DM as . . .

[Falconnan]

Also 50/50. I think this is probably the best it could be. DM and player are working together to tell a story, but the DM also must challenge the player. Therefore, the story is often the best when player and DM have a low-level, friendly rivalry.

 

[Reynard]

Your turn to rebut my argument, or we could just agree to disagree.

If it works for you, good! I guess part of it is that i feel play should be its own reward: dying because your character got hit with a critical by a storm giant isn't inherently unfun. hell, it might be a blast. It's also why I don't give out extra XP for "good roleplaying" or bringing chips and coke. PCs get in game rewards (like XP), players get out of game rewards (like fun).

 

[Arkhandus]

I voted half and half. I dunno if you mean for us to consider how it is when we DM, or just when we see others DMing. I'm generally more of a facillitator, only slightly adversarial (have to challenge the PCs sometimes after all, we're not playing My Little Pony the RPG). I've played under a few other DMs that mostly served as facillitators rather than adversaries.

But I've also played under, and seen, a couple of older DMs (and one younger one) that are always adversarial. They've worked to be as vindictive and ruthless as possible; I've been mocked and laughed at as a DM killed my PC, more than once, when he was only doing the smart thing while other PCs went and triggered some stupid traps. That somehow dropped my PC into huge pits, either to be crushed by a falling block or impaled on spikes. And the same sort of thing happened when other PCs died. I've heard one of them respond to me or someone else that 'it's the DMs job to kill the PCs, and their job to try and stop him'. I didn't play in their games very long....

 

[Nyaricus]

"I most often see the DM as a facilitator". If that means he's out to kill the party, well we likely deserved it

cheers,
--N

 

[Wyrm Pilot]

I see a lot of people saying things like "The DM needs to be an adversary part of the time"... The problem is confusion of terms: The DM does need to be the players' opponent (i.e. in a competitive role) a lot of the time, but should never take on a truly adversarial position (i.e. "I'm out to get you"). It's like, no matter how many times the Yankees beat the snot out of the Red Sox on the field, the Sox aren't going to hire some guy to Tonya Harding the Yanks' kneecaps.

Yes, the DM needs to be an opponent, because having obstacles to overcome (and sometimes fail to overcome) is what the game is about. But the DM should never be an adversary to the players; that's only fun for any length of time to small-minded, petty, perpetually-preadolescent DMs.

I'm a facilitator, and my players dread the sight of a lone kobold.

Cheers,
Wyrm Pilot

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Todd is that you? lol Just kidding. You sound just like my friend though. We can agree to disagree. I really don't try to tell the story I want, so much as try and reward the players for acting like heroes. I kill players for stupidity (not so much now they are smarter). I think the rogue vaulting off the clerics shoulders to get over the ogre and tumbling behind the evil orc shaman should be rewarded so when a lucky roll of a crit for a failed jump or tumble roll would kill said heroic rogue I sometimes choose to intervene. and reduce the damage for said crit to reward the player for his actions. That is why I don't always let the dice fall where they may.

Your turn to rebut my argument, or we could just agree to disagree.

My preference is to structure the rules so they - and the players - do this for you.

Hero Point/Drama Point/Conviction mechanics, that is to say player narrative control as a resource to manage in-game, free up the GM to let the dice fall where they may without potentially derailing the whole game by a single bad roll. I don't consider action points quite on this level; their effect is far too limited. The interesting thing is that these mechanics don't make it any less Game to make it more Story; they add a different aspect to Game that happens to also facilitate Story, while still providing tactical decision-making.

Stunting mechanics also directly reward what you're calling heroic actions (I would say 'cinematic') by giving the player a mechanical benefit rather than a penalty for doing the cool thing rather than the simple thing.

This way, you get the best of both worlds: the GM can play 'fair' and ruthless (and focus on providing plots and challenges) and the players can do cool things and improve both game and story by working WITH the game mechanics rather than against them.

 

[Reynard]

Hero Point/Drama Point/Conviction mechanics, that is to say player narrative control as a resource to manage in-game, free up the GM to let the dice fall where they may without potentially derailing the whole game by a single bad roll. I don't consider action points quite on this level; their effect is far too limited. The interesting thing is that these mechanics don't make it any less Game to make it more Story; they add a different aspect to Game that happens to also facilitate Story, while still providing tactical decision-making.

While I agree with you to some extent, I don't think a single bad die roll can derail a game if a) the DM is smart enough not to hinge an entire session/adventure/campaign on a single die roll (and that includes hinging it on a single PC), and b) players understand consequences before they take actions.

A series of bad die rolls *can* result in derailing, but that is a whole lot more on the players. if bad die rolls are making a battle too hard and threatening a TPK, it isn't the DM's job to fudge things so there isn't a TPK. The onus is on the players to realize their PCs are in trouble and run the frak away or change tactics or do *something* other than stand there and continue until they get TPK'd.

And, honestly, while TPKs suck, they aren't the end of a game. In the absolute worst case*, a new group of adventurers gets to win a whole lot of loot (once they take it from whatever TPK's the original party). in the best case, you have a little PC shrine and a place in the campaign world that isn't just described as the "Dungeon of Dastardly Doom" by the DM, but actually believed to be a dungeon of dastardly doom by the players because it was, in fact, full of dastardly doom.

*Well, not the worst case, but worser cases are likely to be the result of player/DM friction and that's a whole different issue. If you can't handle (as a player) your character getting killed, or a TPK occurring, you shouldn't play at my table -- and I say that having killed a maximum of half a dozen PCs in the lat 10 years of DMing and having *never* had a TPK.

 

[buzz]

The problem is confusion of terms: The DM does need to be the players' opponent (i.e. in a competitive role) a lot of the time, but should never take on a truly adversarial position (i.e. "I'm out to get you").

I think I get your point, but I'm stumbling over the fact that "adversary" and "opponent" are synonymous. The dictionary definition of "adversary" is literally "an opponent; enemy." Your baseball example would seem to say that the DM shouldn't be trying to screw the players over, but I think that's pretty much a given. Much the same way that a player shouldn't key the DM's car because his PC got killed last session.

I voted for "I most often see the DM as an adversary," as our games tend to be pretty combat heavy, so the DM is typically in the role of our opposition. When it comes to combat, that's how I prefer the DM act. I don't want him saving my PC's butt. Combat is pretty pointless for me otherwise.

 

[Reynard]

I voted for "I most often see the DM as an adversary," as our games tend to be pretty combat heavy, so the DM is typically in the role of our opposition. When it comes to combat, that's how I prefer the DM act. I don't want him saving my PC's butt. Combat is pretty pointless for me otherwise.

I think for many DMs, myself included, the opposite is also true. Don't get me wrong, when I design adventures I often throw in a few "cake walk" encounters because PCs deserve to feel cool. They are, after all, the protagonists. but even if it is a party of 10th level PCs against a half dozen 2nd level orc barbarians, I still play those orcs as well as I can (within the confines of trying to "think like an orc"). if the players underestimate their opponents, or the dice go bad, or whatever, and a 10th PC bites it to a couple 2nd level orcs -- well, tough noogies, looks like your share of treasure is going for a res.

When it is time to bring out the big bads, I tend to have an open roll policy and a policy of making ti very clear to the PCs that this big bad means to not just kill them all, but shew on their souls till the sun burns out. I find that it not only makes the battle more fun, but ups the stakes to a point where the players actually care enough to use tactics.

The tough part, especially for beginning DMs but also for experienced DMs trying out new monsters, PrCs, items, etc.. for enemies, is making sure the encounter itself is fair. I have pulled back in the past, and will likely do so again, if I find that I completely underestimated the power/effectiveness of some monster or NPC. I don't, however, "fudge forward" if I overestimated the enemy's power. if I flub it that bad, the PCs deserve the XP and treasure of a CR whatever encounter even if it really was a CR whatever/2 encounter.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I voted "always facilitator", but that's only nowadays. I had played with (against?) other people. I don't, any more. (And the adversial aspect was only one of the reaons for that).