Edena_of_Neith
First Post
Take this from someone who would not trust himself with a burnt out match.
You are reading a post from someone whose credibility, makes Goodgulf of Bored of the Rings, look like Elrond (the real one) in comparison.
So, take this for what it's worth.
When I started D&D, I faced DMs who choose an Adversarial Role towards me and my fellow players.
What do I mean by Adversarial Role? I mean: 'This is going to hurt, but that's how it is.' Ala, the nurse is going to give you a flu shot (with a horse needle, because that's all she has, unfortunately for you), but would you prefer a nice case of virulent Flu A, plus Viral Pneumonia, and a long stay in the hospital (along with plenty of additional shots, blood spewing up from your lungs, and other nice things like that) instead?
Take your lumps, and like it. TPK? Try again. You make a mistake, you lose. You make a mistake in judgement, you lose. Even if you do everything right, you may well lose.
And the DM? He says: 'You brought it on yourself. This is your fault. Try harder next time. Do NOT ask ME for sympathy, for you will get none. You blew it, this is the cost of your folly.'
That's what I mean by Adversarial.
(chuckles)
Sounds pretty nasty, no?
Well, it is. But then, in absolute games like RISK, Monopoly, Chess, Bridge, Axis and Allies, and others, the rules are the Adversary, and you face other players who are out to wipe you out. That's the game, buddy.
Nobody has a problem in those games (usually ...)
Why a problem in AD&D?
Well ...
The DM is your friend.
Do you really want an adversarial situation with a friend?
In the early days of play, I faced one adversarial DM after another. Lost character after character. 100% fatality rate, which dropped to 75% quickly, then 50% after about a year or so. Call it the School of Hard Knocks.
Every D&Der should go through it. It is an important learning experience. I do mean that.
It teaches you something crucial.
What is it, that is so crucial, that it teaches?
1: Avoid Killer DMs (those who are actively mean, actively try to kill you, try you as an person to hurt, instead of a simply cold and indifferent DM, or a caring DM who is simply trying to do his job - no matter how much doing that job might hurt.)
2: Teamwork. Groups faced with Adversarial DMs bond. They focus on survival. All efforts are towards survival. All creativity is turned towards survival. All party power, is aimed towards survival. There is no room for disruptive players, argumentative players, pushy players, or obnoxious players, and they will either end up quitting (after losing their characters, and losing the subsequent argument with the adamant DM) or being kicked out (after one too many arguments.)
Roleplaying, is focused around survival.
Roleplaying, in the more casual sense, is there, based on the idea of 'who is this person I'm running, who struggles so hard to survive?' This comes from the original table table miniature games that spawned D&D, and continues today.
IMHO, had this Adversarial Relationship between DM and Group managed to stick around, D&D would be far more popular today than it is.
I think the collapse of the Adversarial Situation (I realize that word, Adversarial, rankles - it implies hostility, emnity, I'm going to get you, doesn't it? But I don't mean it as any of that. I mean it as the nurse who is about to give you that horse shot.) was harmful to the game.
To summarize:
- DM's grew tired of being adversarial with their friends. (Well, of course, they did. Why wouldn't they?)
- DM's starting allowing characters to survive, when they shouldn't have (again, natural, consider these are friends, and isn't the game about fun?)
- DM's started fudging rolls, to aid their players (see above)
- DM's toned down the challenge level of their encounters (see above)
All fine and well. The DM's gave an Inch.
You know what happened next. The Players took a Mile.
Why?
Because it's human nature, that's why. And because some players, were naturally loud and pushy, and they were ... loud and pushy.
- In the end, the Adversarial Situation disappeared, and was replaced with the Friendly System, where everyone was there simply to have fun, fatalities were rare, and the social scene flourished.
For a lot of players, that was good enough, and AD&D flourished with them. They had fun, they made the Friendly System work, and everyone was happy.
However ...
For many others, having taken that Mile, it was time to take another Mile. And another. And another. Bullies will be bullies. Loudmouths are loudmouths. Elitism, cronyism, and other nice things of this ilk do exist, and did exist, and always will exist.
The challenge went out of one too many games, at some point.
The Friendly Scenario, became the Pushover Scenario.
And when that happened ...
Death lost all meaning in Dungeons and Dragons.
* * * Death lost all meaning in Dungeons and Dragons. * * *
Why is that important? What did it cause to happen? Why the stars above?
No death, no challenge, no excitement or fun for a lot of players.
Bored players.
Bored players, trying to think of ways to entertain themselves.
Bored players, deciding that other players had more power than them, or being treated better than them, that the game needed Balance, was the answer to the problem.
One result of this, down the years, was the destruction of Gary Gygax's original concept for the wizard.
In the Adversarial Relationship, wizards were appreciated and cherished, since they tended to pull you out of the fire when all else failed (been there, seen that, been saved, a lot ... and died a lot when the wizard tried and failed, too.)
In the Pushover Scenario, who needs a wizard? Much less an overpowered wizard throwing mighty spells, while you're swinging a humble sword? (I suppose Professor Snape would sneer at this statement, and pronounce that there is no such thing as a Pushover Scenario in the world, but then ... I doubt Professor Snape would have tolerated a D&D game in his classroom. Had he - for some incredible reason - decided to DM a D&D game, I am certain it would have been a VERY adversarial game!)
Anyways, nerf, nerf, nerf. No this, no that, too unbalancing.
It didn't stop with wizards. It spread to the cleric. And the druid (no more 3 shapeshifts for you! No more get all the powers of the animal, either!) Even the fighter (a vorpal sword? Who in the heck do you think you are?)
LOL. The poor fighter always had it hardest, at high level. Here comes that beholder, with 3 others following. They all have those death beams, and you nerfed the fighter's vorpal sword. Now, you're facing a TPK ... oh, that's right, DMs stopped creating such challenges long ago, I forgot!
It's human nature.
Ask nothing, and you'll receive nothing (except from those who are self motivated, obviously. And, surrounded by unmotivated people, it's sorta hard to self motivate.)
Ask for excellence, and you'll get it. Make sure mediocrity is punished, and players will respond to the challenge.
They may think you're a lousy DM, or they may just ... secretly admire you. Or both. LOL. But they will answer the call. That, too, is a part of human nature - people like a good challenge.
The Pushover Scenario became the norm, though, people started focusing entirely on other things (such as Balance) and Death lost it's meaning.
So, people turned to more challenging games, and abandoned AD&D.
The constant arguing and bickering over rules and balance and other things of this sort, did not help, either. People want challenges, not bickering. That goes for the Young, too, our future.
If you make Death free, nobody tries (eyes a certain well known videogame out there, but does not name it) and nobody cares, and nobody is ever going to try or care.
Not very good for roleplaying, that. Not very good for campaigns. Not conducive to heroic roleplaying (there are no heros anyways.) Not conducive, ultimately, to fun ... for there is no sense of accomplishment.
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is free. No matter what the players want, or what people might say.
If you go through S1 The Tomb of Horrors, run *properly*, and you survive it, you can be proud of that fact, and most of those (very few) who made it through, are proud.
If S1 is a pushover, you destroy it. Not only the challenge, but the fun, the excitement, the accomplishment. You would have been better off TPKing the party - at least then, they might (in a determined fury) come back for a second try, instead of feeling the letdown of the Invincible Module being a cakewalk (and, of course, since they know what's in said module now, they can never again attempt it, as a challenge. You'll done them that favor, as well, by being so nice and easygoing a DM. You've ruined the module for good, for them.)
-
Now, you'll say, D&D had a death limit.
True enough. About 5 to 10 times, basically. You reach that limit, your character croaks, and it's all over. No exceptions, no way out, finis!
But D&D gave you many ways out of death, and clever players (before clever and creative became dirty words, back in the Adversarial Days when such things were appreciated) could use them all.
Regenerate (ala the Ring, lasted 10 hours) was a 1st level spell (right there in Polyhedron #24, #27, or one of the 20s.)
Or Rope Trick.
Or those nice thing called Full Plate Armor and Large Shield, plus 18 Dexterity (AC - 5, or 25 in 3rd Edition.)
A Cloak of Displacement helped.
A Robe of Elvenkind helped immensely (in the real world, special forces all use stealth ... and there is nothing like being able to stand invisibility in plain sight. Ask Gimli from the film FOTR 'I have the eyes of an eagle, and the ears of a fox!' (arrow in his face the next instant.))
How about Lifeproof? Ever hear of it? AL-QADIM.
Can't cast Lifeproof? Have an NPC mage cast it for you! Expensive? Just how much is your life worth?!
The gem is vulnerable? There ARE trustworthy and friendly people out there (no matter what Conan's father said in that film ...) Or keep it in the party! (You can sequester Bags of Holding inside Plate Armor, and even underneath the gammisson underneath that, or do more interesting, desperate things to protect those things.)
How about caring about the rogue who looks for traps, picks the locks, and evades the poison traps? She has a hard road to walk. Care for her, and she'll care for you.
She's actually a nefarious Assassin? Well, good for you! She has poisoned arrows! Which just might saved the wretched party when they face that super challenge that's just up the hall, and waiting at the ready for them.
Just don't put her in with the Paladin (poor paladin has no choice but to disown her, by the rules.)
You know, that Assassin might be more useful yet, than just the poisoned arrows.
After all, when those smart orcs ahead fire poisoned arrows at the party (I mean, the save or die this round type of poison, not that nerfed poison of later on), maybe she alone knows of an antidote, and has one ready, for such contingencies. (We already know of the emergency method of hacking off limbs for this purpose, to save characters who failed their saving throw. Nastily effective, if your character survives the shock of having a limb forcibly and unexpectedly amputated ... cleric!)
Oh, and the cleric. Undead drain 2 levels, permanently, per touch. No save, no appeal, and even a Restoration only brought you back to minimum xp for the level. Ain't that so nice?
A spectre could do in an 8th level in a round or two (after all, a smart specter would attack with both hands, and who says the thing doesn't get 2 attacks per round, per hand?!)
This is where your cleric comes in, with that Turning (or Controlling) business. Or Protection from Evil (they can't touch you.) Or something else to save you from a new and wonderful life as a spectre in service to a spectre.
Dis the cleric? Tell him his alignment stinks? Not so good an idea.
Treat the cleric as a useless Healer, who is called upon only for healing, and otherwise ignored as useless baggage?
That's a good way to enter Count Von Strahd's service, on his terms (his terms are rather draconian.)
Or, if you are really lucky, that Death Knight that you made the (horrific) mistake of offending, catches up with the party. TPK, and then you, too, get to listen while the banshees sing of his past misdeeds, for the rest of eternity.
You discard the cleric as useless baggage at your peril, unless of course it's the Pushover Scenario, in which case everyone starts doing it (and did do it, been there, saw that) until nobody bothers to play a cleric at all (who needs one, nobody is going to die, there is no threat of dying, so there is no real need for a cleric!)
Etc., etc., etc..
Demand excellence, get excellence (and those who refuse, by arguing or quitting, leave the better players to their work.)
Demand nothing, and receive nothing. Except, of course, for bored players complaining about anything and everything they might perceive as unfair or unbalanced.
Which is where it actually went.
I think it helped seriously harm the game.
-
We had an Unspoken Rule concerning the Adversary in those early days.
We were friends and buddies, except In Game. THEN it was Time to Play For Keeps, Fight or Die (or maybe, Fight AND Die), No Quarter Offered, No Quarter Asked For.
After 15 minutes of that, it was break time, and pepsi time.
Then back to the No Quarter Asked, No Quarter Given.
Then it was pizza time.
Then No Quarter Asked, No Quarter Given.
Then, it was stroll in the woods time.
Then No Quarter Asked, No Quarter Given.
Interrupted, because someone broke a pepsi bottle ON the table, and everyone is in a mad dash to remove character sheets, dice, DM's screen, and themselves, from the ensuing pepsic holocaust.
Then No Quarter Asked, No Quarter Given.
Broken by the requisite bathroom breaks, of course! (Some of those, pretty long, but hey ... it's a game, and these are your friends.)
Then No Quarter Asked, No Quarter Given.
Then, a 5 minute break forced by the power out caused by the Severe Thunderstorm.
Then No Quarter Asked, No Quarter Given.
Then, exhausted and happy, victory! And everyone calling it a day, and very happy with how they spent their Saturday afternoon.
It can still be that way. It's 2011, a long ways from those ancient Adversarial Games I spoke of (which occurred in the early 1980s for me), but that doesn't rule Adversarial Games out.
Any DM and the players in a group, can choose the Adversarial Approach.
It *seems* harsh. It *seems* pitiless. It seems painful, for both DM and players, and likely to lead to hurt feelings and a game fallen apart.
Paradoxically, the opposite is true.
The Adversarial Game leads to satisfaction. It is the Pushover Game that leads to a ruined game (and hurt feelings, too, as bored players accuse each other of 'crimes' committed, over various nonsensical issues that should never have been considered issues at all, much less worth mentioning, much less worth finger pointing over.)
If the Adversarial Game seems too personally antagonistic, remind that all games with fixed rules (such as Axis and Allies) have Adversary, and the rules are (usually) pitilessly exploited by players for just that purpose ... to ruthlessly and utterly crush the other players.
That's quite normal in Axis and Allies, and other games. Why not AD&D?
You should have seen the reaction of groups to the Adversarial DM.
I did see the response, being in many groups that had to face Adverarial DMs.
The players, bonded. They bonded. No other word for it. And they worked together tightly, furiously, and ruthlessly, to survive, achieve, and conquer. No arguments, no debates over rules, items, or balance, no pointed fingers, just teamwork against the foe.
It is amazing, how people will stand up, and stand together, to face down a real challenge.
It's a good thing to behold, and be a part of.
You are reading a post from someone whose credibility, makes Goodgulf of Bored of the Rings, look like Elrond (the real one) in comparison.
So, take this for what it's worth.
When I started D&D, I faced DMs who choose an Adversarial Role towards me and my fellow players.
What do I mean by Adversarial Role? I mean: 'This is going to hurt, but that's how it is.' Ala, the nurse is going to give you a flu shot (with a horse needle, because that's all she has, unfortunately for you), but would you prefer a nice case of virulent Flu A, plus Viral Pneumonia, and a long stay in the hospital (along with plenty of additional shots, blood spewing up from your lungs, and other nice things like that) instead?
Take your lumps, and like it. TPK? Try again. You make a mistake, you lose. You make a mistake in judgement, you lose. Even if you do everything right, you may well lose.
And the DM? He says: 'You brought it on yourself. This is your fault. Try harder next time. Do NOT ask ME for sympathy, for you will get none. You blew it, this is the cost of your folly.'
That's what I mean by Adversarial.
(chuckles)
Sounds pretty nasty, no?
Well, it is. But then, in absolute games like RISK, Monopoly, Chess, Bridge, Axis and Allies, and others, the rules are the Adversary, and you face other players who are out to wipe you out. That's the game, buddy.
Nobody has a problem in those games (usually ...)
Why a problem in AD&D?
Well ...
The DM is your friend.
Do you really want an adversarial situation with a friend?
In the early days of play, I faced one adversarial DM after another. Lost character after character. 100% fatality rate, which dropped to 75% quickly, then 50% after about a year or so. Call it the School of Hard Knocks.
Every D&Der should go through it. It is an important learning experience. I do mean that.
It teaches you something crucial.
What is it, that is so crucial, that it teaches?
1: Avoid Killer DMs (those who are actively mean, actively try to kill you, try you as an person to hurt, instead of a simply cold and indifferent DM, or a caring DM who is simply trying to do his job - no matter how much doing that job might hurt.)
2: Teamwork. Groups faced with Adversarial DMs bond. They focus on survival. All efforts are towards survival. All creativity is turned towards survival. All party power, is aimed towards survival. There is no room for disruptive players, argumentative players, pushy players, or obnoxious players, and they will either end up quitting (after losing their characters, and losing the subsequent argument with the adamant DM) or being kicked out (after one too many arguments.)
Roleplaying, is focused around survival.
Roleplaying, in the more casual sense, is there, based on the idea of 'who is this person I'm running, who struggles so hard to survive?' This comes from the original table table miniature games that spawned D&D, and continues today.
IMHO, had this Adversarial Relationship between DM and Group managed to stick around, D&D would be far more popular today than it is.
I think the collapse of the Adversarial Situation (I realize that word, Adversarial, rankles - it implies hostility, emnity, I'm going to get you, doesn't it? But I don't mean it as any of that. I mean it as the nurse who is about to give you that horse shot.) was harmful to the game.
To summarize:
- DM's grew tired of being adversarial with their friends. (Well, of course, they did. Why wouldn't they?)
- DM's starting allowing characters to survive, when they shouldn't have (again, natural, consider these are friends, and isn't the game about fun?)
- DM's started fudging rolls, to aid their players (see above)
- DM's toned down the challenge level of their encounters (see above)
All fine and well. The DM's gave an Inch.
You know what happened next. The Players took a Mile.
Why?
Because it's human nature, that's why. And because some players, were naturally loud and pushy, and they were ... loud and pushy.
- In the end, the Adversarial Situation disappeared, and was replaced with the Friendly System, where everyone was there simply to have fun, fatalities were rare, and the social scene flourished.
For a lot of players, that was good enough, and AD&D flourished with them. They had fun, they made the Friendly System work, and everyone was happy.
However ...
For many others, having taken that Mile, it was time to take another Mile. And another. And another. Bullies will be bullies. Loudmouths are loudmouths. Elitism, cronyism, and other nice things of this ilk do exist, and did exist, and always will exist.
The challenge went out of one too many games, at some point.
The Friendly Scenario, became the Pushover Scenario.
And when that happened ...
Death lost all meaning in Dungeons and Dragons.
* * * Death lost all meaning in Dungeons and Dragons. * * *
Why is that important? What did it cause to happen? Why the stars above?
No death, no challenge, no excitement or fun for a lot of players.
Bored players.
Bored players, trying to think of ways to entertain themselves.
Bored players, deciding that other players had more power than them, or being treated better than them, that the game needed Balance, was the answer to the problem.
One result of this, down the years, was the destruction of Gary Gygax's original concept for the wizard.
In the Adversarial Relationship, wizards were appreciated and cherished, since they tended to pull you out of the fire when all else failed (been there, seen that, been saved, a lot ... and died a lot when the wizard tried and failed, too.)
In the Pushover Scenario, who needs a wizard? Much less an overpowered wizard throwing mighty spells, while you're swinging a humble sword? (I suppose Professor Snape would sneer at this statement, and pronounce that there is no such thing as a Pushover Scenario in the world, but then ... I doubt Professor Snape would have tolerated a D&D game in his classroom. Had he - for some incredible reason - decided to DM a D&D game, I am certain it would have been a VERY adversarial game!)
Anyways, nerf, nerf, nerf. No this, no that, too unbalancing.
It didn't stop with wizards. It spread to the cleric. And the druid (no more 3 shapeshifts for you! No more get all the powers of the animal, either!) Even the fighter (a vorpal sword? Who in the heck do you think you are?)
LOL. The poor fighter always had it hardest, at high level. Here comes that beholder, with 3 others following. They all have those death beams, and you nerfed the fighter's vorpal sword. Now, you're facing a TPK ... oh, that's right, DMs stopped creating such challenges long ago, I forgot!
It's human nature.
Ask nothing, and you'll receive nothing (except from those who are self motivated, obviously. And, surrounded by unmotivated people, it's sorta hard to self motivate.)
Ask for excellence, and you'll get it. Make sure mediocrity is punished, and players will respond to the challenge.
They may think you're a lousy DM, or they may just ... secretly admire you. Or both. LOL. But they will answer the call. That, too, is a part of human nature - people like a good challenge.
The Pushover Scenario became the norm, though, people started focusing entirely on other things (such as Balance) and Death lost it's meaning.
So, people turned to more challenging games, and abandoned AD&D.
The constant arguing and bickering over rules and balance and other things of this sort, did not help, either. People want challenges, not bickering. That goes for the Young, too, our future.
If you make Death free, nobody tries (eyes a certain well known videogame out there, but does not name it) and nobody cares, and nobody is ever going to try or care.
Not very good for roleplaying, that. Not very good for campaigns. Not conducive to heroic roleplaying (there are no heros anyways.) Not conducive, ultimately, to fun ... for there is no sense of accomplishment.
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is free. No matter what the players want, or what people might say.
If you go through S1 The Tomb of Horrors, run *properly*, and you survive it, you can be proud of that fact, and most of those (very few) who made it through, are proud.
If S1 is a pushover, you destroy it. Not only the challenge, but the fun, the excitement, the accomplishment. You would have been better off TPKing the party - at least then, they might (in a determined fury) come back for a second try, instead of feeling the letdown of the Invincible Module being a cakewalk (and, of course, since they know what's in said module now, they can never again attempt it, as a challenge. You'll done them that favor, as well, by being so nice and easygoing a DM. You've ruined the module for good, for them.)
-
Now, you'll say, D&D had a death limit.
True enough. About 5 to 10 times, basically. You reach that limit, your character croaks, and it's all over. No exceptions, no way out, finis!
But D&D gave you many ways out of death, and clever players (before clever and creative became dirty words, back in the Adversarial Days when such things were appreciated) could use them all.
Regenerate (ala the Ring, lasted 10 hours) was a 1st level spell (right there in Polyhedron #24, #27, or one of the 20s.)
Or Rope Trick.
Or those nice thing called Full Plate Armor and Large Shield, plus 18 Dexterity (AC - 5, or 25 in 3rd Edition.)
A Cloak of Displacement helped.
A Robe of Elvenkind helped immensely (in the real world, special forces all use stealth ... and there is nothing like being able to stand invisibility in plain sight. Ask Gimli from the film FOTR 'I have the eyes of an eagle, and the ears of a fox!' (arrow in his face the next instant.))
How about Lifeproof? Ever hear of it? AL-QADIM.
Can't cast Lifeproof? Have an NPC mage cast it for you! Expensive? Just how much is your life worth?!
The gem is vulnerable? There ARE trustworthy and friendly people out there (no matter what Conan's father said in that film ...) Or keep it in the party! (You can sequester Bags of Holding inside Plate Armor, and even underneath the gammisson underneath that, or do more interesting, desperate things to protect those things.)
How about caring about the rogue who looks for traps, picks the locks, and evades the poison traps? She has a hard road to walk. Care for her, and she'll care for you.
She's actually a nefarious Assassin? Well, good for you! She has poisoned arrows! Which just might saved the wretched party when they face that super challenge that's just up the hall, and waiting at the ready for them.
Just don't put her in with the Paladin (poor paladin has no choice but to disown her, by the rules.)
You know, that Assassin might be more useful yet, than just the poisoned arrows.
After all, when those smart orcs ahead fire poisoned arrows at the party (I mean, the save or die this round type of poison, not that nerfed poison of later on), maybe she alone knows of an antidote, and has one ready, for such contingencies. (We already know of the emergency method of hacking off limbs for this purpose, to save characters who failed their saving throw. Nastily effective, if your character survives the shock of having a limb forcibly and unexpectedly amputated ... cleric!)
Oh, and the cleric. Undead drain 2 levels, permanently, per touch. No save, no appeal, and even a Restoration only brought you back to minimum xp for the level. Ain't that so nice?
A spectre could do in an 8th level in a round or two (after all, a smart specter would attack with both hands, and who says the thing doesn't get 2 attacks per round, per hand?!)
This is where your cleric comes in, with that Turning (or Controlling) business. Or Protection from Evil (they can't touch you.) Or something else to save you from a new and wonderful life as a spectre in service to a spectre.
Dis the cleric? Tell him his alignment stinks? Not so good an idea.
Treat the cleric as a useless Healer, who is called upon only for healing, and otherwise ignored as useless baggage?
That's a good way to enter Count Von Strahd's service, on his terms (his terms are rather draconian.)
Or, if you are really lucky, that Death Knight that you made the (horrific) mistake of offending, catches up with the party. TPK, and then you, too, get to listen while the banshees sing of his past misdeeds, for the rest of eternity.
You discard the cleric as useless baggage at your peril, unless of course it's the Pushover Scenario, in which case everyone starts doing it (and did do it, been there, saw that) until nobody bothers to play a cleric at all (who needs one, nobody is going to die, there is no threat of dying, so there is no real need for a cleric!)
Etc., etc., etc..
Demand excellence, get excellence (and those who refuse, by arguing or quitting, leave the better players to their work.)
Demand nothing, and receive nothing. Except, of course, for bored players complaining about anything and everything they might perceive as unfair or unbalanced.
Which is where it actually went.
I think it helped seriously harm the game.
-
We had an Unspoken Rule concerning the Adversary in those early days.
We were friends and buddies, except In Game. THEN it was Time to Play For Keeps, Fight or Die (or maybe, Fight AND Die), No Quarter Offered, No Quarter Asked For.
After 15 minutes of that, it was break time, and pepsi time.
Then back to the No Quarter Asked, No Quarter Given.
Then it was pizza time.
Then No Quarter Asked, No Quarter Given.
Then, it was stroll in the woods time.
Then No Quarter Asked, No Quarter Given.
Interrupted, because someone broke a pepsi bottle ON the table, and everyone is in a mad dash to remove character sheets, dice, DM's screen, and themselves, from the ensuing pepsic holocaust.
Then No Quarter Asked, No Quarter Given.
Broken by the requisite bathroom breaks, of course! (Some of those, pretty long, but hey ... it's a game, and these are your friends.)
Then No Quarter Asked, No Quarter Given.
Then, a 5 minute break forced by the power out caused by the Severe Thunderstorm.
Then No Quarter Asked, No Quarter Given.
Then, exhausted and happy, victory! And everyone calling it a day, and very happy with how they spent their Saturday afternoon.
It can still be that way. It's 2011, a long ways from those ancient Adversarial Games I spoke of (which occurred in the early 1980s for me), but that doesn't rule Adversarial Games out.
Any DM and the players in a group, can choose the Adversarial Approach.
It *seems* harsh. It *seems* pitiless. It seems painful, for both DM and players, and likely to lead to hurt feelings and a game fallen apart.
Paradoxically, the opposite is true.
The Adversarial Game leads to satisfaction. It is the Pushover Game that leads to a ruined game (and hurt feelings, too, as bored players accuse each other of 'crimes' committed, over various nonsensical issues that should never have been considered issues at all, much less worth mentioning, much less worth finger pointing over.)
If the Adversarial Game seems too personally antagonistic, remind that all games with fixed rules (such as Axis and Allies) have Adversary, and the rules are (usually) pitilessly exploited by players for just that purpose ... to ruthlessly and utterly crush the other players.
That's quite normal in Axis and Allies, and other games. Why not AD&D?
You should have seen the reaction of groups to the Adversarial DM.
I did see the response, being in many groups that had to face Adverarial DMs.
The players, bonded. They bonded. No other word for it. And they worked together tightly, furiously, and ruthlessly, to survive, achieve, and conquer. No arguments, no debates over rules, items, or balance, no pointed fingers, just teamwork against the foe.
It is amazing, how people will stand up, and stand together, to face down a real challenge.
It's a good thing to behold, and be a part of.
