DM as . . .

[Mark CMG]

For those who have asked, I think you do need to include yourself if you are a DM, despite the potential for non-objectivity. I hope most have but, if you haven't, feel free to post to describe how you might have voted or posted differently.

 

[Dragon Snack]

Sadly, I most often see the DM as an adversary - and not in the "good" way some have been arguing for. It's one of the reasons I quit 2 games and I'm the only one my group trusts to DM right now.

That said, I've been backed into a pretty adversarial role as a DM myself, at least more than I want it to be. I try my best to create challenging encounters and I let the dice fall for good or bad. Unfortunately, his has led to quite a few PC deaths...

 

[Kae'Yoss]

For those who have asked, I think you do need to include yourself if you are a DM, despite the potential for non-objectivity. I hope most have but, if you haven't, feel free to post to describe how you might have voted or posted differently.

Nope, still facilitator all the way. True, I challenge the players, but that's not being adversariel - I don't set out to kill the player characters. I don't like that. I don't like it when players compete with each other, and if the DM wants to outdo the players, it's so much worse!

 

[Doug McCrae]

Always facilitator. Wyrm Pilot is right though, it's just a question of terminology. The exact same GMing style could equally be described as 100% facillitating or 100% adversarial. The poll tells us only about use of words, nothing about GMs.

 

[Nyeshet]

It is interesting.

So many responses state that they chose facilitator, yet their reasons why more closely resemble adversary. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding something . . . .

I chose "most often see the DM as an adversary" as the DM is supposed to provide challenges for the players to overcome. He may also be the friendly and useful PC, but his major role is in determining the methods, tactics, plans, plots, etc of the BBEG and the various minions. These will not be seeking to facilitate the party, they will be seeking to attack and overcome the party, defend their base(s) against the party, and so forth. How can this be viewed as aiding the party of adventurers rather than opposing them? How can the challenges remain challenging and give a sense of triumph upon being overcome unless they are difficult and specifically take into account the strengths and weaknesses of the party (as learned by the BBEG via the various means within the game - scrying, bribing NPCs, debriefing foes that got away, etc)?

The DM may 'facilitate' in the sense of setting up the setting and arranging an adventure / quest, but in every other sense of the game the relationship (between PCs and their foes) is distinctly adversarial. Thus my choice in this poll (and my confusion over the choices of many others that voted).

 

[kinem]

To extend the baseball analogy ...

The DM plays the opposing team ... and also the referee. The players play the home team ... and also the fans.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The DM may 'facilitate' in the sense of setting up the setting and arranging an adventure / quest, but in every other sense of the game the relationship (between PCs and their foes) is distinctly adversarial. Thus my choice in this poll (and my confusion over the choices of many others that voted).

That's not what we meant. Yes, the DM controls the people and creatures that are the player characters' adversaries, but that isn't the same as the DM being adversarial.

I guess you haven't had an adversial DM yet, or you'd know what one is: Someone who screws the party over, counters everything they do, negates their strengths and attacks their weaknesses, tries to kill them while staying within the "rules".

 

[megamania]

As a DM I try for Mostly a facilitator.

As a player, nothing sucks more than a DM whose sole purpose is beat you down and kill you then gloat. and yes, I have a DM that does that. I avoid his games as much as I can.

 

[Reynard]

I guess you haven't had an adversial DM yet, or you'd know what one is: Someone who screws the party over, counters everything they do, negates their strengths and attacks their weaknesses, tries to kill them while staying within the "rules".

That's not an adversarial DM; that's a jerk.

 

[Nyeshet]

That's not what we meant. Yes, the DM controls the people and creatures that are the player characters' adversaries, but that isn't the same as the DM being adversarial.

I guess you haven't had an adversarial DM yet, or you'd know what one is: Someone who screws the party over, counters everything they do, negates their strengths and attacks their weaknesses, tries to kill them while staying within the "rules".

Ahh, now I see.

No, I haven't had an adversarial DM (as you describe one) as of yet. The closest I've come is a story-type DM who tended to have us follow a planned general outline (although we could deviate a bit from it, to a degree). On the other hand, it was still quite a bit of fun as he tended to hand out LA templates and higher level items rather than levels / xp / etc. So I started at first level and ended a couple months later (real time) at 3rd level - but I was also a half-celestial hawk lycanthrope [controlled] with a minor artifact undead turning spear for a weapon. And the story line - though quite odd at times - was very interesting, involving multiple trips through time, the planes, etc.

I had another DM that played rough but fair with the rules. There were always several paths we could take, but occasionally he would throw out paths that weren't meant to be taken till several levels later - and wouldn't tell us, giving us only a few hints at best. If we took the wrong path, we might find ourselves easily overcome and having to retreat - often with one or more PC fatalities, as he would not have adjusted the plots for our current level. On the other hand, he warned us ahead of time of his style, and when it came time to choosing which paths to take, he tried to make certain that we had as much information as PCs of our level could possibly find / receive. If the path was made for a higher level it was harder to find info on it - usually our first clue that perhaps we should choose another. Over the course of about a year of real time (about three years, game time) I must have died about half a dozen times, but despite that when the campaign pettered out (it didn't really end, per se) I was an 11th level halfling bard. (I had been a ranger, a wizard, a rogue, and a fighter, prior.) So I was still able to advance, and the overall setting was quite interesting, having been built over years (real time) via decades (game time) of prior adventuring groups he had played with.

I haven't really had a DM 'out to get me' or the others in the game. I've had them play the foes using intelligent tactics and the weapons, armor, and items that might be expected of PC classed NPCs of their levels, but I consider that standard for the game.