Should the game be PC's vs. DM

[shilsen]

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".

More, actually. You know you have to sell some of your humanity when you become a DM, right?

 

[Jupp]

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.

Well, first off, it should never be the DM vs. the PCs. It should be the environment vs. the PCs. That means that the DM creates the locales, monsters and NPCs according to the players level. The players should have the possibility to get help, support and information within the limits of the environment. Thus far its a cooperative game where the DM gives the players things they can work with to solve/overcome encounters. But from that point on the DM should play within the limits of the environment to make the life of the PCs a hard one (depending on the actions taken by the players, this could shift to the positive or negative side of things). The DM plays villains or general encounters according to their level, intelligence and experience. The PC's should certainly not be held by the hand through a tough encounter just so the DM can continue with his plot. If the PCs mess up and get all killed, it was probably due to something stupid they did or because they did not prepare themselves properly. Having said that, I think the players should always be aware that there are things out there in the swamp that could come and get them, fast. BUT, they should (whenever possible) have a feeling that if they get into an encounter that there is the always a victorious way out of it (at least as long as it's about the ongoing campaign/adventure). Just putting Orcus in front of their way as a keyed encounter is propably not the best route

Should the DM be basically a storyteller, leading the PC's along a story so that whatever will break the story should not be done.

No, really, no. If the PCs should run themselves into the grave then that is the way they have chosen. I as a player would be p-off if I would have the feeling that the DM did take us by the hand through a campaign. There is no reward in it and it does not create any feeling of accomplishment once the campaign is over (if I want that kind of experience I'll go read a book). Though if the party would, or is about to, fail due to a mistake by the DM (non-scaled key encounter, mistakes on the rules, etc) then I could see the DM activating the "Wand of DM failure correction +5". Because it would suck for both the players and the DM if the party dies due to a misinterpretation of the rules or something like that.

Is it a competative game, is it a game of outsmart the DM.

As said above. It should be environment vs. the players. And at least the key encounters to finish the goal of the adventure should be scaled to the parties level. There very well can be some monsters or encounters in the area that could be way over the head of the players, but they should not be part of the ongoing adventure. The players might even have a peek at those encounters/monsters, but if they (after all the "uuuh bad munstah!" and "scores of heroes have failed to take it down! *runs away screaming*) still want to try it, play it out to the fullest, knowing that it was their choice to do it, no excuse and no mercy.

So, the environment (not the DM) should certainly try to "get" the PCs, but only to a certain limit that would create a feeling of menace and "constant" danger for the PCs. They should be reasonably impressed by the next dungeon so they start to plan ahead and prepare for it before they actually enter it. They should certainly not enter it carelessly (or unprepared), fully knowing that the DM "will sure try to keep us away from any harm because he wants to tell us that cool story".

Just my 0.2 cents

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

PS: As for DMing a "story" and "guiding the PCs through the plot", I won't even go there. I am absolutely against what I call "narrativist GMs" and the notion that an adventure is a "story" to be told to or by the players.

QFT.

Calling me a storyteller is an insult. I am a referee if anything. My players aren't interested in theatrics, cooperative storytelling, or any of that jazz. They like to have thier noggins challanged by the game and win through clever tactics and timely big rolls. However to say that it is DM vs Player is really only true if I stick to the design I put together at the start. It is no fun to "cheat" in my favor by doubling hit points, raising AC, or stuff like that which any DM could do if they really wanted to "win". But I figure if I put a tribe of goblins in there they will do whatever they can to "win" since they don't want to die.

 

[Henry]

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.

In my opinion, that's the D&D Miniatures game, which I don't play. I'd hate for the DM to be reduced to "resource limitations" or similar, because at that point, we might as well break out the D&D minis, or Heroquest, or Heroscape, or a similar game. It's not an RPG, where the players have the feeling that ANYTHING can be thrown at them -- they know, intrinsically, that whatever they face will be within a set resource range, and always winnable. I prefer a bit of an element of the unknown, myself.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Henry is a wise man.

 

[Odhanan]

I agree with Henry. Limitating the DM would only destroy a part of what I like about RPGs -imagination, escapism, the feeling to be somewhere, somehow, and being surprised by infamous and marvelous events, characters, situations and monsters thrown at me by the DM.

That's a modern sickness to want to create laws as soon as something goes wrong in this world. This completely negates the responsability of individuals over their own actions. In other words, being conscious as a DM of the dangers of an adversial game or its opposite is all a person needs to avoid the obvious traps they present. After, that's just a question of experience as a DM. You run the game, make mistakes, and learn from it!

 

[LostSoul]

Hmm, I think what I'm arguing for is less power for the DM. But the way I see it, it would be more fun for me - as a DM! I wouldn't have to worry about challenging the players without challenging them too much. I could just go for it and push as hard as I could, without having to worry if I'm cheating or whatever.

There are some issues with that (Killing the King and his huge army: EL = APL + 4) but someone else can solve those.

 

[Hjorimir]

As a DM I focus primarily on the story of the game while at the same time appearing a little adversarial but really holding their hands just a bit. I do find that at least appearing as the adversary rises the stakes for the players, which helps them get into their A-game (and that is something I really enjoy in my games).

One of my players confided in me that while playing in other DM's games he really enjoyed the treasure, but in mine he really enjoyed surviving. I'm not sure if that is good or bad, but they keep coming back. I did try to tone it down a LITTLE bit after he told me that, but I have to be me at the end of the day.

I am happy to report that I don't see the players falling into a smash-door routine too much; they respect their opponents - to say the least.