Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim" data-source="post: 9679282" data-attributes="member: 7025577">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&amp;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 &quot;maximum pain&quot; 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-&quot;stance&quot; that is more about how they treat the characters. I as a GM has absolutely &quot;allowed&quot; 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 &quot;benevolent GM&quot;. 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 &quot;benefactory&quot; 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)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim, post: 9679282, member: 7025577"] 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 [I]never[/I] 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) [/QUOTE]

Verification