Adversarial Gaming Style

[DarrenGMiller]

Point taken... actually, several good points taken. I guess what I am talking about is more of a contentious nature. The adversarialism is not expressed only in-game, it is out of game... nit-picking DM decisions, bending rules to his character's advantage, pointing out rules that would work against other players' PC's, acting contrary in general just to "be funny" and that sort of thing. Generally, looking out for ONLY #1 (him - and I don't mean just his PC, but himself as a player).

I also assume from the replies that this "a$$-holish behavior" is not a trend.

DM

 

[Saeviomagy]

1. I want the DM to try to kill my pcs
2. I want him to use limited tools to do so, and give me a possibility of winning.
3. Conversely, I have limited tools, and if I come across something that gives the DM no possibility of winning, I'll gladly dump it or just stop using it.

Simply put - it's no fun playing tic tac toe with anyone halfway competent.

 

[Kaffis]

As a player, I feel it's my role to surprise the DM. Exceed his expectations. Work with my fellow players to survive an encounter he expected to kill at least one character in, while staying true to the character. Stuff like that. It's not an "us vs. him" mentality, and I don't (well, try not to, perhaps I'm not an ideal judge of how well I succeed) compete with other players.

I don't think that's adversarial. My goal is to keep him on his toes and push the envelope, so he pushes us back (in a friendly way) with encounters that challenge us and create exciting story. And I'm pleased with the results as far as combat encounters go. Now my goal is to drive myself to similarly excel to rise to meet the challenge of getting deeper into character in the non-combat encounters.

 

[Afrodyte]

It depends on what you mean by "challenge." I get awfully bored with being challenged to think tactically, usually because it slows the flow of the game and because it's not necessarily something my character thinks of in a given situation. I tend to "freeze up" during combat encounters anyway since the most intelligent thing my characters can usually do is not fight at all (IOW, run away). If I make a character who is a military commander or strategist, that might be different, but since I've yet to make such a character, I'd rather not bother with it.

However, if you mean "challenge" as in making tough moral or personal decisions, that's another matter. Rather than detract from the flow of the game, it creates more tension and makes the conflict important in a way that simply threatening life and limb do not.

 

[DarrenGMiller]

It depends on what you mean by "challenge." I get awfully bored with being challenged to think tactically, usually because it slows the flow of the game and because it's not necessarily something my character thinks of in a given situation. I tend to "freeze up" during combat encounters anyway since the most intelligent thing my characters can usually do is not fight at all (IOW, run away). If I make a character who is a military commander or strategist, that might be different, but since I've yet to make such a character, I'd rather not bother with it.

However, if you mean "challenge" as in making tough moral or personal decisions, that's another matter. Rather than detract from the flow of the game, it creates more tension and makes the conflict important in a way that simply threatening life and limb do not.

Now, I think forcing the PC's to make tough moral or personal decisions is a good thing. That creates story. It is when the players are so divorced from their characters that there are no tough choices for them. Any choice becomes a simple one when you are not emotionally invested. This is a problem, I think. It becomes impossible to frighten the PC's or make them make emotional moral choices because they do not identify with their characters as anything other than a collection of stats, experience points and cool items.

DM

 

[TheAuldGrump]

1. I want the DM to try to kill my pcs
2. I want him to use limited tools to do so, and give me a possibility of winning.
3. Conversely, I have limited tools, and if I come across something that gives the DM no possibility of winning, I'll gladly dump it or just stop using it.

Simply put - it's no fun playing tic tac toe with anyone halfway competent.

The Die Hard Effect.... Or to put it another way, you want to almost lose.

The Auld Grump

 

[Saeviomagy]

The Die Hard Effect.... Or to put it another way, you want to almost lose.

The Auld Grump

Bingo. Frankly the best gaming sessions I've had are ones where we have, at one point or another, thought "Oh no! We're totally hosed!".

That doesn't necessarily mean combat either.