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!

 

[Enrahim]

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.

Could you please quote the part of the OP that is misinterpreted this way? I have observed that is a common misinterpretation, and have several times in this thread tried to fight against it. It keep coming up tough.

I tried to make a strong distinction between the classic concept of benevolent GM and my new concept of benevolent stance and failed. I mentioned the situation where a GM is portraying a friendly NPCs as a possible example of (somewhat hampered) benevolient stance and explicitely contrasted this to GMPC. Still somehow you here claim I define benevolent GM (not stance) as running a GMPC. I really do not understand how I managed to fail so miserable at what I set out to do, and that is still the case after multiple rereads of my OP.

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.

Fully totaly and 100% agree, which have already tried to state multiple times in this thread, including the OP.

And Referees don't play the game: they adjudicate

Yes, that is also intended to be implied in my OP. A normal GM is doing a lot more than refereeing though.

 

[Enrahim]

@Ruin Explorer and @Theory of Games
I extended my original post with a "wall of text version" trying to address the misunderstandings I have seen so far in this thread caused by it. As you are the ones that I think have been most helpful in making me recognize the issues with my original posting, I would be really happy if you could give it a skim and see if that make more sense to you?

 

[Maxperson]

I only take the benevolent DM stance when running D&D, or more specifically Castles and Crusades (or in the past, Pathfinder 1E), since I haven't run D&D in years. I will usually create an NPC to fill a gap in the party. For example, if no one wants to play a cleric then I will make one and play it. If it's a balanced party that isn't missing anything I'll make a support type character

I prefer not to even do that much, because I have so many other things on my plate that I don't need yet another NPC to worry about running. Rarely I will have an NPC in the party, but it will be a temporary thing necessitated by something in the fiction, rather than as a permanent or semi-permanent member of the party.

, like a Bard (because, contrary to the opinions of some Bards are AWESOME ),

They are! No other class is as fun to hit with dragon breath, force to walk in front of the group as a trap detector, or chop into pieces as bait to fish with when stranded on a ship in the middle of the ocean.

 

[bloodtide]

I think it is very common that when GMs are controlling opponents, they try to enter their mindset (immerse) and play these opponents to their best of their ability trying to make the life of the PCs as hard as possible. I believe this kind of mindset to be well known (even though not everyone apply it themselves), and for the purpose of this thread I want to introduce the term "adversarial GM stance" as a short hand to describe such a mindset.

I think this mixes too much.

1. The DMs that treat foes as just nothing NPC game tokens and the Immersive DM that treats all NPC as Characters.
2. Not all NPC, even when played immersivly will be a hard opponent: they can be anything.

Simply said, a benevolent stance would be that the GM for a short period of time can feel like he play at the same team as the PCs rather than continuously being neutral or acting as an opponent.

A typical such benevolent DM plays the whole game in this mindset....they can't witch out as that would disrupt the benevolence. Even acting neutral is 'against' the PCs and players.

At first glance the opposite of the classic adversarial stance of playing hostile NPCs - playing friendly NPCs - might seem as a good example of a situation where the GM can take a benevolent stance in the sense I am talking about here. However I find with myself that in actual play that is not the case. While there might be a hint of wanting to help the PCs in there, I do rarely immerse myself in really doing my best to come up with how the NPC can actively help the PCs in a similar way that I would immerse myself in the enemy to find good ways they can oppose the PC. Rather I am careful not to leave a more neutral stance, keeping a strong eye on the meta by taking into consideration principles like making sure the NPC is in no way outshining the PCs. For instance in tactical combat I might abstain from making the best tactical move I can see for a friendly NPC, as that might steal the PCs glory.

This is a good place to point out the above of what is a NPC here:

1. A lifeless game token that is only there to be a play part for the PCs and players
2. An immersive fictional character

The first is what you get in video games......the old wise wizard just stands outside of town and gives advice, and once you do quest X he will sell you magic potions.

The second is where the DM makes every NPC a full character. And you can already hear the echo of the complaint "that is too much work" form the Casual DMs.

As the second type, immersive DM, all my NPCs are characters. So good characters will help the PCs out to the best of their abilities....in the right situations. This does require what I call my Hard Fun stance.

Typically players think it is a great idea to have a powerful npc buddy come along. Though in my game, the NPC will outshine the stumbling bumbling PCs in seconds. While the players will sit and endless talk about "how can we attack ten goblins", my NPC can do an amazing solo combat and take all ten out while the players watch in awe.

So with the obvious candidate for "benevolent stance" excluded, can anyone think of any examples of experiencing situations in play where you have had the mindset that you really try to help the players out? Is there any context where you for instance have felt sufficiently restricted by rules (either written or self imposed) that you really felt you could bring your A-game in trying to help out the PCs? I think most have experienced an encounter where the danger level for death is so low that the constraints of the game system and stat block has allowed them to comfortably try to play the enemies of the PCs as nastily as they can think of without pulling any punches.

The BGM often helps out by not being even slightly aggressive. Having NPCs only do 'medium' attacks at best. Or much like most movies or TV shows....the foes will endlessly wait for the players to act and will never take advantage of anything.

And this even goes beyond to "no character death" or "character harm" and even to "nothing the players don't like ever".