Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim" data-source="post: 9678024" data-attributes="member: 7025577">The adversarial GM stance when controlling opponents are well known. Similarly the neutral stance of the referee is well known. But to what extent can a GM have a benevolent stance?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.In contrast I normally feel more bound to neutrality when controlling friendly NPCs. I sort of want to help the player characters out, but I do not know how to appropriately limit it if I let go of the more common neutral stance. For instance by making sure no friendlies are outshining the PCs in any combat, even if I as GM might see some tactics where the friendly would be able to do just that. A GM-PC is of course a huge no-no.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?-----------------------------------------------Edit Jun 10 2025:Turns out my attempted brevity caused me to seriously botch my communication check. I will here try a wall of text version instead. TLDR: See above.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.To further clarify what I mean with this term: Another more narrow example of what I would consider "adversarial GM stance" is when a GM is considering appropriate consequences for a FATE compel. The game instructs that such a consequence should really be "felt" by the player character, or else it is too "weak".Similarly when the GM are making rules decisions (acting as a referee) it is well known that many (not all) is strongly advocating a neutral mindset - to actively try to guard against bias either in the PCs or their opponent's favor. For the purpose of this thread I want to introduce the term "neutral stance" as a short hand for this kind of mindset.What I am wondering about that I would like this tread to be about is if there is any situations where it might be common/possible/good to enter a corresponding "benevolent stance"?To clarify, I am not thinking about the standard concept of a benevolent GM that really strives to make the game fun for the players. I sort of assume (at least hope) that is practically everyone. Important distinctions from this concept and what I want to talk about in this thread is:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Benevolent GMing is about your mindset regardning the Players. The stances is about how you approach the PCs.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">While benevolent GMing is generally refering to a constant GM style, the stances are shifting from moment to moment.</li> </ul>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.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.I believe the dangers of leaving aside this neutral stance toward friendly NPCs to be well known. The consequence of that is very quickly getting into GM-PC territory. That GM-PCs are a bad thing is something I guess is sufficient to mention in passing, giving the massive volume of #rpghorrorstories there are revolving around this very concept.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.PS: the morning after first writing the original post, I came up with what I think might be a commonly recognized situation where the GM assumes a "benevolent stance" in the sense described above. This is when entering "firefighting" mode. While there are of course people opposed to entering such mode, I think it is broadly enough known to serve as a good example of the mindset I am looking for.</blockquote>

Verification