Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Korgoth" data-source="post: 3403663" data-attributes="member: 49613">There are a lot of good thoughts here.Regarding the "antagonism" issue, I think that it ties in with the difference between 3E and the previous games.  The previous games were about challenging the players, so one of the main tasks of the DM was to present that challenge.  This took the form of difficult tactical situations, puzzles, traps, tricks and roleplaying challenges.  The DM was doing his job when the players scratched their heads and said to themselves "Wow... this is a tough one!"There were several ways in which that basic dynamic could be handled improperly by the DM  which could result in various imbalanced states.  In one sense, a DM could fall into being a "Killer DM" who railroaded PCs into impossible situations with no hope of escape, avoidance or victory (24 mind flayers ambush the 2nd level PCs, etc.); on the other hand, he could be a mollycoddler who never set forth a difficult or lethal challenge.  In another sense, a DM could be a "Monty Haul DM" who saw his role as being Good Time Charlie who hands out magic items and fabulous wealth like candy; the opposite of the would be the DM who thinks that to make things properly challenging he also has to be unreasonably restrictive and tends to move the goalposts if you outsmart him... this is what I think of as an "Antagonist".Anyway, I think it is important not to mistake an Antagonist, who is by definition unreasonable, with a DM who is seeking to put forward a genuinely tough series of worthy challenges to the skill and wits of the players.  The "Balanced DM" doesn't get bent out of shape if you outsmart his challenge - in fact, that's his hope, because it represents excellent play.I do see the previous games and 3E opposed on this issue to a degree: in 3E you can roll Diplomacy instead of having to roleplay your discussion with the disgruntled Burgomaster, etc. (In fact, if I understand the rules in 3.5 right you can talk the Lich Lord into being your friend during the climactic showdown if you roll high enough)  And in general the 'character build' seems to be emphasized to the point where excellence of play is not defined by skill or wits but by 'build mastery'... whether you know the combos to get an amazing damage per round output, unbeatable lockdown sequence or unstoppable skill bonus, etc.  Part of this is perhaps related to the overall business model of WOTC on the issue: once you sell the rulebooks you will continue to sell books containing "power-ups" which one can buy, almost like a booster pack for a CCG, to gain new build options.  In the previous games the challenge was not on this level, so the focus seems to have been primarily on taxing the wits and skill of the players during the game itself.  But if the DM had to resort to somewhat unreasonable methods of ensuring the challenge he would seem antagonistic.  It's possible to be a Killer DM in 3E (too many monsters or excessive DCs) but there seems to be less room for antagonism in the way I defined it.</blockquote>

Verification