Of the Adversarial Relationship between DM and Players, and the Need For It.

[ExploderWizard]

There's a difference between being an adversarial DM, and being a consequentialist DM with adversarial NPCs.

Hole in one!!

An adversarial DM would suck if ANY character lived through a single session. Unlimited power and resources vs puny characters equals a stomping so terrible one could hardly call it sporting.

I enjoy gaming with an impartial/fair DM and taking my lumps is part of that.

 

[Jhaelen]

Second: if you choose an adversarial posture, being fair is of absolute import. No fudging. No rule breaking. No petty revenge or playing favorites. The GM is too powerful in every wave of their hand, from choosing encounters to adjudicating rules, for unfairness to creep in.

This, definitely.

I always strife to be 'hard but fair'. Imho, if there's no challenge, there's no fun. And that's what I care for: Making sure everyone is having fun at the table.

'Adversarial', to me, always means: 'trying to win against the players'. That's not what I'm trying to do. I _want_ them to win but make them earn it. I think there's a world of a difference here. This is completely unlike playing Risk, Monopoly, or what have you.

'Adversarial' DMs, as I understand them, take their enjoyment from creating encounters that are impossible to beat (and in the worst-case scenario gloating over the unavoidable result). They aren't interested in providing a (fair) challenge. All they care about is winning, and that's easier to achieve if your opponents' didn't ever have a chance.

Myself, I'm always devastated when my players fail at the challenges I created for them. That still doesn't mean, I'm going to fudge anything. If it's obvious that they're going to fail because I misjudged, I'll try to provide them with an opening (which they may or may not recognize and then may or may not take). If they're failing because _they_ misjudged, they get what they deserve.

So, does this make me an 'adversarial' DM? Or is there some other term for it?

 

[ArghMark]

Amusingly enough, despite the games I run, I agree.

I would say I run a fairly mid ground approach with my current games. Previously I tried to run character focused games where I cheated to make people live. I wondered why players got bored.

I realized it was because there is no risk in the games. The players trusted me not to kill them pointlessly; therefore, pointless 'things' happened that challenged numbers.


Then I ran an adventure path - Age of Worms.

Players had a blast. Dying to amusing traps, eaten by monsters, drowned, burned, stabbed, lost in mazes with bird men hunting them.. My players created amusing new characters every game. I think we counted 32 deaths by the end of it. Sometimes the story was a little stretched.. but strangely enough, once they started to live more than an encounter, these PC's developed stories organically.


Now? Depends on the game. But if I have a fantasy game where a bunch of adventurers go into a dungeon? I don't pull punches.

 

[Spatula]

I submit that the all-or-nothing nature of the OP is not a helpful way to look at things. The game wasn't always being played one way and isn't always being played a different way now. I'm an old-timer (been playing since 1980 or so) and have never been in an "adversarial" game. And if I tried that style with my current group, at least one person would have their feelings hurt and would probably stop playing. Because that style of game is not what the person is looking for.

And that's what's at the heart of the matter here, a simple difference in playstyles.

If an adversarial game is what the players & DM want, great. But not everyone is looking to deal with setbacks and disappointments in their escapism, and that's fine too. It's the same way that some people enjoy reading or watching light-hearted by-the-numbers genre stories, and others prefer more "realistic" stories. One person's taste isn't superior to the other's.

 

[The Shaman]

In old school dungeon crawls characters were mercilessly slain by fierce monsters or step-and-die traps and replaced by new heroes rolled up on the spot. Now many people prefer to run ongoing campaigns where who the heroes are matters.

Old school games assume that "who the heroes are" is something that comes out in play, not something decided before the game begins. It doesn't matter less; rather, it proceeds from a different set of starting assumptions.

They are integrally tied to the story. If one of them should fall, he can't be replaced by Ronan the barbarian who conveniently shows up wanting to join the party.

In old school games, "the story" is integrally tied to the characters as well, but not because they follow a list of plot-points prepared by the referee; "the story" is a recounting of the adventurers' adventures, told after they happen. In this case, if one of them should fall, then that adventurer's story is done.

The "stories" of old school games are perhaps best viewed as this and this.

Character creation also takes much longer than it did in those days . . .

Ever play RuneQuest?

. . . and players become very attached to their characters.

Old school players become attached to their characters; what you're describing is players to start the game attached to their characters, so much so that they are less willing to expose them to risk.

Kill too many of them off, and you go from having characters with depth, background, and goals of their own to Bob the Fighter. Why should the players spend time or effort on a character that is likely to die at the hands of a merciless GM?

Because the character might survive and actually become a hero with a story worth hearing.

Knowing they will likely die and have to reroll makes them put less effort into their characters.

So the players shouldn't make an effort if they don't know in advance they'll 'win?'

. . . [O]nce they started to live more than an encounter, these PC's developed stories organically.

This is why I argue that a character's relevant backstory consists of the events of the first game-night as seen from the vantage point of the second game-night.

 

[Umbran]

Hey, Edena! Long time no see!

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.

I don't think so. In those games, the other players are your adversaries. The rules are your friend. The rules are everybody's friend - and it pays for you to know your friend better than the other players do. The best play comes when you work along with the rules, rather than in friction against them.

Why a problem in AD&D?

Because role playing games are not board games that last a couple, or maybe a few, hours. RPGs are usually take much longer to play out to the end, and the players therefore have much more invested in the game.

And, the goals of the game are frequently much different. While some may play D&D as a skirmish game, the players can, and usually do, have things they want to get out of the game other than beating the immediate adversary.

 

[The Human Target]

A DM vs Player adversarial relationship doesn't even make sense.

As a DM, its super easy for me to "beat" my players with encounters that are impossible for them to overcome.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not even all that convinced that adversarial existed as much as people claim, back in the day. I mean, look at the following:

1. Dragonlance came out in 1984, so, it's not like reducing the lethality of the game is something new.
2. A 1st level fighter in Basic D&D could afford plate mail and shield most of the time. That started him off with an AC of 2 (same went for the cleric, the dwarf and the elf). The baddies he was likely to face at that level had a THAC0 (ok, it wasn't called that at the time, but that's what it was) of 19 or 20 and no attack bonuses. That mean the average orc was only hitting you about 15% of the time and only did about 3 points of damage to your D10 hit points. 1st level characters were far more durable than people give credit for.

3. Holding up S1 as an example of great play is ballocks. This is a meat grinder dungeon filled with probably the worst examples of DM's Aha Gotcha moments that actively go out of their way to challenge the players by changing the rules of the game. Playing S1 Tomb of Horrors straight up is unplayable, not something to be proud of.

4. My World's Largest Dungeon campaign, using 3e rules and wide open chargen choices (if you owned the book, you could play it with almost no exceptions) claimed a PC every 3 sessions on average for 80 sessions. I reject the notion that 3e game design throws softballs. And note, this dungeon was made entirely from the 3.5 SRD, no splats.

So, I'm going to throw the Nostalgia Flag at this one and penalize you ten yards.

 

[Reynard]

I reject the notion that 3e game design throws softballs. And note, this dungeon was made entirely from the 3.5 SRD

Other points aside, I have to say a big THIS to this. RAW 3.x is no cakewalk. I happen to like it that way, but it is dangerous as all get out for 1st level pcs.

 

[Hussar]

Reynard - I found it dangerous as all get out for all PC's to be honest. A given equivalent CR creature has the capability, by and large, of outright killing a PC in a single round. It might not be likely in any given fight, but, given that a PC will likely have dozens, if not hundreds of rounds of fights over the course of its career, that possiblity increasingly approaches 1.