Should the game be PC's vs. DM

[seskis281]

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

Agreed - How appropriate an encounter or challenge is should always be paramount on the GM's mind. So I would add "scaling the adventure" to the party's level and experience is also important. Not to say that on a rare occasion a party shouldn't encounter something that they should run from rather than fight, but "outs" from those encounters should always be available and the DM shouldn't be opperating from "this'll really nail 'em" mentality.

John

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I think wise players play as if it were DM -v- players.

 

[Corvidae]

Wow,
One of the best threads I have ever provoked.

Basically, after reading the "is this fair" polls, it seemed that many people were seeming to fall into the groups of adversarial DM or hand holding DM. I knew things couldn't be that simple, so I thought I would just come on out and ask the question, Which should it be, knowing that if I asked it so simply, that everyone would put their own spin on it, or explain that it is not that simple.

Thanks for helping me out guys, I like seeing what people think on this topic.

John

 

[delericho]

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 agree with all of this. Well, except that I've only been DMing for 18 years.

 

[Treebore]

I agree with all of this. Well, except that I've only been DMing for 18 years.

Its nice to know that people really know what it means to be a DM, isn't it?

I have to admit I was getting worried for a few weeks.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

This is a silly question... cooperative obviously.

As a DM there is nothing that the Players can do with their characters that I can't counter with a custom built NPC, Monster, etc. They can't pick locks or disable traps that I set with a DC that is too high for them to roll. The player character party only succeeds by the good graces of the DM.

That all being said as a DM I generally treat a game as a story I want to tell. If I work againt the players instead of with them then generally they will either get fed up with the game and quit or will go off in a direction counter to where I want to go with the story.

 

[DerHauptman]

While I never try to kill a player or players...I make the challenges real, the NPC's smart and the way they defend their homes, lives and culture similar to the way I'd defend my own.

I never have fudged a roll in favor of either a monster or a PC, which I think is a good thing.

I have played in games with DM's who did both, and one game where the DM only fudged for the players. It was boring and predictable. It was like watching soft porn...we were going through the motions but there was no real threat there.

I root for my players to win, I sometimes secretly root for a neat NPC that was fun to make but never ever is the game adversarial in nature at my table.

I am neutral, certainly not lawful since I am willing to make rulings outside the scope of the RAW.

DH

 

[FireLance]

Its nice to know that people really know what it means to be a DM, isn't it?

I think it would be more accurate to say, "It's nice to know that people generally agree with me on what it means to be a DM."

"What it means to be a DM" has about as many different answers as "What it means to be human".

 

[delericho]

Its nice to know that people really know what it means to be a DM, isn't it?

I have to admit I was getting worried for a few weeks.

Sadly, I don't think the standard of DMing, globally, is particularly high. Now, I should note here that I'm not talking about the people I happen to have disagreed with in the "Is this fair" threads.

But given the quality of games that I've seen and played in, the horror stories I periodically hear, and some of the antics that are described and condoned on certain other messageboards, I find myself wondering how the game managed to survive its first year.

I would argue that someone really needs to produce the definitive master-class of how to DM. However, I also think that the DMs who are generally most in need to said master-class are generally the ones who would be least likely to pay attention to it.

So, instead, I'll say this: if and when you find a good DM, do whatever you consider reasonable to keep him at the head of your table.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I have been in so many games where the DMs have thought it necessary to try and kill us every scene or so. They would do it in the most ignorant way possible, from just making up rules and abilities to jsut flat out say what we where going to do could not work.

Now as a DM that is your right, but i feel that if your going to take that approach (DM vs players that is) at least do it within the confines of the rules. Anyone with ultimate power (the DM is god in the game after all) can do anything, but to do it within the rules i find that it is a more satisfactory defeat for the players and victory for the DM or Vie versa.

I hate it when the Dm just does something, no if's, and's or but's about it. I have been known to be a bit of a killer DM, not for some power trip but because i want my players to think about how to beat a more powerful enemy other than hacking him to bits or nuking him from across the room with fireballs.

So if you take the versus appoach i think that it should be within the rules. but ultimatley i think the Dm should start out with that in mind but also keep in mind they arent there to beat the players, only challenge them to such a point that when they achieve victory they feel they have earned it. I never design a seemingly impossible quest just to see the players fail but to see how they will figure out how to win!