DM as Facilitator or as Adversary?

[Crothian]

enabler.

D&D is a drug, mang.

Please sir, I want some more....

 

[Rel]

Please sir, I want some more....

I thought you said you could quit whenever you wanted, Crothian?

 

[Kid Socrates]

I said "Facilitator." I'm rooting for them! They trust that enough to come to me with their ideas and say, "Does this complex plan have a chance of success?" and if it's too far-fetched or out there, I'll say, "No." They know as much as I do that if they flub the rolls or if the villains start making all theirs, that things are going to get more than complicated, and then they could fail. But I'm rooting for them! I want them to win and be victorious! If the villains won at the end, it'd feel... hollow, to me.

Not that I plan on making it easy for them. I just don't foresee them losing because the four of them together can out-think me on most days.

 

[Mercule]

enabler.

D&D is a drug, mang.

That exact word ran through my head while I was typing.

 

[Treebore]

All is forgiven. Go now and sin no more.

I'll do my best. I'm still human so please forgive my mortal frailty.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Pretty stupid question. I'm playing the monsters and NPC's out to KILL YOUR CHARACTERS!!

<snip>

The problem is when a DM is screwed up enough to make sure your PC's die.

Tell that to my first DM!

 

[frankthedm]

DM is meant to be a facilliator. Sometimes though, its hard to avoid the impression of being an adversary.

The DM moves the Troll. The Troll crushes the PC. The PC looks at the GM and cries. This causes an adversary impression.

The DM presents a living, breathing world. Many elements of the world wish to remove that living and breathing component of the player characters.

 

[Treebore]

enabler.

D&D is a drug, mang.

Enabler is probably the best word for describing what most people are trying to use facilitator for.

We are all adults, or at least hopefully good DM's, right? So what is so hard at recognzing the fact that DM's are the ones who set up the "opposition" and use them to try and take down the PC's?

What is so hard about accepting that doing so is an "adversarial" role?

I get the impression so many of you want to "distance" yourself from the adversary label because of the horror stories we have heard about the bad DM's who slaughtered PC's with relish and glee.

We tend towards the advararial role simply because the adventure is set up to overcome obstacles with a bunch of adversaries to over come. That is the biggest premise of this game we play. It is no different in that regard that table top wargaming or sitting down to play a game of Spades or Magic. One guy is out to win over the other.

The BIG difference for us as DM's is that we actually want the guy or guys on the "other" side of the table to win. Just not easily. We want them to earn it.

So we do this by setting up adversarial situations that we believe they will win as long as the dice roll their way and you haven't accidentally stacked the odds too heavily against them.

We are still being their adversary, just a nice one.

Are we facilitators? Heck yes!! We facilitate them with treasure and helpful NPC's and any other myriad factor to help them succeed and have fun or to recover from a "adversary" that they used bad tactics against or simply had real bad dice rolls and ended up dying.

So most of the game goes to the "adversary" side, but we are nice adversaries, we actually want to lose and do our best to have it end up that way, but only if the players earn it by playing smart, playing as a team, and the dice roll well for them. We want them to have a memorable adversary/challenge.

How can we distance ourselves from that role? We are the ones who decided the who, what, when, where, and how much of the whole thing? We designed the adversaries. We designed the situation in which the adversarial confrontation will play out.

So how can anyone claim to not be an adversarial DM? Being adversarial is NOT a BAD thing to be! It is being what we usually call a "Killer" DM that takes it too far. Of course even that is obfuscated by our tendency to call tough DM's with a high kill rates "Killer DM's".

Maye we should call the truly bad adversarial DM's the "slaughter DM's" instead.

Creating the adversaries and the situations in which they are fought or overcome is by default an "adversarial position". That is not a bad label. Being a DM to which the "slaughter DM" title can be given is when it is bad.

So get rid of the milk and honey, and the sunshine and flowers. Revel in the truth! The DM is the "adversary"!! Hopefully we are all the "good" adversary who wants us to win IF we earn it. With our "Facilitator" roles we'll do our best to help our players achieve the desired outcomes against the obstacles we place in their way.

 

[buzz]

I facilitate adversity.

Seconded. Challenge is vital to D&D, so it's an intrinsic part of the DM's job to make challenge happen. Without it, you're waltzing around the game world looking at the scenery. (A lot of people enjoy that, but I think that D&D, as a system, is less than ideal for that purpose.)

 

[Mallus]

So what is so hard at recognzing the fact that DM's are the ones who set up the "opposition" and use them to try and take down the PC's?

Because as DM, I play their NPC allies as well as their adversaries. In fact, I try to play a wide range of different characters for the players to interact with, from the ridiculous to the sublime to the benign-yet-amusing. Mainly the ridiculous, but that's neither here nor there.

'Adversary' is an inadequate term for what do, so I chose facilitator instead. "Host with the most' wasn't an option.

What is so hard about accepting that doing so is an "adversarial" role?

Because its inaccurate. I take the adversarial role when its appropriate, but its not the only role I play, so I don't characterize my overall role as DM as such. What's so hard about accepting that?

Are we facilitators? Heck yes!!

Then we agree.

So how can anyone claim to not be an adversarial DM?

Because playing the adversaries != being adversarial.

So get rid of the milk and honey, and the sunshine and flowers. Revel in the truth!

Which truth? That your afraid to be mistaken for a Sensitive New-Age kind of guy? You've got nothing to worry about