Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 5468214" data-attributes="member: 5038">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.</blockquote>

Verification