D&D General What is adversarial DMing?

[payn]

I am wondering if my gming style wouldn't be seen as adversarial... I am running an Eberron campaign pitched from start as more Zolaesque than Vernian tragedy. Yet a player pointed out that I did allow them to be proactive with their actions and succeed in their goal, but they feel the campaign let them often choose the lesser evil to save the world. Even the bad guy are arguably more nobly motivated than the good guys they work for. So they can do what they want, including saving the world, and get to shine doing so, but the world will still be equally sucking after their intervention (up to the point where they endeavour to change the nature of the world, an epic-level task). I am not delighting in making players miserable, they keep returning so they must have fun overall, but this in passing remark that anything that can go wrong will go wrong and sour their success (as in "if we save the king from an assassination plot we'll be heroes but we bet he'll become so paranoid about assassins that he'll become a tyran on a police state and even worde king tha. he was before...") makes me wonder whether it's seen as adversarial or just a tone disconnect (prompting me to hasten the point when they can embark on setting changing (and campaign concluding) events).

This is an interesting question. Often, folks think of mechanics and rules when considering adversarial GMs, but you can certainly have adversarial GM behavior in the social pillar. The one example above about saving the king and then the king turning tyrant, is just one. It could be a unique or logical development based on all the other elements of the campaign. Or, it could just be another in a long line of "players never win/win" choices by the GM. Whether its tolerable or not depends entirely on the context of the campaign and the GM's campaign reveals in total, and not just in one specific example.

 

[Malmuria]

I have often found that new players are less likely to view a dm as adversarial even when they come across difficult encounters or situations. They've never faced a gelatinous cube before, and so they are in a more exploratory and experiential mindset compared to a more seasoned player. If something is difficult, that take that seriously as difficult that exists in the world, not difficulty arbitrarily decided by the dm. (I would say that since they don't yet know the system or 'how to play' the game, they have more trust in the dm, but trust is evidentially a contentious term around here ). This is just in my experience, of course.

 

[iserith]

Here's how you can tell you've got the right balance as DM in my view:

You can act like and have your players respond to you as if you're the heel, but your players all know you're not actually the heel.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

This is an interesting question. Often, folks think of mechanics and rules when considering adversarial GMs, but you can certainly have adversarial GM behavior in the social pillar. The one example above about saving the king and then the king turning tyrant, is just one. It could be a unique or logical development based on all the other elements of the campaign. Or, it could just be another in a long line of "players never win/win" choices by the GM. Whether its tolerable or not depends entirely on the context of the campaign and the GM's campaign reveals in total, and not just in one specific example.

Interesting. Basically, the Giant civilization knowing it was falling created an eldritch machine that is basically a suckiness engine to make sure a world they would not rule would be bad. Cannith explorer activated ot a century ago (hence the Last War among other) and the villain wanted to turn it down but are misguided and will turn it to 11. PCs have so far discovered the villains' plan, prevented their actions but are yet to decide that maybe the goal of the villain was worthwhile and implement it right themselves instead of hust opposing the villains. So basically the "everything sucks" is the campaign real problem and souring their victory the illustration of it. I feel it's justified and will provide for a meaningful ending but of course I am not the best placed to judge.

 

[payn]

Here's how you can tell you've got the right balance as DM in my view:

You can act like and have your players respond to you as if you're the heel, but your players all know you're not actually the heel.

I love this idea of right balance. I think I'm getting closer to being able to make my own definition.

An adversarial GM is one that is engages in a number of disruptive behaviors without concern for balance between player feedback and/or enjoyment and their own.

 

[turnip_farmer]

Still, no reason to mock them and cackle.

No reason other than that it's fun!

One reason that I think I've been enjoying running WFRP more than DnD is that it has a lot of 'haha, you're dead' stuff baked into the player-facing rules. If I want someone's face to eplode in DnD, I have to be extremely careful to telegraph it very clearly in advance to avoid looking like a dick. But in Warhammer, they all know that every time they fire that fancy gun there's a 2% chance it will explode in their face. It says so in the book. I can laugh uproariously when it happens knowing that they made the choice themselves.

 

[Greenfield]

Adversarial DMing? When the DM sees his role as being an adversary of the players.

I have a tale of what I consider to be the epitome of it.

A DM had planned an adventure for his table. It was a raid on a stronghold. He, with the help of a friend, planned who was on guard at what shift, and how forces were distributed.

After the game I asked him about it. He described the conflict, their battle with the court high wizard in the middle of the night, backed by his top aide.

I was curious: Why did they end up facing both? Was't one supposed to on duty at night, and the other during the day?

His answer? "I had to make the defenders stronger. The party was winning."

He took it personally if the party won a battle that he didn't plan on them winning. He argued that it was his job to "present them with a challenge.". What that meant though was that he'd raise the bar as things progressed, so that no matter how well they planned, no matter how well they coordinated their actions, it was always a coin toss, at best.

End result? The players in his game gave up anything resembling planning, cooperation or teamwork. The best you could do was earn the DM's wrath the next game when he next ran.

After a big victory, half the players would make it a point to miss the next game session, so they wouldn't be there when the DM "got even".

I don't play at that game any more.

In my own view, the DM has to "wear two hats", with regards to the game.

First hat, worn when planning the game session/adventure: Playing the part of whatever Big Bad is involved, he/she has to plan for the defense of whatever it is the PCs are going after. This should be done within the limited resources said Big Bad has. No new or additional resources should be invented for this part, but it should be done with full malice. The PCs are the enemy.

Second hat, worn during play: The DM should be the impartial arbiter of the game, implementing the Big Bad's plan as written, but without favoritism. The DM isn't god, because in these games the gods play favorites. He/she has to be better than that.

The DM I mentioned would insist that he be present when the players made their plans. He needed that so the bad guys could be prepared. On one occasion the table split into two groups, each walking to a separate room. Both groups made battle plans, and whichever group the DM listened in on was the plan that would be discarded.

The DM accused the players of cheating.

Like I said, I don't play at that table any more. By the way, the DM was and is a good friend. He's just not someone I care to play with any more.

 

[Nefermandias]

From my perspective, the question is backwards. Why is the GM thinking that he's going to run a dungeon crawl with a party of all wizards? Again, I admit to having extremely strong preferences towards the concept of player sovereignty including "making the character that you want to make, if allowed by the setting." I also feel strongly that the GM can't know TOO much about the game he's going to run until he knows what and who the characters are going to be.

Again, maybe this is better suited to another thread or something; I don't want to derail the thread. I'm convinced that my preferences here are very unusual.

Nah. You are seeing thing backwards imo.
The DM proposes a campaign tone and theme and then the players should adjust and build characters that would fit into that campaign.

Also, I strongly believe that every DM should make a list of which classes, races and sourcebooks are allowed at any given campaign.

Guess our views on that matter are diametrically opposite.

 

[jgsugden]

In the end, it is a matter of whether you pleasure yourself first, or you pleasure your partners first.

If you're the DM that focuses on making a game where you get to do the cool stuff, and you get to show the other players how awesome you can be ... that is a person with all the power using other people for their own pleasure, which is not a good look, and tends to result in less repeat play.

If you're the DM that focuses on what makes a game great for their players and folds those elements into the story, the setting, and the play style, then the PCs and you are going to find mutual pleasure in your approach.

 

[TheSword]

Nah. You are seeing thing backwards imo.
The DM proposes a campaign tone and theme and then the players should adjust and build characters that would fit into that campaign.

Also, I strongly believe that every DM should make a list of which classes, races and sourcebooks are allowed at any given campaign.

Guess our views on that matter are diametrically opposite.

…I think the players pick a DM they like the style of…
…The DM proposes a theme…
…Then the players design a character of their choice within the boundaries of the theme.

That’s how it works in our groups anyway.