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

[korjik]

I ran across this one not too long ago...

I think this hits the nail on the head. The best kind of fight isnt one where half the party is dead, and most of the loot is going to go to raise dead and/or replacements. It is where at the end of the fight all the bad guys are dead, and the party dosent have a healing surge worth of HP between them.

Also, I am another one who thinks that being advisarial to the DM is not really possible and dosent make sense. When I am DMing, if you start playing against me, as opposed to my scenario, then I will quickly show you that you cant win that one.

 

[Nimloth]

What do you mean by

When I am DMing, if you start playing against me, as opposed to my scenario, then I will quickly show you that you cant win that one

?
How do you know a player is playing against you and not the scenario?

 

[buzz]

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?

Because in D&D, the playing field is not level.

In, e.g., Monopoly, all the players have equal impact on the game; no one player is superior in their role to any other. Everything is done in the open, the rules are transparent, and cheating is readily obvious.

In D&D (and RPGs like it), the DM is in a privileged position. They design the encounters, they set difficulties, they narrate outcomes, they determine the attitudes of all NPCs... and we're not even talking about issues of fudging or railroading yet. The players running the PCs, otoh, are *severely* limited in what they can do by comparison. They have no ability to influence events beyond what their PCs can do in-game. (Well, that and maybe pay for the pizza.)

So, as others have said, the DM shouldn't be the *players'* adversary; they should be the *characters'* adversary. The subject matter of the game may be about conflict (i.e., fighting monsters), but the point of play is to have fun; the players and the DM are all on the same side in that regard.

 

[Mage of Spellford]

I somewhat agree with the OP, but I don't think that the game was ever dm vs player. To me it was always the world vs players. The only people in the entire world that you could rely on were your party.

I think that what was lost during the "story era" is the risk and reward paradigm.

Players should realize that great rewards fall to those that risk it all, but that there is a reason that those ruins down the road are called the Castle of Doom and that no one has ever returned from there. That when the road to the dark warlords tower wends its way through a forest of heads on pikes, if they continue they may be joining them.

Not adversarial, just life in a fantasy world: if you choose to explore the necromancers's dungeon you may end up dead or *worse*. If you filch the crown jewels you will be spoke about in hushed whispers of admiration by your fellow thieves but if you get caught you are dead.

As a player I enjoyed beating the odds. But there always has to be a risk -- the game goes on, characters are built from adventures not the other way around. That is what I dislike about story based gaming.

M

 

[Janx]

I think the bulk of Eden's whole thesis has been debunked.

• A GM decides so much that even unconciously, they are influencing things
  
• D&D is not a board game, player investment is usually greater
  
• the new D&D isn't meant to be a push-over either

What i do find worthy of consideration, is the catch-22 nature of running a more lethal game vs. "coddling" the PCs.

There are negative side effects to running a lethal game:

• every room is searched meticulously, slowing down game play
• players become hyper cautious
• players go through so many PCs they no longer care about them

There are negative side effects to running a soft game as well:

• players act entitled to easy victories
• players don't act cautiously at all
• players stop thinking carefully about solutions

Ultimately, the GM determines what monsters exist, what level they are, and what their response is to the PCs. This may mean that the GM has an obligation to set the stage for a fair fight, but then let the dice fall where they may.

 

[Wiseblood]

Janx,
The GM has NO obligation to set the stage for a fair fight. (could have been haiku?)

The GM's obligation is fair adjudication of the rules and the in game environment.

PC's can and do bite off more than they can chew. (completely unintentional rhyming)

 

[buzz]

The GM has NO obligation to set the stage for a fair fight. (could have been haiku?)

This depends on the group's play style. The default assumption in 4e and 3.5e encounter design (as described in the books) is that encounters are "balanced" to a certain degree. OTOH, in your typical old-school sandbox style play, the assumption is that there are no assumptions; 1st level PCs might stumble on a nest of baby kobolds, or they might stumble upon Orcus.

Regardless, every edition of D&D has at least classified monsters by difficulty, so we can assume the DM's role is to "set the stage" as it were.

With other RPGs, it's hard to say. Many mimic D&D in this regard, or at least have "tiers" of play geared towards PCs' current abilities.

Again, since the goal is to have fun, the GM needs to be aware of the group's expectations.

 

[Janx]

Janx,
The GM has NO obligation to set the stage for a fair fight. (could have been haiku?)

The GM's obligation is fair adjudication of the rules and the in game environment.

PC's can and do bite off more than they can chew. (completely unintentional rhyming)

The next thing the PCs will encounter is some orcs.

If these are stock orcs, the PCs can determine for themselves on their beatability. A fair fight because the PCs have information.

If the GM makes these orcs be 20th level, and offers no clue as to their true nature, the PCs are screwed. This is not a fair fight.

An adversarial GM will be more inclined to violate this premise, that the PCs wil have a means to judge the difficulty of the encounter.

that, is not a fair fight.

 

[Umbran]

There are negative side effects to running a soft game as well:

• players act entitled to easy victories
• players don't act cautiously at all
• players stop thinking carefully about solutions

Negative and positive are often not absolute, but are relative to expectations and genre. Whether or not players are supposed to act cautiously, or think carefully about solutions (I am not even sure about how separate those two are) is not universal.

There are styles of play in which action speaks louder than plans - Paranoia, Toon, Feng Shui, and several other games emphasize actually doing something over thinking over details. In the action/adventure genre, careful plans don't mean a whole heck of a lot, as compared to flying by the seat of your pants. There's no reason why folks couldn't want that in their D&D.

Seems to me that playing hard or soft is more just a choice, and the question is if it brings what you want to your game.

 

[Wiseblood]

The next thing the PCs will encounter is some orcs.

If these are stock orcs, the PCs can determine for themselves on their beatability. A fair fight because the PCs have information.

If the GM makes these orcs be 20th level, and offers no clue as to their true nature, the PCs are screwed. This is not a fair fight.

An adversarial GM will be more inclined to violate this premise, that the PCs wil have a means to judge the difficulty of the encounter.

that, is not a fair fight.

It would be an unfair fight with no clues. It would still be an unfair fight with clues.

Using the term adversarial GM to describe a killer GM is the objection I have. An adversarial GM IMO adjudicates things so as to make the players feel powerless or nerfed.

• bad guys just a little too tough while shooting down clever ideas that would even the odds.
• DMPC or favored NPC's constantly stealing the show.
• ordinary NPC's with uncommonly good luck. (fudged rolls or bunuses not exclusive to bluffing, perception and saves for the purpose of thwarting the players)
• creating puzzles that punish players for lack of knowledge (please note that I typed players)
• Designing challenges that all too often target the characters weaknesses or nerf their strengths.

While I agree with the OP that this can make for some skilled players. (I would put myself in this category) It can also create some adversarial players. ( I was in this category too) Last but not least it is the training ground for many a rules lawyer. (I dabble)