Adversarial Gaming Style

[diaglo]

Hey! I wanna join a moist game! What is moist gaming like?

like a damp rag.


i have found it depends on what the players bring to the table from past experiences.

most n00bs are just not expecting the referee to be against them. which is the way it should be.

edit: meaning no us vs. them or him.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

I don't know how I'd even handle a player who thought I, as the DM, was the 'enemy'. It is a strange stance to take since the DM could then 'win' automatically by throwing a hugely overpowered critter at the party and wipe them out. Seems pretty boring to me.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

If it's actually an adversarial situation (player vs. DM), how can the DM not win? How can the player possibly imagine that the DM is not going to win? Surely he knows that if he "wins" it's because the DM let him.

A game with an adversarial DM will last approximately 3 minutes, no matter how powerful or clever the players or their characters. Obviously, every DM knows this if his/her game has lasted more than 3 minutes - the question is, how can a player not know this too? And what on earth is the point of acting in an adversarial manner if you do know this?

I think HackMaster (and the Knights of the Dinner Table comic) both answer these questions and concerns, and those answers would be applicable to just about any RPG. Basically, if you boil it down, it is the DM's duty to play against the players fairly - that is, within the rules. The DM must take into account the level and class of each PC when designing/running adventures, and must let the dice fall where they may, with no fudging.

The only difference between this type of DMing and that with which we're familiar is in attitude. The adversarial campaign is more about trying to outwit one another, in a manner of speaking, rather than creating a shared story. Of course, my take on it may not be entirely correct; check out the HackMaster GM and Player's books for further discussion of the topic.

 

[Doug McCrae]

A GM could set himself certain limits, such as never setting the PCs against a foe above their CR (which make the 100 balors situation impossible), or constraints based on the world setting (so Elminster can't be 85th level), but within those limits play as hard as possible, using the best tactics he can think of.

Such a GM would be, in a sense, adversarial but wouldn't kill the party in three minutes as Morrus suggested.

 

[Mystery Man]

A moist game goes a lot easier than a dry game.


I have one player who challenges my rulings constantly. He's also constantly wrong. Sometimes I wonder if he's a touch retarded. Frankly I'm considering letting him have his way with a 50,000 XP hit every time he's wrong.

 

[Henry]

I'm in the middle. I believe in challenging the players - if the characters haven't faced something that could harm them if they're not careful, then it's a cakewalk. OTOH, D&D is not adversarial in the way that Monopoly is - in a classic board game, all players start out with equal resources and in the end, "there can be only one."

I do have a player in our group that I think may see the game more adversarially, but I'm trying in subtle ways to convince him to loosen up a bit, and enjoy the game, rather than making it a power-quest (or in his case a "money-quest.") I also realize that this is one of his "emotional kicks" for playing the game, so I try to include monetary or power compensation in the game as his reward.

 

[Berandor]

I'm a cooperative DM, mostly, and a cooperative player (though I have wrecked or tried to wreck some games in my shady past, I must admit, but with bad and experienced DMs - and never during the first five sessions or so ).

I have had my share of competitive players, as well, and I didn't like it. Players who were out to kill the adventure from day one, who didn't care about anything except their character, and players who are now thankfully no longer in my group

Nowadays, I present a prospective story that my players take on and make into their own, and that - if all goes as planned - end with many PC deaths and me gloating

 

[Desdichado]

Challenging your players and being adversarial are two completely different concepts that are unrelated. I'd like to think I'm a challenging GM, but I'm not at all adversarial (the tone of my posts notwithstanding). None of my players are adversarial either. Of course, all of them also run games fairly regularly, so gaming for is is always a very collaborative effort, all things considered.

 

[MetalBard]

I think there may be some confusion of definitions in this thread. Maybe calling them "contentious players" rather than adversarial would be better.

While it is true that in game, much of the fun and challenge comes when the DM and players are playing adversaries of each other (NPCs/Monsters and PCs). When it comes to "out of character" matters, if a player is truly being the DM's adversary, then there's a problem.

I do have to agree that in game, a DM can create much more potent adversaries than any computer game can. That being said a "contentious player" is no fun whatsoever. Competition is healthy. Bitter disputes are not.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I think there may be some confusion of definitions in this thread. Maybe calling them "contentious players" rather than adversarial would be better.

While it is true that in game, much of the fun and challenge comes when the DM and players are playing adversaries of each other (NPCs/Monsters and PCs). When it comes to "out of character" matters, if a player is truly being the DM's adversary, then there's a problem.

I do have to agree that in game, a DM can create much more potent adversaries than any computer game can. That being said a "contentious player" is no fun whatsoever. Competition is healthy. Bitter disputes are not.

Hmm...I'm not sure that contentious is what they meant with the poll. Here, I'll submit a PC from one of my games and people please tell me if he fits the definition of adversarial (I'll call him Dhistan because that's his favourite PC):

The evil: In real life, Dhistan would be Lawful Evil if we had alignments. He enjoys creating evil characters, and his good characters always wind up merely doing good deeds that result in his own self-interest in some way. Dhistan's characters like money and power more than anything else. If he thought he could get away with it and that it would give him more of an advantage, Dhistan's characters would kill the rest of the party and sell their souls to Hell, but since his allies are formidable, he prefers to keep them alive. Nevertheless, when he wants to buy something, he does not hesitate to steal all their gold. In fact, they were trusting their treasure to his character's sister, so he stole it all, framed his sister (an NPC), convinced the party that she was an evil demonologist who was stealing their gold, and banished her to the shadow plane for all eternity. When the Frenzied Berserker swore to protect a barbarian village, Dhistan came in and massacred them all, women and children included, and sent the souls directly to Bel. He definitely sees the world as him-against-everyone-else, and he plans out his character 20 levels in advance in hopes of achieving even greater levels of power. Dhistan is in this for power and the fact that he loves seeing how his evil schemes turn out and affect the world.

The lawful: That said, when his evil schemes fail, Dhistan does not get upset. He justs comes up with a new one. He has a strong respect both for the rules of the game and for my authority as a DM to make calls that aren't specifically stated in the rules, whether they are for or against his character. In fact, he agrees with me on rules calls so much that he will often bring up my calls when he is playing with other DMs who have to make similar decisions to be helpful. Although he respects the rules, he is not a rules-lawyer and does not attempt to make rules-contentions to slow down the game. He does not metagame to destroy plots, although sometimes his actions lead into non-sequitirs to the main quest that must be dealt with, which is fine with me, as I can wing it. He is always polite to the other players and gives everyone a turn, even when he is trying to murder their cohort and blame it on his mother. In fact, if he feels that he has been taking too much time in the game's spotlight, he asks the other players their opinion, and if they agree, he voluntarily retreats out of the spotlight into the shadows, planning his next evil scheme.

So, is he an adversarial player? By Wolf's definition I would say "Yes." By your definition Metal I would say "No." That's what makes me think that they didn't mean contentious