I think much of the traditional style of play Gary promoted certainly promoted the fun of players being challenged by the GM, and there being a clear line between what a player's role is and what the Refs role is
I think that is clear, and as far as I can tell not in dispute.
I don't think you can use the laid back conversational tone of the first DMG as evidence Gary was belligerent and antagonistic towards players
I don't see anyone in this thread making assertions about how Gygax ran his games (other than you and [MENTION=12324]Odhanan[/MENTION]). I am talking about elements of his GMing advice.
My best guess is that, in fact, at Gygax's table various sorts of "gentlemen's agreements" were arrived at, organically, through play. But nowhere does his DMG discuss this as a possibility, nor how it might be achieved systematically.
More broadly, I would say that the whole presentation of AD&D suffers from putting forward particular results of play (achieved by Gygax and his friends) as procedures for play by others. It almost has a cargo-cultish dimension, as if by aping Gygax's outcomes you'll get the same play experience, even if the actual procedures that Gygax used are not adopted. A very simple example is all the verbiage in the AD&D PHB about fireball, and what it does and doesn't melt and so on. Contrast this with original D&D or Moldvay Basic, which clearly leaves this as a matter of GM adjudication. (It also fits rather uncomfortably with the Item Saving Throw table - which personally I think is a better procedure than the fireball spell text, if only because it brings into play the overall strengths of saving throws as a mechanica.)
The issue of arms race escalation in dungeoneering - pit traps! 10' poles! pit traps which trigger only when you poke the floor 10' or so in front of them! - is a well-known phenomenon. The passage that I quoted is an expression of it. However exactly it was solved at Gygax's table, I doubt that it was solved using the crappy procedure that he recommends in his DMG. (As I have already said, I am guessing that the solution was some form of gentlemen's agreement.)
when I see people throw around the term adversarial GM it seems like there is an agenda at work where folks are trying to say there is something inherently flawed about traditional styles of play
Perhaps you are needlessly projecting. I am talking about a particular passage from Gygax's DMG, and the GMing style that they advocate. (There are others I could also produce if you want.)
If you think this is good GMing advice, by all means explain why - perhaps with examples of how it has worked for you. If you think that Gygax didn't really mean it and didn't follow it himself, then it seems that you are agreeing with me that it is not good advice.
If you are trying to tell me, though, that
no one ever followed it, I can tell you from personal experience that that is not true.
i don't know, to me it feels like you are drawing on an exagerated caricature of early D&D to promote a game like torchbearer and its approach over a more traditional style of play. Adversarial is not a neutral word. It is not a mere synonym in this case.
I explained in my post how "adversarial" goes beyond being a synonym for "GM as opponent" - in particular, it refers to a particular way of using the ingame fiction to try and discipline the players for their choices.
As for Torchbearer, I'm not trying to promote it. I don't own it, have never read it and currently don't intend ever to play it. (I gather encumbrance rules are very central to it.) But I am guessing that it deals with the listening-at-doors issue, and I am guessing it has beter advice than the advice that Gygax gives.
As I said, either Gygax's advice is good or not. If you think it's good, explain how. If you agree that it's not - which is the impression I'm getting - then why are you objecting to me taking the same view? And if you think that it's not good advice, why do you think that? I think it's not good advice because - in actual application - I think it sets no boundaries on what the GM will do to block player information-gathering options. (After the rooms full of silent enemies, what happens when the PCs gain access to X-Ray vision? ESP at will?)
The real issue is that the game play encourages the players to take steps to gather information - and Gygax expressly encourages them to do so in his PHB - but that the procedures for resolving that tend to make the game unfun. The obvious solution to this issue is to change the incentives - in which case you move away from old-style play, which probably isn't desirable in this case - or change the procedures. The most obvious way to change the procedures is some form of rationing. The only rationing device that Gygax puts forward is wandering monsters - which make ingame time itself a commodity for the players - but he is clearly aware that this on its own may not, even will not, do the job. I'm sure other and better rationing options could be thought of by those who like this sort of play.
Or have I misunderstood you, and you really are defending rooms full of silent monsters, and other gotcha techniques, as the best way to deal with the issue that Gygax is talking about?