Benevolent GM stance

[Enrahim]

A reasonable ask so I will back off. @Ruin Explorer also reasonably answered me although points were raised I would otherwise dispute or clarify but will not do so to respect your request.

I think if the conversation is working under the assumption that the term GMPC is bad, that what you describe can be aptly be called a friendly npc, then a more general clarification on where the line between these go might be reasonably within the scope of what I envisioned in this thread. From the direction Ruin Explorer's answer just after my request was taking, I think it might go in a constructive direction. So for me, feel free to ask for clarificarions

 

[Theory of Games]

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?

This is bad on all levels. Just as bad as the Adversarial GM. Why? Because in both cases the GM is in full control and the players are just bystanders. This is exactly why GMs have been instructed since the very beginning of the ttrpg hobby to be "neutral referees" of the game. GMs are not supposed to pick a side. We run the campaigns and stay in the middle of PC-NPC-Monster disputes. All we do is make sure the rules - as defined by the GM or group - are followed so no one has an unfair advantage. Because if GM Soccer-Mom goes out of their way to protect and aid the PCs, why are the players even there?

IMO The players need to succeed or fail on their own.

 

[Laurefindel]

Because if GM Soccer-Mom goes out of their way to protect and aid the PCs, why are the players even there?

IMO The players need to succeed or fail on their own.

Benevolent DM goes out of their way to make sure the players enjoy their game, catering to a crowd that isn’t interested in random deaths and killer dungeons.

Adversarial DM says I’m playing against you.
Referee DM says I’m playing for you.
Benevolent DM says I’m playing with you.

There’s a crowd for all three styles. All three need to bring out their A-game to be successful. They’re just playing slightly different games with focus on different goals. And like in all things, all three types are naughty word if you crank the dial all the way up to broil.

 

[Theory of Games]

Benevolent DM goes out of their way to make sure the players enjoy their game, catering to a crowd that isn’t interested in random deaths and killer dungeons.

Adversarial DM says I’m playing against you.
Referee DM says I’m playing for you.
Benevolent DM says I’m playing with you.

There’s a crowd for all three styles. All three need to bring out their A-game to be successful. They’re just playing slightly different games with focus on different goals. And like in all things, all three types are naughty word if you crank the dial all the way up to broil.

Except, the OP establishes that MOST GMs are going out of their way to make sure the players enjoy the game. The OP describes the "Benevolent GM" as one who interferes in the game with an NPC whose only function is to help the PCs. Hence the GMPC kerfuffle.

My point, again, is that GMs shouldn't interfere in the game that way. It inhibits player agency and cheats the players out of any victory.

And Referees don't play the game: they adjudicate

 

[Laurefindel]

Except, the OP establishes that MOST GMs are going out of their way to make sure the players enjoy the game. The OP describes the "Benevolent GM" as one who interferes in the game with an NPC whose only function is to help the PCs. Hence the GMPC kerfuffle.

My point, again, is that GMs shouldn't interfere in the game that way. It inhibits player agency and cheats the players out of any victory.

And Referees don't play the game: they adjudicate

Fair point

 

[bloodtide]

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.

D&D is full of them. Once you get past low level lots of foes have powerful attacks and abilities. 5E super nerfed most of them, but they are still there. A lot of BGM just don't use them or even use the monsters that have them. Or have powerful spellcasters attacking with only low level spells that suck.

lso 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?

A BGM does not cause pain.

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?

I would say the GM's Base Stance is to make and run a fun game for the players. The whole point of the game is fun.

I'd guess some BGM 'on the edge' might kill PCs sometimes, but it would be anything like the other stances, as you might say.

For example few if any BGM would do:

*Let the dice fall where they may: whatever is rolled that is what happens. So if a character takes a large amount of damage...they die, the end.

*Use Traps

*Use Tricks

I think if the conversation is working under the assumption that the term GMPC is bad, that what you describe can be aptly be called a friendly npc, then a more general clarification on where the line between these go might be reasonably within the scope of what I envisioned in this thread. From the direction Ruin Explorer's answer just after my request was taking, I think it might go in a constructive direction. So for me, feel free to ask for clarificarions

I don't see GMPCs as bad, but then my game is full of them.....like nearly all the "NPC"s.

Benevolent DM goes out of their way to make sure the players enjoy their game, catering to a crowd that isn’t interested in random deaths and killer dungeons.

Excpet that is just your personal defination as it highlights things you don't like. Watch the rewrite:

Benevolent DM goes out of their way to make sure the players enjoy their game, catering to a crowd that isn’t interested in a random pointless game of immortal demigods.

All DMs......assuming we are not talking about the crazy jerk ones.....want the players to enjoy the game. Sure some players love the game where they don't have to do much of anything as they know the DM will never, ever kill their character. Other players like a much more hard game where they have to keep their wits about them at all times. Both are just as fun.

Adversarial DM says I’m playing against you.
Referee DM says I’m playing for you.
Benevolent DM says I’m playing with you.

For a simple meme, sure this works.......the reality is much more complicated.

There’s a crowd for all three styles. All three need to bring out their A-game to be successful. They’re just playing slightly different games with focus on different goals. And like in all things, all three types are naughty word if you crank the dial all the way up to broil.

Very True!