Your characters die. The end."

Or, if he wanted to string it our a little:

"Your 1st level characters are attacked by a Great Wyrm Red Dragon".

It´s actually a bit more complicated than that. A killer DM -usually- doesn´t use patently "unfair" encounters, he designs an adventure that´s "winnable" and the makes all that´s in his hands to make the PCs not win it.

However, while that´s exactly what most of us do, the killer DM most of the time plays his NPCs as complete morons bent on the PCs destruction, witholds important information (or makes extremely difficult to adquire it, like -as an exterme example- dont revealing that there´s an open pit in front of the PC "because he didn´t ask"), makes the means to beat encounters or solve problems illogical and/or arbitrary and deals harsh punishments for difficult to avoid mistakes.

When he get his TPK he then brags about how his adventure was "very easy" and the party didn´t do what "anyone with half a brain" would have done.

 

[Delta]

Tournament Play: Yes.
Home Play: Possibly not.

 

[Tsillanabor]

I don't think it is an either/or situation. I try to let the players go wherever they want to, and I'll have an adventure waiting for them when they get there. I try to make them think though, and if they play stupid during a fight they may very well not survive.

 

[Gold Roger]

It's PC's vs. the bad guys (or good guys, if you're so inclined).

On the most part I think the DM and the group has to be cooperative and work on having fun together.

Usually that means I work with my players. I allow about every rule, I'll change classes for them, create new feats for them, accomodate everyones playstyle as much as possible, in the end they get the magic items they want, they have part in the world creation and if they have cool plan, I usually let them pull it through. I want the PC's to be cool and in the end I always root for the good guys (hopefully the good guys). That what it means to me to be a non adversial DM, to be a DM that wants his players to have fun and not "win" the game.

But there's another face the DM has to wear as well. The DM plays the evil guys after all and he's also that cruel twisting element of fate that tend to befall true heroes before their eventual triumph.

In that role the DM sets up terrible deathtraps the players have to overcome, creates villains that pester and frustrate them over levels and years before they can finally be beaten, brings back nemesi at the worst moments, brings back every bad turn the PC's have taken to bite their collective or individual ass, maims then, runs them into unexpected complications, destroys their items and tempts them with evil. But even then the game is cooperative to me in that sense, that it is only possible when the players trust their DM that all the terrible stuff he does in the end serves to improve the game. And of course it does, we all now the elation of finally overcoming a frustration, how we become more involved with a real challenge, the fondness of something we gained through real accomplishment.

I've killed 5 PC's through the last two sessions (in a group with four players, one of them didn't loose her char), but I'm no adversial DM.

 

[LostSoul]

I like a competitive game, DM vs. Players.

That said, a DM has to walk a fine line. How much challenge is too much?

The DM does whatever he wants at the game table.

What if the DM had rules that said, "You can only introduce this much challenge?" A DM has resources, or something, that determine how much he can throw at the PCs. Suddenly he can't do anything, and suddenly the DM doesn't have to worry about crossing that line - he can just play.

I think that would be really cool.