DM as . . .

[The Hound]

Facilitator ... most of the time

I'd say 95% of GMs I've run accross are facilitators, as opposed to regarding the players as game opponents to be bested in one way or another.

 

[Shades of Green]

I've voted half and half - facilitating adversary. The DM's role is to challenge the players and their characters - but the challenge must be one that facilitates play (and story) and is fun to overcome.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I've voted half and half - facilitating adversary. The DM's role is to challenge the players and their characters - but the challenge must be one that facilitates play (and story) and is fun to overcome.

Challenging them is not adversariel. The guy who runs the shooting booth at a fair (let's assume for one second that it's an honest business, not one of those with skewed guns that don't shoot where you aim) challenges you to hit 5 targets to win that teddy bear. But he's not adversariel: He doesn't tell you to hit more targets than he does and takes up a rifle himself.

That's what a good DM is like: He gives you challenges - variations on the theme "Shoot those 5 targets" (smaller targets, closer targets, moving targets...).

A DM being adversial does not (only) challenge you, he competes with you. He tries to win the game. He plays to win, not to challenge.

And I don't think you can be only a bit adversarial - either you are, or you're not. Of course, you could have different DMs (some of which are adversarial) or DMs who are like that some of the time. But I don't think there's a half-adversarial DM.

Note that Challenging is not the same. And being non-adversarial doesn't mean the DM is letting you win: He can still make things hard. Tough challenges, even unsurmountable ones (though those are supposed to be a meta-challenge, meaning that the actual challenge is not the dragon, but knowing that you have to flee here, or resort to non-violent options). But they're set up to challenge you, not to give the DM a chance to win against you.

 

[buzz]

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

The main problem with this thread is that people are reading "adversarial" and thinking "dickweed."

It'd be more useful to keep dictionary definitions in mind:

A facilitator is someone "who skilfully helps a group of people understand their common objectives and plan to achieve them without personally taking any side of the argument."

An adversary is someone "that opposes another in a battle, contest, controversy, or debate."

RAW D&D asks that the DM do both. (As do most popular RPGs.)

How you see your DM (or yourself) probably depends on how combat-focused your group's play is. My two D&D groups are very tactically-minded, so our DM'ing primarily involves playing the opposition. Ergo, DM = adversary in my mind, and I like it that way.

Start talking about "DM as dickweed," and I think you leave the context of this thread behind. I.e., you're talking about cheating, not about running the game as written.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I still wouldn't say that the DM really opposes the players. He doesn't try to win. He tries to challenge you. If pose a riddle to someone ("An unseen opening leaves the path ungarded. Opposing rows must clash to unite."), you don't oppose him. You challenge him. You don't intend to beat him, you want to see whether he can beat that challenge.

 

[buzz]

I still wouldn't say that the DM really opposes the players.

As a whole, no. However, the DM isn't just a facilitator, either, as a facilitator mainly serves to make things easier. When combat starts, the DM is the one who runs the opponents. By setting up challenges, the DM is specifically not making things easier, though they may certainly be making things more fun.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

As a whole, no. However, the DM isn't just a facilitator, either, as a facilitator mainly serves to make things easier. When combat starts, the DM is the one who runs the opponents. By setting up challenges, the DM is specifically not making things easier, though they may certainly be making things more fun.

Facilitator might be the wrong term. Game Master might be a better. The guy who runs the administrative part of the game.

 

[Reynard]

Facilitator might be the wrong term.

Funerator?

 

[buzz]

Funerator?

Hasta la vista, PC.

 

[Ourph]

I still wouldn't say that the DM really opposes the players. He doesn't try to win. He tries to challenge you.

When I am a DM I try to "win" within the context of the actual game. I don't try to "win" when designing the adventure and creating potential encounters, but when the game starts, the dice are rolling and the bad guys are trying to kill the PCs, I am trying to kill the PCs with every method that is at my disposal within the rules and the parameters I set up before the game. I am trying to "win". My purpose is not just to present a challenge to the PCs which is difficult but, in the end, able to be overcome, it is to ruthlessly kill them as quickly and efficiently as possible.

It seems to me that is pretty adversarial, but it's not about screwing the players, it's about playing a game (where the DM is an active participant) rather than just entertaining the players (where the DM is a facilitator for that entertainment).