Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Embracing an Adversarial DM/PLayer Relationship in 4E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 4641860" data-attributes="member: 467"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I think it would be fun, as I said, for an occassional game.</p><p></p><p>*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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 4641860, member: 467"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Embracing an Adversarial DM/PLayer Relationship in 4E
Top