IS Your GM Out To Get You (Serious)

[Reynard]

As the flipside of the jokey thread, let's talk about adversarial GMing -- specifically, when and how it might work, and when and how it is a problem.

I do not believe that it can never work or be fun. I think if everyone is "in" and the goal is "challenge" then a GM taking an adversarial stance against the PCs can work and be enjoyable. Now, it requires some ground rules, because the GM can "do anything" and I don't think anyone finds arbitrary death fun. But if the players trust their GM to "play fair" as far as the rules and expected challenges are concerned, I can certainly see an assymertrical "battle of wits" as a really great time.

I have managed this in specific circumstances, adventures or encounters, but never as a whole campaign style of play. Going for the throat during combat is my usual method of play, and I have been known (in the right campaign with the right players) to use evil traps and such. But in general I want the PCs to win even while I want the players to worry, so I am not a total RBDM.

So, what do you think? When and where, if ever, is it okay for the GM to be out to get you?

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I ran a lot of D&D4E LFR scenarios back in the day, and at mid-high levels I’d typically ask a group if they had RRoT feats, the magic dice, frost-based feats or radiance builds. If they did, I’d say something like this:
“I can run this as a standard friendly GM, and with your optimized characters you’ll stomp all over it and have no issues. Or, I can run this within the rules and scenario, but playing it as nasty as I can. Up to you which you want”.

Virtually every group went with the second option and we had a ton of fun. I used readied actions to dodge alpha strikes, did hit, run and heal tactics to waste enemies encounter, climbed high up walls and shot missiles, did a lot of hiding and a lot of running. Never killed a character but downed quite a few, and I got good feedback, so for me, that worked.

For a campaign, it would be too tiring and against my style to keep up. I will play hard some sessions, and when running a horror campaign, especially against a highly intelligent adversary, I typically go no-holds-barred at the end (so, quite often, everyone dies … but dramatically!) but I don’t think I could do it consistently.

 

[jdrakeh]

I haven't really run into this for years, but I have had a DM who refused to reward creative thinking and punished characters for such because he didn't think he could/should deviate from module boxed text which, in the end, produced the same results as active antagonism. That campaign folded pretty quickly because of it.

 

[CandyLaser]

When 4e was just coming out, I ran a bunch of "Dungeon Delve" events at Gen Con with what was then called the RPGA. These were relatively short two-hour sessions that were essentially just three combats back to back, designed to show off the combat system, and there were prizes for getting through the full set of encounters. That was a context where adversarial play was expected and desirable, IMO, as it echoed the way old-school tournament play went (and still goes, if you sign up for tournament events at many cons).

There are also games that have explicitly adversarial elements. Paranoia's one, and it's played for laughs; at least in the last couple of editions GMs are told to change the rules on a whim in order to confuse, mislead, and punish players. Of course, in Paranoia it's all in the service of comedy, so it might not really count. The upcoming Hollows encourages adversarial play during the big combats; it's designed to emulate your Soulsborne games, so brutal, uncompromising GMing during combat is thematically appropriate.

 

[payn]

As the flipside of the jokey thread, let's talk about adversarial GMing -- specifically, when and how it might work, and when and how it is a problem.

I do not believe that it can never work or be fun. I think if everyone is "in" and the goal is "challenge" then a GM taking an adversarial stance against the PCs can work and be enjoyable. Now, it requires some ground rules, because the GM can "do anything" and I don't think anyone finds arbitrary death fun. But if the players trust their GM to "play fair" as far as the rules and expected challenges are concerned, I can certainly see an assymertrical "battle of wits" as a really great time.

I have managed this in specific circumstances, adventures or encounters, but never as a whole campaign style of play. Going for the throat during combat is my usual method of play, and I have been known (in the right campaign with the right players) to use evil traps and such. But in general I want the PCs to win even while I want the players to worry, so I am not a total RBDM.

So, what do you think? When and where, if ever, is it okay for the GM to be out to get you?

For me it’s DCC tournament style OSR games. Push your luck see what ya get.

I’d not do this “beat the GM” style in anything but a tourney skill play challenge.

 

[R_J_K75]

I don't think anyone finds arbitrary death fun

Is there any other kind unless the DM is actively seeking, planning to kill a PC? Characters die, it happens either because a player does something dumb, they get bad dice rolls, or they enter into a situation or combat that is above their abilities to survive. As a DM in certain circumstances if I inadvertently created an encounter that was way too hard for the players and I can come up with a logical reason to save a player's character I will, but I have never to my recollection ever set out to kill a player's character on purpose.

As the DM by nature of the game there's is always an element of DM vs the players. Not maliciously or out of spite but just because they are running everything else in the players world. They're supposed to challenge them, run their adversaries, even good and neutral NPCs. Take an NPC trying to hire the players to do a job, if the player's make too many demands, the NPC can just walk away. They aren't going to just roll over and give the player's whatever they want. The NPC is offering them "x" to do "y", take it or leave it, DM vs. the players in a manner of speaking.

As a DM it's my job to give the players exciting and challenging encounters, and make sure they have fun. I'm not just going to automatically say yes or no. I want encounters that the PCs can overcome but also have the chance to see them perish. I guess I'm impartial, I don't really care if they succeed or fail either way as long as I'm fair. If I was a player in a game with a killer DM, I'd quit, as I think most players would too.

 

[Theory of Games]

99.9% of GMs IMO are not out to get the PCs. It's too easy to kill the characters. Even high-level ones. What most GMs are is neutral: they try to play as fair as they can.

What's spoiled the hobby are the Soccer Helicopter Mom-GMs who repeatedly fudge dice and present puny combat encounters in order to make sure the PCs never get a boo-boo. Add to that D&D5e's safe haven of death saves and broken CR and we get an entire generation of ttrpg gamers who think ANY form of serious challenge to their characters is a sign of a deranged GM.

I've had plenty of TPKs but I never had a player complain about it because they understood that either (1) they made bad decisions or (2) their dice turned on them. It happens. Roll up a new character and let's go

 

[Staffan]

Is there any other kind unless the DM is actively seeking, planning to kill a PC? Characters die, it happens either because a player does something dumb, they get bad dice rolls, or they enter into a situation or combat that is above their abilities to survive.

Don't forget the sacrifice play – "You lot run away/deal with the problem while I stand here and tank the big scary monster!". Also known as "the Gandalf".

That said, there are certainly situations where adversarial play can be fun and expected. But it's by no means a universally enjoyed style.

 

[R_J_K75]

That said, there are certainly situations where adversarial play can be fun and expected. But it's by no means a universally enjoyed style.

I agree, I wouldn't want to play in a game that is adversarial whether it be the players v. DM or vice versa. I was advocating for player v. DM game play that's in good faith, that everyone agrees on and enjoys.

 

[The Soloist]

In 45 years, I only met one DM, who was out to get us. It was during the first years of AD&D 1e. The guy was older and a captain in the army. Playing in his game felt like an army grunt trying to survive a deadly training obstacle course. It was a sadomasochist experience. Didn't last long. We gave him the boot, and I became the DM.