Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 5465804" data-attributes="member: 46713">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?</blockquote>