Embracing an Adversarial DM/PLayer Relationship in 4E

[Reynard]

One of the interesting results of 4E being so tightly designed and focused is that I think it would function well as a Players vs. DM kind of game. We've all seen or at least heard of those kinds of games before, and it's often talked about in the negative, there is something to be said for competition as play. Prior to 4E, however, it was always an extremely unfair contest (and still could be in 4E, but I'll get there in a minute). In AD&D in particular, the balance of power at the table was so weighted toward the DM that any real attempt to "kill" the players would be trivial and not particularly fun. In 3E, more mechanical guidelines like CR and EL and WBL were introduced that could make such a contest more fair, but unfortunately a lot of game elements (monsters, treasure, traps, classes) broke those systems in such a way as to render them meaningless.

4E, having not yet felt the bloat and having been designed from the ground up with "the maths" in mind seems like it might have all the tools necessary to pull this kind of game off. Obviously, the DM still creates or at least runs the scenario, so there's plenty of potential for abuse. But, if only official material is used, if all the rules are followed and if any "unusual situations" hew to the page 42 guidelines, it seems like the "fairness" would be maintained well enough for a successful Us vs Him/Her game.

What I am thinking here is something along the lines of Descent, where the "DM" is a player that tries to eliminate the other players who make up a team of equals. It'd require some set up time and a strong agreement between the players and the DM, but I think such a game could be fun as a contest and a test of skill and will.

You could take the tired old saw "An evil wizard has teleported you into the depth of his labrynth and dares you to escape with your lives and as much treasure as you can carry" and, with proper consideration for following the guidelines and being "fair", do your best as the DM to destroy the players as they move through the dungeon.

I am not sure I'd want to playa whole campaign like that, but it might be fun as a con game or an occassional diversion when folks just want to crush skulls to relieve stress.

 

[Jasperak]

All right I'll bite. Wasn't what you are proposing pretty much what DDM and chainmail were before they were cancelled; two sides equally balanced and set loose against each other. Just in 4e's case each combatant on player's side run by each player but on the DM's side all combantants run by him/her.

I am slightly confused.

 

[malraux]

All right I'll bite. Wasn't what you are proposing pretty much what DDM and chainmail were before they were cancelled; two sides equally balanced and set loose against each other. Just in 4e's case each combatant on player's side run by each player but on the DM's side all combantants run by him/her.

I am slightly confused.

An adversarial DM/player relationship is one in which the DM is trying to kill the players. Tomb of Horrors would be a good example of this sort of thing. The goal from the DM's perspective is to prevent the party from getting deeper into the tomb, while the players' goal is to get as far as possible without dying.

 

[Reynard]

All right I'll bite. Wasn't what you are proposing pretty much what DDM and chainmail were before they were cancelled; two sides equally balanced and set loose against each other. Just in 4e's case each combatant on player's side run by each player but on the DM's side all combantants run by him/her.

I am slightly confused.

Not so much a direct confrotation of opposing sides -- like an arena combat -- but rather a fairly typical D&D dungeon crawl, but one in which the DM, instead of helping to move the story along and facilitate the plaers' fun, goes for a no apologies style of adjudicating results and running enemies. For the most part, DM advice (not just in 4E, but across editions) suggests that the DM shouldn't try and kill the PCs at every turn. it's good advice, especially where the lion's share of the power is with the DM. At the same time, though, competitive play* can be fun (as evidenced by a million and a half board and card games). But competition requires a more even playing field, and what I am suggesting is that 4E, being designed with "the maths" in mind, has the potential to put the DM and the players on much mor eeven footing. This opens up the opportunity of a more adversarial relationship between DM and players, without resulting in the DM always winning.

Of course, encounter design and level appropriate elements would have to hew very close to the design guidelines. Numbers would have to be open to the players, at least insofar as them being confident that the traps, monsters and hazards are all level appropriate, and therefore having at least a general idea of DCs and the like. The dungeon or adventure structure would have to allow for the suggested number of short and extended rests, and treasure would have to be distributed as is intended. But within these constraints, the DM would be free to choose challenges and tactics that are decidedly not PC friendly.

I think it would be fun, as I said, for an occassional game.

*There's a name for think kind of play, but I don't recall it at the moment and that game design book is not within reach at the moment.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I remember comments from D&D 4 on this board or CM that mentioned that they have become more "adversarial" towards their players. Not by putting unfair situations against them, but by having their NPCs and monsters use effective tactics and having them target the groups weaknesses.

The PCs have a certain robustness to themselves - if 4 Kobold Slingers open fire against the Wizard, there is actually a chance he can survive the first assault and the PCs can try to help their Wizard (healing him, engaging the Kobolds in melee, the Wizard retreating to cover).

The way the player characters are designed means that they can survive a lot of punishment.
The lack of Save or Die is particularly noteworthy here, I think. A Finger of Death targeted at a Wizard either kills him or doesn't - but there is no time to react for any of his allies if this comes unexpected. If a monster in 4E surprises you with one of its nasty attacks, you can usually try to find a counter-measure or at least "repair" the damage it did. The surprise attack alone was not what will take your down, your inability to find a suitable counter-tactic was. (Well, that or constantly rolling low. Little can protect against that. )

A lot of the 3E challenge is to be prepared. Build your character in the right way (good saves, AC, most powerful offensive options, cast the right buffs.) If you are no adequately prepared, it is easy to find your weak spot and target it. And it is easy for the DM to see that, and many shy away from exploiting such errors - because the players at game time won't necessarily see their mistake and there is a good chance he will just perceive the DMs behavior as unfair.
A lot of the 4E challenge is being able to adapt. If your enemy uses powerful ranged attacks, find a way to neutralize their effectiveness (or the monster itself). If there is a nasty but slow brute, evade him and deal with the Skirmishers. Try to bypass the Soldier to focus on the heavy hitters. Find a way to make it impossible for the Lurker to disappear.
If the DM targets your weak spots or merely uses nasty monsters, you look for your way out. If you fail in the end, you might actually see that you should have targeted the enemy archer earlier, or that you shouldn't let the Wizard stay around bloodied for a Lurker to take down. The mistakes are more transparent because they happened during the combat, not hours before.

 

[Jasperak]

OK i see. I didn't understand because that's how I play anyway. As DM I try to challenge the players and their characters and they try to not die (the characters of course.) Now we never did play into higher levels (14+) in 3e but did in earlier editions past. I don't think we ever thought either I or other DMs were unfair.

Now to be fair recently there was one younger player that started whining when I used a creature that could attack his one weakness. That cry baby was gone within 4 sessions. Players crying foul because they min/max and then get bit do not belong in my game.

I guess I am part of the Old Guard with respects to the role of the DM. In my opinion, the DM challenges the players and characters. If they survive there is a story to tell. If the DM purposefully directs the game flow by pulling punches, then there is NO story worth telling. IMHO.

The poster above does make a great point about an emergent difference between pre-4e and 4e games. Earlier games did rely on preparation more than adapting, especially with spellcasters. That maybe one of the reasons I dislike 4e. I am much more effective in planning stages than execution stages.

 

[Reynard]

I guess I am part of the Old Guard with respects to the role of the DM. In my opinion, the DM challenges the players and characters. If they survive there is a story to tell. If the DM purposefully directs the game flow by pulling punches, then there is NO story worth telling. IMHO.

I agree. But one of the problems in prior editions is that even where there's guidelines for creating "fair" challenges, those guidelines often break down. Now, I like unexpected difficulty and emergent tension, but when a CR value, for example, can be completely off the mark because of things like preparation or particular party or character strengths or weaknesses, it undermines the "fairness" of pulling out all the stops to defeat the players.

What I think I see in 4E, with its focus on balance and math, is a system that helps reduce these anomalies and therefore allows the DM to actively try and destroy the PCs and thwart the players while still playing "fair".

 

[Herschel]

One of the interesting results of 4E being so tightly designed and focused is that I think it would function well as a Players vs. DM kind of game. Etc., etc.

You describe in many ways what D&D already is to most people: Pitting the DM's scenarios against the PC's skills. Why would any good DM want to unfairly kill the players? That would be really boring. Why would any DM want to give the PC's "easy wins" through the campaign? That also would be really dull.

I know when I DM my goal is to beat the tar out of the PCs, make them fear for their very "lives" as they meet whatever combat goal happens to be set, but not kill them. I want to challenge them to solve puzzles yet have them solved. I want social settings to be played yet base certain reactions on rolls.

It's what I'd be tempted to call "adversarial light". The goal isn't for the DM to "win" but to make it as tough as they can for the PCs to reach the end goal along the way while maintaining the fun.

 

[the Jester]

I embrace the appearance of an adversarial playstyle, and pretty much always have, even though I'm secretly rooting for the pcs.

I play my monsters, not to let the pcs win, but rather to fulfill the monsters' goal, be it slaying pcs, defending their home or whatever, to the best of their ability and intellect.

I don't fudge the dice much, if at all. I don't recall fudging them at all in 4e yet. I mostly roll in the open, and I'm not afraid to tpk.

I laugh, my voice full of gleeful malice, when I slay a pc. Of course, I don't really mean it, but it keeps my players on their toes.

What you're describing is, and pretty much always has been, standard operating procedure both for my game and for almost all the games that I have played in.

 

[Agamon]

While it's possible to have an adversarial 4e game (3e does it well, too), I like to see the PCs succeed and don't hide that enthusiasm from the players at all. In fact, in the PC-centric games I like to play, dead PCs are often more of a problem for me than not, and a TPK (or even near TPK) is a campaign-ender. So, while my games aren't a walk in the park, they aren't designed to make the PCs fail. I run the enemies in a realistic manner, using whatever is at their disposal to kill their adversaries, but I groan when I crit and cheer when they do. I have more fun and my players trust that I'm trying to provide a game that's fun for everybody.

Now, OTOH, I just picked up Decent...looking forward to slaughtering some PCs in that.