Of the Adversarial Relationship between DM and Players, and the Need For It.
- Thread starter Edena_of_Neith
- Start date
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
I find myself not agreeing with this mentality one bit, and in fact it's been one thing that's driven me to not be an adversarial DM for many, many years. I've walked away from a couple myself, and had more than one player I've had to help get over the damage an adversarial DM has caused.
I see my role as being there to present a situation to the players, and share in the joy of seeing how they react to that situation. I'm not there to kill them, I'm not there to coddle them. I'm there to referee what happens when they do something. Yes, these situations tell a story, but it's the party's story moreso than mine.
I don't plan encounters to beat them to the verge of unconsiousness (though sometimes that's happened), make them wad up their character sheets 15 minutes into a session and write up a new character or any of that sort of thing. That's not to say my players don't encounter challenges and sometimes die - I've had more character deaths when I DM in 3E than all other editions I've played combined.
And as an aside, if I played Axis & Allies with someone who was hidebound to beat me into the dirt, you can bet I wouldn't play with them again. I'll take friendly competition, but I don't want anything to do with take-no-prisoners game opponents. I just don't play that way.
I see my role as being there to present a situation to the players, and share in the joy of seeing how they react to that situation. I'm not there to kill them, I'm not there to coddle them. I'm there to referee what happens when they do something. Yes, these situations tell a story, but it's the party's story moreso than mine.
I don't plan encounters to beat them to the verge of unconsiousness (though sometimes that's happened), make them wad up their character sheets 15 minutes into a session and write up a new character or any of that sort of thing. That's not to say my players don't encounter challenges and sometimes die - I've had more character deaths when I DM in 3E than all other editions I've played combined.
And as an aside, if I played Axis & Allies with someone who was hidebound to beat me into the dirt, you can bet I wouldn't play with them again. I'll take friendly competition, but I don't want anything to do with take-no-prisoners game opponents. I just don't play that way.
To reinforce what's been stated above - I don't see the point in being an "Adversarial DM", the DM holds all the cards - killing the characters is easy, so how is it in the least bit something to be proud of?
The true job of the DM is to challenge the players - challenge implies that success is possible and feasible; I see certainty of death (or failure) (the halmark of the adversarial or "killer" DM) as an abject failure of the DM to do his actual job.
The true job of the DM is to challenge the players - challenge implies that success is possible and feasible; I see certainty of death (or failure) (the halmark of the adversarial or "killer" DM) as an abject failure of the DM to do his actual job.
I have been playing since 1978. I think that, during this time, I had played with only two adversarial DM. The first was at a con and from what I learned after the event, he did not run the adventure as did other DMs. The second was during the mid 80's at a local gaming club and, nobody would play with him.
Anyway, I, completely disagree with the OP about adversarial DMs. I think that Reynard, PbBartender, Umbran, and The Human Target have it right. This is not a board game or other kind of game. The DM has the power to wipe out the players anytime they choose- they just build what 3e calls Status Quo encounters or what it considers an Overwhelming encounter.
As far back as 1e, the DM is supposed to be neutral- an impartial referee among other things. You can't be neutral/impartial and be adversarial. You are supposed to be playing the rest of the world. That is Good, Evil and everything in between from the animal to te peasant, to the craftsmen, merchants and innkeepers to the kings and villains . You should be playing things accordingly. Animals should be played as animals. Dumb characters (including opposition) as dumb. Masterminds should be played as masterminds. Every day citizens should be played according to their motivations. Allies should be played as Allies unless there is a reason not to. This is how I prefer my DMs and how I prefer to DM .
Yet, being neutral and impartial doesn't mean you are throwing softballs and handing the party 'cakewalks'. That would be boring (for me).
I also find it boring to play as a skirmish where every opponent as some elite military strategist (especially, when it makes no sense) and every NPC out to get the players, in my opinion.
My players may, at times, think I am adversarial. I like to give the illusion with wicked smiles and roll the dice behind the screen followed by a chuckle.
They even say that, when I smile, it is too late (and found a pin with a similar saying which they bought for me).
Yet, at the end of the game, they know I am not out to get them. They know that I am fair and, as such, I have their trust!
They are right to think this way. I am, what someone (PbBartender?) referred to as a consequentialist. Secretly, I am rooting for the players. I want them to succeed! And, while I don't go out of my way to kill characters, I will not pull punches. I will kill the characters if
a. the dice fall that way (hp loss, failed saves, etc.)
b. they do stupid things to get themselves killed (or at least put them in appropriately lethal situations based on their actions). An example would be making to much noise that alerts the entire stronghold.
c. pursue what 3e refers to as status quo encounters- monsters or beings that exist in the world, but are beyond the party's capabilities. However, a character or several characters will, probably, know legends or stories based on their cultures and backgrounds as appropriate. If not, a little research and info gathering should tell them they would be in over their heads.
Anyway, this is how I and most DMs have run I have played under have run the game whether Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, 3e.
Anyway, I, completely disagree with the OP about adversarial DMs. I think that Reynard, PbBartender, Umbran, and The Human Target have it right. This is not a board game or other kind of game. The DM has the power to wipe out the players anytime they choose- they just build what 3e calls Status Quo encounters or what it considers an Overwhelming encounter.
As far back as 1e, the DM is supposed to be neutral- an impartial referee among other things. You can't be neutral/impartial and be adversarial. You are supposed to be playing the rest of the world. That is Good, Evil and everything in between from the animal to te peasant, to the craftsmen, merchants and innkeepers to the kings and villains . You should be playing things accordingly. Animals should be played as animals. Dumb characters (including opposition) as dumb. Masterminds should be played as masterminds. Every day citizens should be played according to their motivations. Allies should be played as Allies unless there is a reason not to. This is how I prefer my DMs and how I prefer to DM .
Yet, being neutral and impartial doesn't mean you are throwing softballs and handing the party 'cakewalks'. That would be boring (for me).
I also find it boring to play as a skirmish where every opponent as some elite military strategist (especially, when it makes no sense) and every NPC out to get the players, in my opinion.
My players may, at times, think I am adversarial. I like to give the illusion with wicked smiles and roll the dice behind the screen followed by a chuckle.
They even say that, when I smile, it is too late (and found a pin with a similar saying which they bought for me).
Yet, at the end of the game, they know I am not out to get them. They know that I am fair and, as such, I have their trust!
They are right to think this way. I am, what someone (PbBartender?) referred to as a consequentialist. Secretly, I am rooting for the players. I want them to succeed! And, while I don't go out of my way to kill characters, I will not pull punches. I will kill the characters if
a. the dice fall that way (hp loss, failed saves, etc.)
b. they do stupid things to get themselves killed (or at least put them in appropriately lethal situations based on their actions). An example would be making to much noise that alerts the entire stronghold.
c. pursue what 3e refers to as status quo encounters- monsters or beings that exist in the world, but are beyond the party's capabilities. However, a character or several characters will, probably, know legends or stories based on their cultures and backgrounds as appropriate. If not, a little research and info gathering should tell them they would be in over their heads.
Anyway, this is how I and most DMs have run I have played under have run the game whether Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, 3e.
in my own experience, people did not abandon AD&D for more challenging games. They abandoned the game, because of the mechanics! They abandoned it for some or all of the following: ununified ability score bonuses and dice mechanics, patchwork mechanics, Vancian Magic, a lot of abstraction with AD&D hit points and armor class, lack of a decent skill system, gamist mechanics (e.g., level drain), seemingly arbitrary mechanics (e.g., dual classing vs. multiclassing and racial limits),etc.
In other words, they abandoned it for systems that gave them what they wanted, mechanically in a fantasy rpg. And, most of the people whom I know had left with AD&D 1e or 2e, came back with 3e, because it fixed most of their perceived problems (and third party products fixing others).
Anecdotal I know, but it did not in my experience.
Agreed. And, if I recall correctly, Gary stated here that he had a particular reason in mind when he built it. Players were getting cocky and bragging about attaining high levels. He wanted to test them. And, while adversarial, the key to getting through was not too touch anything.
Again, this is if I am, correctly, recalling what he wrote on the forums.
Dang! I think that in this thread, I have agreed with Hussar more times that I have in the past several years.
Last edited:
Heck, in my experience, what folks "abandoned" D&D did so not because of mechanics, but because they wanted to do something other than pseudo-medieval fantasy. Other games came along to do urban fantasy, and superheroes, and cyberpunk, and all the other scifi/fantasy genres out there. It was more about what the system let you be, not how it let you be it.
Or, they abandoned the hobby altogether, due to sheer lack of time to invest in it.
invokethehojo
First Post
...... are you now, or have you ever been, Pat Glaub?
Pbartender
First Post
I ran across this one not too long ago...
Oh, I agree about abandoning the hobby. I also agree that some people left AD&D entirely to focus on other genres and this is abandoning.
However, with regards to to genre switching among the people I know (and I stated in my prior post that I was focusing on people I know), most people have always switched between games for some genres (e.g., supers, modern horror, urban fantasy, espionage) as the mood strikes. A few even switch for specific types of fantasy such as swashbuckling or asian adventures. However, they also simultaneously play or return to FR/Greyhawk/Darksun/Ravenloft/Al Quadim/Oriental Adventures or some similar style homebrew settings, so I don't consider hopping rpgs for genre and returning to AD&D for whatever type of fantasy it may be to be abandoning it. What I do consider to be abandoning AD&D was the majority of them (myself included) switching from AD&D to other systems (e.g., GURPS, Hero, M&M, Rolemaster, R&K (L5R and 7th Seas) etc.) to run FR/Greyhawk, Darksun/Ravenloft/Al Quadim, or their former AD&D homebrews. In every case, the reasons for this always came down to system and mechanics.
.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
