IS Your GM Out To Get You (Serious)

[Golden Bee]

DMs can make challenges AND be a neutral arbiter?

 

[Maxperson]

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?

My feeling is that if the DM is playing fair, it can't be adversarial. It's the DM's normal job to put traps, obstacles, challenges, etc. in front of the PCs that they can overcome, fail to overcome, or even result in PC death or TPK.

Adversarial DMing comes into play when the DM starts abusing his power when dealing with the players and PCs, which moves the game into unfair territory.

 

[Reynard]

My feeling is that if the DM is playing fair, it can't be adversarial. It's the DM's normal job to put traps, obstacles, challenges, etc. in front of the PCs that they can overcome, fail to overcome, or even result in PC death or TPK.

Adversarial DMing comes into play when the DM starts abusing his power when dealing with the players and PCs, which moves the game into unfair territory.

I'm not sure that would be a commonly held belief. You can build an encounter per the CR rules, and then be absolutely bloodthirsty in implementing it (gang up, coup de grace, etc).

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure that would be a commonly held belief. You can build an encounter per the CR rules, and then be absolutely bloodthirsty in implementing it (gang up, coup de grace, etc).

That's not adversarial DMing, though. That's the rules and playing the world as it would react. Sometimes creatures keep eating the PC that is down. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes creatures attack as a pack. Sometimes they don't.

It would the DM siding with the PCs(opposite of adversarial DMing) for none of that to occur.

 

[Reynard]

That's not adversarial DMing, though. That's the rules and playing the world as it would react. Sometimes creatures keep eating the PC that is down. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes creatures attack as a pack. Sometimes they don't.

It would the DM siding with the PCs(opposite of adversarial DMing) for none of that to occur.

That's an interesting definition of adversarial. As I said, i don't think it would be a common one. In my experience, most people say killing downed PCs, for example, is adversarial GMing.

 

[Maxperson]

That's an interesting definition of adversarial. As I said, i don't think it would be a common one. In my experience, most people say killing downed PCs, for example, is adversarial GMing.

Then most people would be wrong. Having a creature kill a downed PC has nothing inherently to do with me personally as DM trying to beat the players. I could be doing it as me trying to beat the players and be a killer DM, but I don't. While I do occasionally have monsters go after down PCs, it's only when they would logically do so from an in-fiction viewpoint. At no point does it have anything to do with me vs. my players.

 

[Reynard]

Then most people would be wrong. Having a creature kill a downed PC has nothing inherently to do with me personally as DM trying to beat the players. I could be doing it as me trying to beat the players and be a killer DM, but I don't. While I do occasionally have monsters go after down PCs, it's only when they would logically do so from an in-fiction viewpoint. At no point does it have anything to do with me vs. my players.

That you don't do it from an adversarial stance doesn't mean it it might not be considered adversarial.

 

[Lanefan]

DMs can make challenges AND be a neutral arbiter?

Of course they can.

All that's needed is to, as far as is practical, design the challenges well ahead of time - as in, before you even know which characters will be facing said challenges.

Then, if-when some characters do encounter said challenges, present them fairly and without modification.

An example: somewhere in the setting there might be a stereotypical Evil Wizard's Tower containing - wait for it - an Evil Wizard. You-as DM know this Evil Wizard is of X level and has Y spells and Z items at his disposal, and that his tower has defenses A, B, and C and also contains other occupants J, K, and L; you know all this because you've made notes and set it up such ahead of time, maybe even as far back as when you were designing the setting before play began.

So now you've got a tower. A neutral-arbiter GM then goes on to present the challenges of that tower as written without regard for the capabilities etc. of whatever characters have decided to tackle said tower, and lets things fall out as they will even if it means the PCs become smears on the pavement or - flip side - the tower turns out to be a pushover for the high-powered group.

 

[Maxperson]

That you don't do it from an adversarial stance doesn't mean it it might not be considered adversarial.

It seems kinda silly to me to consider non-adversarial, adversarial.

 

[Lanefan]

That you don't do it from an adversarial stance doesn't mean it it might not be considered adversarial.

That such would be considered adversarial as opposed to just the normal run of play is in itself a rather sad commentary.