DM as . . .

[buzz]

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.

Exactamundo!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

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).

Not every DM plays like that, though. I know I don't try to overcome and ruthlessly kill the party as quickly and efficiently as possible with my NPC enemies. I'm always prepared to give them some leeway. If I find that I have overcalculated things, I will hold back so they don't all die before they realize that they're outgunned.

I won't make everyone jump the wizard, either - with his low hp, enemies should tumble past the front line and kill him quickly, most of the time. That would be ruthless and adversarial, but not really too much fun for the wizard.

 

[Reynard]

I won't make everyone jump the wizard, either - with his low hp, enemies should tumble past the front line and kill him quickly, most of the time. That would be ruthless and adversarial, but not really too much fun for the wizard.

See, that's exactly the kind of thing I think intelligent enemies should do -- and after a couple times, the players should get the hint and start acting like a team instead of a handful of individuals. I guess that is the most beneficial part of "adversarial" DMing -- players thinking and acting like a team that is in horrible danger, with great rewards if they survive it.

 

[buzz]

See, that's exactly the kind of thing I think intelligent enemies should do -- and after a couple times, the players should get the hint and start acting like a team instead of a handful of individuals. I guess that is the most beneficial part of "adversarial" DMing -- players thinking and acting like a team that is in horrible danger, with great rewards if they survive it.

I agree, though to address Kae-Yoss' point... I think a DM should also keep in mind some in-game rationale. E.g., my Monday DM is very good about limiting tactics to the monster's intelligence, so that animals aren't doing smart things like targeting the wizard. With low-int creatures, it's usually about which PC is the shiniest (usually our hapless paladin), smells most like food, is hurt the worst, or which one hurt them the most last round.

With intelligent opponents, however, they dang well are going to target the wizard, and that makes sense to me. We do the same thing on our side of the screen.

As for compensating for an overpowered encounter, that's sort of beyond the scope of our discussion. That's really an implementation error. We make adjustments when things like that come up.

 

[Reynard]

After a few sessions of "fight for your life" dungeon crawling, last session was sort of a breather for the PCs. They escaped the dungeon via a teleport circle, and ended up in the basement ruins of a wizard's tower. They came out to find gently rolling hills and light forest, and shortly thereafter discovered a small logging village. They met up with a half elf bard/peddlar (so they could sell/trade some of their loot) got to learn a good deal about the region they were in, and interact IC with some of the locals.

During the process, they discovered an old town well that had been boarded over. They asked around about it. Most folks didn't want to discuss it, but finally they greased an old guy's liver well enough to get him to tell them the story: that wizard whose tower they ported into, who was the same one whose room in the dungeon they had looted, had fled to the town when the evil-wizard empire got smashed by dragons (see my sig) and tried to bully the townsfolk into hiding him. Low on spells and already wounded, he was easy prey for the long suffering townsfolk, who threw him in the well.

Now, the PCs suspected that he might still be down there, and they considered tking a poke, but ultimately decided to leave it be. I have little charts with Gather Info check results, and they rolled well enough to get the above info, but not enough to find out that the wizard's "ghost" appears to "take back what's his" when someone comes into town after having looted the ruins or whatever -- though one NPC did make a big deal of asking the PCs if they ook anything from the ruins, or were planning to.

So, in the middle of the night, the dead wizard, a bodak, snuck into the rooms of the PCs who still held onto items they had taken from the wizard's chambers. It snuck up on them while they slept, and it woke them staring in their faces. Both failed their saves and their roomates did not roll well enough to wake. So, in the morning, the rest of their party found 2 dead companions, missing the wizard's items.

Am I a rat bastard DM? Is that unfun?

Oh yeah: no one got XP for the session, because I don't give it out for 'good roleplaying' and such, unless a player does something that makes everyone say "AWESOME!" in unison.

(Note: I left an easy 'out' and a way to engage the PCs in their new area's adventure possibilities, that amounts to, long story short, the local Temple of Justice -- of which 2 PCs, including one of the dead ones, are clerics -- raised them and asked them to help clean up the hive of scum and villainy that is the city they have come to.)

 

[Kae'Yoss]

See, that's exactly the kind of thing I think intelligent enemies should do -- and after a couple times, the players should get the hint and start acting like a team instead of a handful of individuals. I guess that is the most beneficial part of "adversarial" DMing -- players thinking and acting like a team that is in horrible danger, with great rewards if they survive it.

Unless "acting as a team" means "shielding the mage with everything you have, including your bodies", it won't really help.

 

[Reynard]

Unless "acting as a team" means "shielding the mage with everything you have, including your bodies", it won't really help.

Well, there's other tactics, but that's the simplest and often the most effective.

 

[Ourph]

Not every DM plays like that, though. I know I don't try to overcome and ruthlessly kill the party as quickly and efficiently as possible with my NPC enemies. I'm always prepared to give them some leeway. If I find that I have overcalculated things, I will hold back so they don't all die before they realize that they're outgunned.

I won't make everyone jump the wizard, either - with his low hp, enemies should tumble past the front line and kill him quickly, most of the time. That would be ruthless and adversarial, but not really too much fun for the wizard.

What you are describing is the difference between a facilitator and an adversary, exactly what the thread is about. But it also points out that your initial reaction (lumping the "dickweed" and "adversarial" DMs in the same basket) was an oversimplification. Going after the Wizard is only not fun for the Wizard's player if he's expecting to be facilitated rather than competed against. Someone who is expecting the game to be a competition will control his character accordingly and can have just as much fun as another player who knows the DM "won't go there".

 

[buzz]

Going after the Wizard is only not fun for the Wizard's player if he's expecting to be facilitated rather than competed against. Someone who is expecting the game to be a competition will control his character accordingly and can have just as much fun as another player who knows the DM "won't go there".

QFT. It's all about the Social Contract, baby.