Benevolent GM stance

[Hex08]

While sleeping on this I realise we do have the firefighter stance. That is most recognisable when I think we are on the edge of TPKs. I also think this is more commonly happening if I see that the game is about to stall because the group is stuck on some puzzle, or are obsessed with some dead end red herring.

In such cases I find myself scrambling for idea for how I could help them out without overstepping the boundaries of "propper GMing". It is in a way a interesting puzzle as taken out of a super-hero story. Yes I do have the power of deus-ex machina-ing them out of the situation, but I shouldn't. How can I save them without sacrificing any principles I hold dearly?

I rarely use puzzles with my current gaming group because several of my players don't seem to find them fun. However, some do so I do through them in on occasion (or they are already in an adventure I bought) and when they get stuck I think the answer is simple - your players are not their characters, they may be more or less intelligent and certainly have different life experiences and skills so I have them make intelligence checks, the appropriate skill roll or whatever fits (these are the things that define a character, role-playing aside, on paper) and then throw hints at them or even have the character come up with the solution. If this happens to you a lot with puzzles then maybe they are not a good fit for your gaming group.

Also, I agree with @Ruin Explorer, I think the NPCs you are describing, and the ones I talked about in my prior post, could be considered GM-PCs.

 

[Reynard]

Perhaps even in systems that have "Be a fan of the characters" written in their Agenda...

You know how in D&D the classic line is "Are you sure you want to do that?" When I run Blades in the Dark and similar games, I'm often telling the players "oh, no, you should totally go with that first idea you had. It's going to be so much fun." Their characters can (generally) deal with it, the GM side means that I can spool out interesting obstacles and complications to whatever crazy outcome happens, and we get to run with whatever thread and see where it goes.

This is actually what i bounced of with FitD games: the "writers room" feeling that too open of collaboration gives the proceedings.

As to stances: what do you call the stance where you want the players to think you mean to murder their PCs, but you actually want to see them succeed, but you also squee a little bit when one of them goes down?

 

[Laurefindel]

I consider myself a benevolent DM. I’m definitely routing for the PC, even if my job is partly to give the players a good run for their money. So yes, this means going the extra mile to make sure they 1) sufficiently challenged and 2) not being TPKed. I’m aming for « survival against all odds », and I’m not afraid to shift those odds in one direction or another.

Success is never guaranteed - failure is a often the way forward in my games, but my self-appointed role is not impartial.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As to stances: what do you call the stance where you want the players to think you mean to murder their PCs, but you actually want to see them succeed, but you also squee a little bit when one of them goes down?

I mean, maybe "Masked Benevolent DM stance"? It's certainly one of the most common DM stances if we consider them to exist.

 

[Enrahim]

I guess my question is, do you think it's helpful to think of DMing terms of "stances"?

Because I'm not really seeing the obvious utility from what you're describing here.

Thank you so much for your reply! I am not sure if "stance" is a good word, but I think the concept I am grasping at here might be useful. I experience a very distinct mindset that I would label as adversarial when I am running a set piece battle in D&D to the best of my ability. Similarly I am very mindfull of neutrality when trying to make a decission regarding rules interpretation in a game where I have presented myself as acting as a "referee". I used these as examples as I think most are experiencing something similar. And while the "roles" of the one to run the bad guys, and the role of referee seem well recognized, I have not seen this mindset regarding how to relate to the player characters been talked as much about.

For instance when preparing an adventure it seem most commonly accepted that you should seek some "balance", both preparing tough challenges (adversarily), but also prepare clues and rewards (benevolient) alongside a rich and flavorful world (neutral).

The utility I could see is that I myself feel an attraction toward of feeling more on the "team" of the PCs, during play, and would be interested in if it might be possible to achieve this without overstepping in ways that compromise my duties as a GM. For one thing so far in the thread it seem like "minor GM-PCs" appear more commonly accepted than what I would have thought, which is enlightening.

It definitely isn't practically everyone. Most adversarial DMs have no such goal. A subset of sandbox DMs will not admit to having that goal (only to not actively sabotaging the game). I've definitely played with DMs, especially in the 1990s, who were not for one second thinking about "making the game fun for the players" - even a couple who seemed to be intentionally doing the opposite.

I think the actual "benevolent DM stance" is precisely this - the DM who is "a fan of the PCs" and trying to make the game fun, more than anything else.

I still think the concept I am outlining is strongly different from the traditional concept of adversarial vs benefactory GM, hence I tried with the stance word to limit confusion. I am playing the opponents to the best of my ability in the tactical combat because I believe that the challenge provide a good experience for my players. That would be benevolent GMing with a adversarial "stance".

I think what you're describing isn't "benevolent", it's "playing a GMPC", isn't it? That's what it sounds like.

Yes, playing a full blown GM-PC would be the "pinnacle" of benevolent GM "stance" in this context, but I called that out already in my original post as a known unacceptable thing, and hence outside the scope of what I was interested in talking about. The minor NPC friendly was called out as an option there, but in this context I was wondering what is good limitations. There has been good answers to that in the thread already, but I would certanly welcome more! I also really do not think playing NPCs are the only way a GM could take a more actively PC friendly mindset, ref the firefighting example.

I think the only time that can work without you really just "playing both sides" in a dodgy way is when enemies are constrained in their choices, like in certain RPGs that can be run solo - i.e. entirely DM-less - in those cases, the enemies often follow pre-defined patterns of behaviour, or behave in dice-randomized ways.

Yes, solo tools is a thing I also have been thinking about as a possible way to help with this. 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?

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?

 

[bloodtide]

I still think the concept I am outlining is strongly different from the traditional concept of adversarial vs benefactory GM, hence I tried with the stance word to limit confusion. I am playing the opponents to the best of my ability in the tactical combat because I believe that the challenge provide a good experience for my players. That would be benevolent GMing with a adversarial "stance".

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".

 

[Laurefindel]

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".

Of course you can do that. A benevolent must do that.

Only, « playing to the best of your abilities » as a benevolent DM doesn’t mean trying your best to kill the PC, it means trying your best to give the players the most challenging tasks without killing or ruining their PC.

I pull the red carpet for my players… by challenging their characters in ways that my group considers to the limits of fun, without crossing it. That means pulling my punches if I notice that I am crossing the line, or changing the narrative, or adapting the story, or, you know, talk to the players. And that I absolutely do to the best on my abilities.

Pulling the red carpet means making my players feel welcomed; not making it easy for them (unless that’s what I need to do to make them feel welcome).

 

[bloodtide]

Of course you can do that. A benevolent must do that.

No they don't. There is nothing about "benevolent" that means you must make things a Challenge. What a benevolent GM must do, is what you say below:

Only, « playing to the best of your abilities » as a benevolent DM doesn’t mean trying your best to kill the PC, it means trying your best to give the players the most challenging tasks without killing or ruining their PC.

So, like you say not giving hard or really challenging tasks, only luke warm ones that are the "most challenging" for such easy tasks.

I pull the red carpet for my players… by challenging their characters in ways that my group considers to the limits of fun, without crossing it. That means pulling my punches if I notice that I am crossing the line, or changing the narrative, or adapting the story, or, you know, talk to the players. And that I absolutely do to the best on my abilities.

As said, you make the most challenging game possible within the tight, harsh restrictions you place on yourself.

It is a challenge in your benevolent game for the players to cross a bridge over a vast lake of acid. Though you swear to not overly harm or kill any of the PCs....maybe by just making it impossible to fall off the bridge or made making the acid effect something like 1d2 damage save dc 10 to negate. And sure the players will be all like 'oh no acid' as they smile and say "thanks DM for a fun, safe encounter".

There is the other type of challenge....the Hard Fun way. Where they players know for a fact that any round their character might be ruined or killed. The lake of acid is a hard challenge here

Pulling the red carpet means making my players feel welcomed; not making it easy for them (unless that’s what I need to do to make them feel welcome).

Welcoming is easy. Once you take away PC death and hard consequences there is not much to happen to the PCs. They might loose some pointless HP(if they can never die, why even use HP?) or maybe they miss a sale at the potion shop in the red carpet welcome game.


This is why there are different severity of challenges. Some challenges are like "can your character toss a copper coin into a fountain with a DC 10?" Other challenges are who to fight a dragon with a Hard Fun, Killer, Unfair, Unblanced run game, ruthless GM?

 

[Hex08]

No they don't. There is nothing about "benevolent" that means you must make things a Challenge. What a benevolent GM must do, is what you say below:

So, like you say not giving hard or really challenging tasks, only luke warm ones that are the "most challenging" for such easy tasks.

As said, you make the most challenging game possible within the tight, harsh restrictions you place on yourself.

It is a challenge in your benevolent game for the players to cross a bridge over a vast lake of acid. Though you swear to not overly harm or kill any of the PCs....maybe by just making it impossible to fall off the bridge or made making the acid effect something like 1d2 damage save dc 10 to negate. And sure the players will be all like 'oh no acid' as they smile and say "thanks DM for a fun, safe encounter".

There is the other type of challenge....the Hard Fun way. Where they players know for a fact that any round their character might be ruined or killed. The lake of acid is a hard challenge here


Welcoming is easy. Once you take away PC death and hard consequences there is not much to happen to the PCs. They might loose some pointless HP(if they can never die, why even use HP?) or maybe they miss a sale at the potion shop in the red carpet welcome game.


This is why there are different severity of challenges. Some challenges are like "can your character toss a copper coin into a fountain with a DC 10?" Other challenges are who to fight a dragon with a Hard Fun, Killer, Unfair, Unblanced run game, ruthless GM?

I dislike speaking for others but I feel like you are misinterpreting what @Laurefindel posted. My interpretation is not, and I also may be missing his point, that he is letting them off easy, as you seem to claim, but that he will, to paraphrase, challenge his players based on what his group considers fun. He never says that he is just giving them easy encounters like your acid example, it seems to me that he is stating that he is familiar with is group and their expectations and that he tries not to kill is player's characters (he never said it never happens, maybe it doesn't).

I try to give my players a challenging game and have even, on rare occasions, killed entire parties. However, my goal is to make sure my players enjoy the game and get to tell a story and if that means fudging a die roll, changing an encounter or something else then so be it.

I have been the sole GM for my regular group for well over 15 years (which is fine, I prefer to GM rather than play but would like to be a player on occasion). I had been playing D&D 3.x since it was released but before Pathfinder 2E was announced I found myself getting burned out on Pathfinder and had, for a long time, thought 3.x was overly complex, so as we were nearing the end of a campaign I announced I would no longer run Pathfinder and wanted to move on to something else and everyone was cool with it. Fairly recently one of my better players said he wanted to try to run a game and he felt he was most familiar with Pathfinder 1E so that is the direction he went. While he is learning I let him run his own game but I act as a trainer and rules expert. The intention is that I will usually run but he will get his fair share of GM time. All of the games he has run were pre-published adventures and we are usually a party of four during his games. Without getting into the nitty gritty of each campaign, his first attempt was really good, his second ended in a TPK (fine, they happen) and his third almost ended in a TPK as well until I spoke up. His second and third games were consecutive because of the brevity of the first. Two campaigns in a row that were ending in TPK fairly soon into the campaigns was a problem. Yes he was learning the ropes but it wasn't fun for most of the players because of the difficulty and demoralizing losses. We talked and he is learning and getting better. My point is he had an adventure and stuck to it with little regard for the players fun and attachment to their characters. Sometimes, in my experience, you can go easy on the characters/players without harming the game or dumbing it down.

 

[NN]

id think about why a TPK happened.

Was it because retreat was tactically impossible ir narratively unsatisfying?