Benevolent GM stance

[Enrahim]

There is a crazy line here though.

The "benevolent" GM does not and can not do things like "play to there best ability" or "make things a challenge". Such a DM just rolls out the Red Carpet and the Easy Button ans says "yes players". The benevolent GM can "challenge" the players, but it will always be on the level of things like amateurs vs professionals. With the GM playing things like "an amateur" and the players as "professionals", the players are very likely to win every time. And the BGM will just sit back and say "I made it a challenge".

An easy example is say a foe has a single target 'to hit' attack with at least a chance of killing a PC with a high damage roll and bad save and such. So what PC gets targeted? Well, most BGM's are gonna say "the Tank!". And they will say the logic of "the foe is targeting the biggest toughest looking one". Andbene sure, that is one way of logic. Though game rulewise the tank also just so happens to have the chance of not being hit, making the save and most of all to absorb all the damage.

But suggest to the benevolent GM to target another PC....or even a weak or wounded PC....and you will see their "Idea of a challenge" crumble as they won't want to do it. The benevolent GM does not want to risk killing a PC.

The same way a BGM will always let a PC rush over, no matter the distance, to heal a dying PC and all foes will just take a time out and let it happen.

The other side is not exactly "adversarial" though. I would say tough, hard or challenging is a much better word. I myself use "Hard Fun": When you have to work at having fun.

I'd provide a very Hard Fun Challenge: I hold nothing back at all PC death or "ruining" a PC so they "can't be played" are both on the table for me. And I do both very often. Though, also, most players kill their own characters. A classic is standing out in the open and making the character a target.

So you can see no matter the "stance" there is a wide range of "challenges".

I think this is a very good clarifying point! In the situations you are talking about the GM in question is not adapting an adversarial stance. But I cannot see that this is an argument that a benevolent GM can never take an adversarial stance. In particular you are setting up a very spesific situation where there is an enemy with a killer move. Most combats especially at D&D sweet spot level do not have this feature in my experience. Also the benevolent GM could presumably have avoided the problem by not introducing the opponent with the killer move in the first place. Would you agree that in such combats it would not be inconsistent for a benevolent GM to bring in their pro game when it come to tactical ability, to inflict "maximum pain" on the PCs?

But I guess the key difference in our language is what we meen with benevolent GM. I the post you replied to I tried to emphasize that I considered benevolent GM to be about my intentions toward the players (giving them a fun time) as opposed to benevolent GM-"stance" that is more about how they treat the characters. I as a GM has absolutely "allowed" player characters to be killed in the belief that it enhances the experience for the players in the long run. I believe this to be consistent with being a benevolent GM in my terminology, but it might indicate I am not passing the bar in your terminology?

If this is the case it seem like it might be useful to clarify the term "benevolent GM". It is easy to see how it could be inflammatory if someone that thinks of themselves of benefactory according to one meaning is claimed to not be benefactory by someone ascribing to the other meaning without proper clarification of what "benefactory" we are talking about. And this could go both ways in this case (Those supporting the players being accused for being to mean to the PCs, while those supporting the PCs being accused of providing a tame experience to the players)

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

The "Benevolent GM Stance" sounds like the equivalent to the sort of read-only fiction "where the author is on the protagonist's side."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes, playing a full blown GM-PC would be the "pinnacle" of benevolent GM "stance" in this context

Yeah which is why "benevolent" is not a good term. It causes confusion with an existing approach, it doesn't diminish it.

GMPCs are generally not favoured by DMs who like their players and their PCs and want them to succeed.

GMPCs are generally favoured by DMs who want to make themselves, personally, into a Big Damn Hero, and show off how cool and superior their GMPC is to the actual PCs. You can swear blind that that's not your intention, and hey, maybe it isn't, but the fact remains, it is absolutely how most GMPCs actually turn out - certainly those on the same power level as the PCs or higher.

As such "Masturbatory Stance" would me to see more appropriate than "Benevolent Stance" here. The only person a GMPC is ever really helping is the GM, and more specifically his ego. I am only semi-joking lol. It really is not "benevolent" to try and make yourself the hero.

As for not using GMPCs, okay but what are you talking about exactly? All DMs will sometimes have NPCs on the same side as the PCs, that's just part of being a DM. There's no stance to it.

The interesting question with this approach is if it might be possible to retain some of the value of having a GM while using these tools, without going full blown GM-less? In particlar roles like keeper of secrets and enforcer of a consistent unified vision for the game stands out as roles that might be possible to maintain without the conflict of interest of playing both sides?

It's not possible, no. It's like organisations investigating themselves. You're not a bodhisattva or similar, so you're inevitably going to screw that balance up. You've got an inherent and completely massive conflict of interest even just as a keeper of secrets. "Enforcer of a consistent unified vision" isn't something that's necessary to a well-functioning game, it's usually something that is needed when you're essentially forcing unruly players who aren't really consenting to a specific vibe into that vibe.

And talking about "playing both sides" how is this issue not considered a big problem when the GM is doing session prep, but it seem like you posit it would be "dodgy" to do so during play?

You literally can't play both sides during prep, what are you talking about? You're not even playing the game during prep!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

id think about why a TPK happened.

Was it because retreat was tactically impossible ir narratively unsatisfying?

If it's D&D 5E it's probably because it was tactically impossible - D&D makes retreats after engagement astonishingly ineffective unless you have powerful magic or the other side wants to let you go.

 

[NN]

You literally can't play both sides during prep, what are you talking about? You're not even playing the game during prep!

I guess what they mean is “the party has powers/weaknesses a b c so im designing the antagonists with countermeasures/powers x y z”

 

[Hex08]

id think about why a TPK happened.

Was it because retreat was tactically impossible ir narratively unsatisfying?

I'm assuming the question was directed at me. During the first TPK a retreat was impossible. During the second (remember, it almost ended in a TPK but didn't) there were many factors; retreat was possible but we would be running headlong into another fight and we would not have been able to survive it, it was narratively unsatisfying for several reasons that I won't get into, and as a new GM he was slow and unable to adapt on the fly or would miss things along the way that our characters should have encountered or known but then he would have them pop up later (often too late or frustratingly late).

 

[Blue]

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.
...
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?

When planning sessions I'm neutral, or at worst channelling intelligent reactions from NPCs.

But at the table, I'm the players' cheerleader. I'm the one who says Yes, if you remember that bit of advice from earlier editions. I actively go along with their craziness. And I hope that they win.

Does that count?

 

[Hex08]

GMPCs are generally not favoured by DMs who like their players and their PCs and want them to succeed.

GMPCs are generally favoured by DMs who want to make themselves, personally, into a Big Damn Hero, and show off how cool and superior their GMPC is to the actual PCs. You can swear blind that that's not your intention, and hey, maybe it isn't, but the fact remains, it is absolutely how most GMPCs actually turn out - certainly those on the same power level as the PCs or higher.

That's a pretty broad statement. Both myself and at least one other person gave examples of why we do this and how we avoid your accusation. You may not believe us and stand firm in your conviction but that doesn't make it so.

 

[NN]

The only reasons i see to use the term “GMPC” over “NPC” are bad ones

 

[Enrahim]

Yeah which is why "benevolent" is not a good term. It causes confusion with an existing approach, it doesn't diminish it.

GMPCs are generally not favoured by DMs who like their players and their PCs and want them to succeed.

GMPCs are generally favoured by DMs who want to make themselves, personally, into a Big Damn Hero, and show off how cool and superior their GMPC is to the actual PCs. You can swear blind that that's not your intention, and hey, maybe it isn't, but the fact remains, it is absolutely how most GMPCs actually turn out - certainly those on the same power level as the PCs or higher.

As such "Masturbatory Stance" would me to see more appropriate than "Benevolent Stance" here. The only person a GMPC is ever really helping is the GM, and more specifically his ego. I am only semi-joking lol. It really is not "benevolent" to try and make yourself the hero.

As for not using GMPCs, okay but what are you talking about exactly? All DMs will sometimes have NPCs on the same side as the PCs, that's just part of being a DM. There's no stance to it.


It's not possible, no. It's like organisations investigating themselves. You're not a bodhisattva or similar, so you're inevitably going to screw that balance up. You've got an inherent and completely massive conflict of interest even just as a keeper of secrets. "Enforcer of a consistent unified vision" isn't something that's necessary to a well-functioning game, it's usually something that is needed when you're essentially forcing unruly players who aren't really consenting to a specific vibe into that vibe.


You literally can't play both sides during prep, what are you talking about? You're not even playing the game during prep!

That's a pretty broad statement. Both myself and at least one other person gave examples of why we do this and how we avoid your accusation. You may not believe us and stand firm in your conviction but that doesn't make it so.

The only reasons i see to use the term “GMPC” over “NPC” are bad ones

Could we please try to not derail this conversation into one about GMPC. That topic was attempted excluded in my initial post. GMPC as @Ruin Explorer is describing is a phenomenom that is well known, and the center of many #rpghorrorstories. Ruin explorer is also recognising in their post that there are of course going to exist NPC that is friendly. I have failed to provide an explenation that Ruin Explorer has accepted and understood of what I try to convey.