Should the game be PC's vs. DM

[Lord Mhoram]

Bit of a rant.. and this is the way I look at it. Liberally sprinkle IMO all thought it,.

I personally hate the term referee, as that implies one side against another and to me that is not what should be going on. You have referees at sports games or wargames, not roleplaying.

The GM should give challenges to players, but not to the detriment of enjoyment. In another thread someone kept mentioning that they wouldn't ever take sub optimal tactical choices in combat, even if it were in character to do so because he didn't want the time he spent playing and working on the character to be lost. I agree with that, in general, and think it is part of the GMs job to make sure that doesn't happen - so a player in that position can make suboptimal choices in character and never feel threatened that doing so will automatically cause the character to die. Failure =/= Death, and shouldn't. The "I fail I die" attitude kills gameflow and game enjoyment worse than anything I have ever seen - to me the game should not be a tacitcal exercise of player vs GM. Too often players get so paranoid that they spend to much time at every door, level or encounter that it getts boring for other players of the GM. The characters should be challenged, but not neccessarily the players.

The game is a co-operative story, as it unfolds. The GM is the guide to that story, but not the author- he is only one of 5 or 6 authors, with the players being the rest. The story is what unfolds by the characters reactions to npcs, setting and combat.

Given, I gm primarily superheroes as a Genre, but I did a 6 year long fantasy game, and in the last 16 years, I have never had a character die on me. The characters have lost fights, or failed in thier objective, but died... nope.

And for those that might respond with "Well, if there is no chance of death, I'll just take extreme chances, because I know I won't die" - the responce to that is the idea that the character doesn't know that, and just like choosing to take suboptimal tactical choices is roleplaying within character, so is that.

 

[awayfarer]

It's already been said so I'll keep this short. If it's really a DM vs PC's than the DM wins every time. As the person who sets up the game all he/she needs to do is make an encounter unbeatable or hell, just say that the world explodes.

 

[SpiralBound]

Should the game be played as player's vs. DM. I mean, should the DM try to kill the pc's at most turns, or even try to make things as deadly as possible, or should it be a cooperative game. Is it a competative game, is it a game of outsmart the DM.

It can be either, and either style of game can be fun. I don't think that it is an issue of should roleplaying be one or the other, it is more an issue of what does everyone want to play?

I think that if a game is to be played in the style of "player's vs. DM", then this should be something that everyone wants and everyone should at the beginning agree that this is what the game will be like. Then players can craft their characters and the DM can craft his adventures with this in mind. In my experience, the problems with competitive roleplaying start when not everyone agrees with or was even aware that this style of play was in effect. Exampls, a bunch of players find themselves under a constant barrage of attack from the DM when they were expecting collaborative play, a DM gets frustrated with his players because they keep ignoring his plotlines in favour of torturing and slaughtering all the NPC contacts he creates, a lone player wants to roleplay a specific character concept and the eother party members start complaining that this character isn't "pulling it's weight" in combat and "doesn't deserve equal share in party profits", etc. If everyone is upfront about it and all agreeing to play the same style of game, then there shouldn't be any problems.

Also, if your group is playing competitively and you're getting tired of it (or vice-versa), then perhaps it is time to suggest a switchover in play style for a little while just for a change of pace.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

It can be either, and either style of game can be fun. I don't think that it is an issue of should roleplaying be one or the other, it is more an issue of what does everyone want to play?

I agree totally there. I said on a thread on the Wizards board on a playtyle thread - Just find a group that fits your style and approach and away you go.

 

[Merkuri]

The attitude of the DM can greatly influence a game. Personally, I don't like games as much when the DM comes at it from an angle of "this'll kill 'em for sure!" I don't want a DM that actively seeks my character's death. Perhaps some people do, but I put a lot of time into making my characters.

I want a challenge, yes. I want my character to risk death. The kind of DM I like is the kind that creates encounters and says, "this'll challenge 'em!" rather than, "this'll kill em!"

The DM is there to make sure everyone has fun, because that's the point of a game. Personally, I think it would get old fast if my characters kept dying and each time they did the DM cheered. I'd rather come very close to dying several times, and when it actually happens the DM expresses sympathy rather than joy.

The bad guys under DM control can seek the characters' deaths, but when the DM himself seeks it--meaning the world itself is out to kill you--that can lead to some pretty paranoid characters who want to go home and hide under the covers all day. Until the hoard of assasin ninjas leaps in through their window, of course.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I tend to be a DM with an approach that becomes more uncaring as the game progresses. At low levels not killing the PCs is something of a challenge and I have to take pains to have internally consistent but not insta-kill threats in the adventures. As they go up in level I begin to widen the scope of the game and begin introducing the leading elements of larger plot arcs. Here too, I have to make some effort at keeping the threats within the party's limits or find ways of letting them find out that something is out of their class (many times it involves teaching the group that they can and should do this).

At later levels I stop worrying so much about having level-appropriate threats and switch to having plot-appropriate threats. By this point the group understands that BBEGs exist in quantity and many of them are beyond the party. They have at least the rudimentary knowledge of identifying the magnitude of the threat they face and should have the ability to figure out what kind of retribution a BBEG might consider appropriate for certain actions.

At this point, I let things happen to the world and the PCs must react as best they think appropriate. I, in turn, have the rest of the world react in a way I think is appropriate. If they are smart, they at least attempt to second-guess me to have an idea of the consequences of their actions. Maybe they decide a BBEG's plan is too risky to directly interfere with and they do their best to make more powerful forces for Good aware. Powerful forces for Good tend to be rather busy (all those BBEGs) but within the limits of current events, they will provide the best support they can. Appealing to the king in peace time may result in an entire battalion of soldiers being sent to stop on the BBEG while in a time of war you might get a writ of Royal Authority, the loan of a few useful magic items, a dozen soldiers to provide an air of authority (and some tactical advice), and a bag of gold to bribe whoever might need bribing that the king really doesn't want to know about right now.

The long-term plots deviate dramatically based on the party's actions (BBEGs hesitate to target allies of the King) and it's rare taht I know anything beyond the intentions of the BBEGs more than three of four game sessions into the future. Heck, I don't even know whether some power players are BBEGs or not, since party actions could sway them to be allies or enemies.

I don't consider it "cooperational" because I'm not interested in a "story" per se as much as versimilitude. I guess you can say I'm a "setting simulationist." By the same token it isn't "confrontational" b/c the PCs can decide to play a "run for the hills" game where they avoid whatever overarcing plot I originally came up with.

 

[FrostedMini1337]

IMG the lethality of the DM is directly proportional to how many times you've said the phrase "Just spot me like 10 bucks this once, and I'll get you back when I get paid"

Really though, no. That's bad mojo.

 

[Thunderfoot]

This question is kind of wonky to start with. (To OP - this is not a slam against you or your question please read on)

So far I can agree with any response here so far - after DMing campaigns for about 23 yrs, let me start by saying that a well run campaign, adventure, night of playing is neither, both and somewhere in between your stated question.

During the creation process a DM needs to be Lawful uncaring in that the setting (used from here on may mean world, dungeon, or any other part of campaign, scenario creation) is made in such a way as to be believable (whether fantastic or realistic), cohesive and alive.

During the tweaking phase the DM should be adversarial in nature - individual challenges need to be tough, innovative and thought out from the perspective of the monsters, NPCs or situation in question. If the party has all fire magic the DM should NOT put in creatures that are immune to fire just to nerf them. However if the adventure takes place in the shadow of a volcano, then having those monsters around is probably not out of touch with reality. Traps should be believable and deadly, they are traps, they are designed to kill, maim and injure intruders, not just annoy and delay. That being said, I believe that many traps that are created inside the RPG genre are just unbelievable and frankly crappy (I know I've created a few doozies in my time). And even the lowly kobold or goblin should defend their homes as if they are defending their homes (for a unique perspective read this comic from the beginning), they should probably act like it.

Then during play the DM should be all of the above and more - innovative in trying to have the monster defeat the party, helpful when the party contacts NPCs for help, neutral during rulings and above all else FAIR. Be open to ideas, reward out of the box thinking, role play and strategy; punish ignorance, stupidity and laziness. The even handed situation created will be fun. Power gamers, actors, newbies, hangers-on, recreational gamers, armchair generals and devout grognards will find your table to be JUST what they were looking for.

I have been running a campaign with another GM for over three years now, we have had at one time up to 16 players at the table with a regular attendance of about 11, most people would say we should cut that into two groups, but the players don’t want to, why, because they are having a good time and that is ultimately what the DMs responsibility is.

But then, that just my two coppers.

 

[Agent Oracle]

Play Hackmaster, that game IS players Vs. the DM. Well, it has very strong player Vs. DM overtones.

 

[Agamon]

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.

But even here, the DM should take into account the adversary they are pretraying.

A zombie? It just shambles towards the closest foe and hammers on it until it falls with no regard for tactics.

A pack of wolves? They'll be sneaky and use flanking tactics, but as soon as they get hurt, survival instinct kicks in and they flee.

A group of kobolds? Average inteligence, but quite clever with ambushes and traps. They'd never fight face-to-face against a superior, or even equal, force.

Then, once you start getting to ancient beings of great intelligence, like a lich or aged dragon, this is when you can use your best tactics, as they haven't lived so long without being able to destroy any opposition in their way. Beings like this should have underlings the party has faced, and have intel on their abilites, and therefore be able to combat those abilites to the best of their own ability.

So, while a DM should do thier best to create a challenge for PCs, they shouldn't use thier best tactics all the time.