Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9624153" data-attributes="member: 7035894">If the DM's only goal is to defeat and foil the players, period, then they can do that. A meteor falls from the sky and squashes the party. Done. Oops, behind that door was a ray of instant death trap. Done. (Now I think about it, the original Tomb of Horrors kinda did that stuff). So obviously Mearls isn't suggesting that the DM should do whatever they want to defeat and foil the players. It only makes sense if interpreted in the context of gameplay.When you look at what Mearls has written and contributed to, he clearly values balanced game design. When you watch actual play of him running games, he isn't a moustache-twirling super villain out to torment his players. Everyone is clearly having a good time. All he is describing is the attitude the DM should take with regards to their role as adversary. Every story needs adversaries, and when you are DMing, that is your job. In fairness to your players, you should do it as well as you can within the context of the story, a story that you have designed as a challenge, but a beatable challenge.So you set up some adventure, like all DM's do. When you're doing it, you're taking into account party level, composition, player ability, etc. (assuming you're a good DM; Mearls is a very good and experienced DM and there is lots of video you can watch of him). At this point, you're not doing everything you can to defeat and foil the players, or all your games would be five minutes long and no one would want to play. No, you're trying for a challenge that your players will probably defeat, but you do want there to be some risk (and the degree of challenge and consequences for failure can vary widely; this is a good thing to discuss at Session 0, which Mearls strongly advocates).So now it's time to play the game. At this point, you are the fair arbiter of the rules, and you are working with the players to build the story by roleplaying the entire rest of the world. And when combat happens, it is your job to put yourself in the shoes of the antagonists and do your best to be true to their perspective. If you're a bunch of goblins setting an ambush, be the best goblin ambushers you can be and try to take the party out! If you're an ancient dragon defending your hoard, try to catch as many of them in your breath weapon as you can! If you're a successful merchant, haggle hard! And so on.That doesn't necessarily mean that mobs all become psychotic berserkers, though. Sometimes, foiling the party means that the BBEG does the smart thing and tries to escape once the situation goes south, and now it is up to the players to catch them. And sometimes, it means being ruthless and attacking a PC while they're down, potentially finishing them off if that is what makes sense for the BBEG in context.I think Matt Mercer epitomizes this approach to DMing - I don't think anyone sees him as an adversarial DM, but once combat starts the gloves are off, and he plays his mobs with every bit of cleverness he can, in context. He does not take it easy on his players...and they love him for it. Because he respects their gameplay enough to know that they can handle it.That's all Mearls is saying: when the gloves are off, respect your players by doing your best to beat them. Then when they win, as they usually do, it will feel a lot more rewarding.</blockquote>

Verification