Benevolent GM stance

The adversarial GM stance when controlling opponents are well known. Similarly the neutral stance of the referee is well known. But to what extent can a GM have a benevolent stance?

To clarify, I am not thinking about the general benevolent GM that really strives to make the game fun for the players - I sort of assume (at least hope) that is practically everyone. I am thinking about a stance where the GM actively get to play on the player character's team - similar to how they actively try to work against them when controlling opponents.

In contrast I normally feel more bound to neutrality when controlling friendly NPCs. I sort of want to help the player characters out, but I do not know how to appropriately limit it if I let go of the more common neutral stance. For instance by making sure no friendlies are outshining the PCs in any combat, even if I as GM might see some tactics where the friendly would be able to do just that. A GM-PC is of course a huge no-no.

Anyone else having thoughts and experience around this? Is there for instance any context where you feel like you feel you are sufficiently constrained so you can really let lose to try to help the PCs, the same way you wouldn't hold back with a prewritten adversary with no (T)PK risk?

My first thought is that Benevolent GM Stance sounds like some kind of secret martial arts technique taught only to those who oppose the fearsome practitioners of the Way of the Killer GM.

My second, more relevant thought is that I've been playing so many superhero systems where death is (if not entirely optional) at least very rare and unlikely to occur due to an accidental die result. I've largely forgotten my reflex to pull punches when a PK (T or otherwise) would wreck a campaign, for better or worse. The first table I GM for with less mortality insurance baked in to the system is likely to have a rough time of things until the GM muscle memory of old kicks back in.

I only take the benevolent DM stance when running D&D, or more specifically Castles and Crusades (or in the past, Pathfinder 1E), since I haven't run D&D in years. I will usually create an NPC to fill a gap in the party. For example, if no one wants to play a cleric then I will make one and play it. If it's a balanced party that isn't missing anything I'll make a support type character, like a Bard (because, contrary to the opinions of some Bards are AWESOME ), or a fighter or similar class. The character I make is never as competent as the PCs. I started that habit back when I was still playing Pathfinder because I never wanted my players to feel like they had to make sure specific roles were fulfilled so people would feel obligated to play a character class they really didn't want to. The size of my regular gaming group has varied over the years from as little as four other players to as many around eight or more and the times when the group is smaller the likelihood of a missing healer (or whatever) grows.

I don't play Castles and Crusades often and I rarely, if ever, do the same in other games. Which isn't to say they won't meet and adventure with other NPCs, but the intent and their role is different and I play them as their character design intends.

While sleeping on this I realise we do have the firefighter stance. That is most recognisable when I think we are on the edge of TPKs. I also think this is more commonly happening if I see that the game is about to stall because the group is stuck on some puzzle, or are obsessed with some dead end red herring.

In such cases I find myself scrambling for idea for how I could help them out without overstepping the boundaries of "propper GMing". It is in a way a interesting puzzle as taken out of a super-hero story. Yes I do have the power of deus-ex machina-ing them out of the situation, but I shouldn't. How can I save them without sacrificing any principles I hold dearly?

I think this is somewhat cool, but I don't think I have seen much guidance on how to handle such a stance? I actually guess how a GM is handling this firefighter mode might have quite some impact on the feel and pacing of the game, so in that regard I find it a bit strange I of the bat can think of this being a phenomenom I have seen discussed in any particular detail beyond maybe some general "avoid deus ex machinas", "respect player agency" and in certain circles "don't go soft on the players". The advice for how to avoid stalling is also typically advocating an more adversarial stance like "throw in some new complications that they need to adress here and now". In a few mystery game types I have seen putting a new clue in front of their noses as a technique, but that again is considered quite controversial.

Curious to see if these concretisations are enough to spark more people's imagination regarding other potential stances, or how you might have developed good tools for the firefighter stance!

Hex08 said:

I only take the benevolent DM stance when running D&D, or more specifically Castles and Crusades (or in the past, Pathfinder 1E), since I haven't run D&D in years. I will usually create an NPC to fill a gap in the party. For example, if no one wants to play a cleric then I will make one and play it. If it's a balanced party that isn't missing anything I'll make a support type character, like a Bard (because, contrary to the opinions of some Bards are AWESOME ), or a fighter or similar class. The character I make is never as competent as the PCs.

Click to expand...

Same. I generally make it a low intelligence character so I can roleplay them as someone who shouldn't be making major decisions, figuring out clues and puzzles, etc.

Enrahim said:

Curious to see if these concretisations are enough to spark more people's imagination regarding other potential stances, or how you might have developed good tools for the firefighter stance!

Click to expand...

Nearly everything is controversial in some circles.

The big thing to do is preparation. Controversial as many DMs just like to make up random simple stuff or even have the players take the lead and just make up the stuff every player says on a whim. Preparation can solve a lot. A good thing to to is make an adventure or encounter or story and run it through the "dumb player test". Just role play as the dumbest player in the world and see if you can disrupt or ruin the game. Also, role play as a player who is only there to ruin the game for everyone. Then fix any problems.

Play testing works great. Take your prepared notes and go to a mall or such. Play using them with some random strangers and see how the game goes. Then you can fix and problems and have a much better game with your main group.

TPK--if you don't want them, don't play a combat game. Or just accept they will happen.

Puzzle--make them easy and remember the average Scooby Do mystery puzzle is "too hard" for most players. Really, you need to know your players. A lot of players are clueless, so don't even try to do puzzles

Red Herrings--avoid them. It sounds cool to make up a false story plot that sends the PCs off in some wild wrong direction. But it's not really fun to waste game time. So don't do it. Sure it can be fun to plant something and watch the silly players fall for it....but is it worth it?


In general, if the players get stuck, the DM should unstick them with a sledge hammer.


A good trick is to give each PC some sort of "amazing item of destiny". That they can use to get a big push, clue or such from "beyond the normal world".

I also love spirit guides. They can come in many forms from a ghost, a talking pet or a dragon trapped in a gem.

bloodtide said:

Play testing works great. Take your prepared notes and go to a mall or such. Play using them with some random strangers and see how the game goes.

Click to expand...

Enrahim said:

Curious to see if these concretisations are enough to spark more people's imagination regarding other potential stances, or how you might have developed good tools for the firefighter stance!

Click to expand...

I guess my question is, do you think it's helpful to think of DMing terms of "stances"?

Because I'm not really seeing the obvious utility from what you're describing here.

Enrahim said:

To clarify, I am not thinking about the general benevolent GM that really strives to make the game fun for the players - I sort of assume (at least hope) that is practically everyone.

Click to expand...

It definitely isn't practically everyone. Most adversarial DMs have no such goal. A subset of sandbox DMs will not admit to having that goal (only to not actively sabotaging the game). I've definitely played with DMs, especially in the 1990s, who were not for one second thinking about "making the game fun for the players" - even a couple who seemed to be intentionally doing the opposite.

I think the actual "benevolent DM stance" is precisely this - the DM who is "a fan of the PCs" and trying to make the game fun, more than anything else.

I think what you're describing isn't "benevolent", it's "playing a GMPC", isn't it? That's what it sounds like.

I think the only time that can work without you really just "playing both sides" in a dodgy way is when enemies are constrained in their choices, like in certain RPGs that can be run solo - i.e. entirely DM-less - in those cases, the enemies often follow pre-defined patterns of behaviour, or behave in dice-randomized ways.

Enrahim said:

While sleeping on this I realise we do have the firefighter stance. That is most recognisable when I think we are on the edge of TPKs. I also think this is more commonly happening if I see that the game is about to stall because the group is stuck on some puzzle, or are obsessed with some dead end red herring.

Click to expand...

Like @bloodtide posted: if puzzles and red herrings are problems, stop using them. Or, make the puzzles easier

Ruin Explorer said:

I think the actual "benevolent DM stance" is precisely this - the DM who is "a fan of the PCs" and trying to make the game fun, more than anything else.

Click to expand...

Perhaps even in systems that have "Be a fan of the characters" written in their Agenda...

You know how in D&D the classic line is "Are you sure you want to do that?" When I run Blades in the Dark and similar games, I'm often telling the players "oh, no, you should totally go with that first idea you had. It's going to be so much fun." Their characters can (generally) deal with it, the GM side means that I can spool out interesting obstacles and complications to whatever crazy outcome happens, and we get to run with whatever thread and see where it goes.