D&D General What is adversarial DMing?

[el-remmen]

I once had a player complain that I was a little too gleeful whenever the monsters or other opponents rolled well or scored critical hits. But then he realized, I was equally gleeful when I rolled for NPC allies and they also rolled well.

"Oh you just get excited about rolling well, no matter what the reason!" he observed. Eventually, he went on to further observe that I also expressed joy when the players rolled well and made devastating attacks on the NPC opponents. He was fine with it after that.

I just like dramatic results and have a hard time tempering my pleasure at seeing it happen.

 

[J.Quondam]

(Note to self: play poker with @el-remmen.)

 

[overgeeked]

Mostly, a non-adversarial DM looks at his group of players, and wants to have a good game with them, so he accommodates to at least some degree what makes the game fun for them. An adversarial DM is one who refuses to do that, for various reasons, including his holding on to ideas about how the game "should" be run that are contrary to what the players think is fun. It reeks of either 1) passive-aggressiveness on the part of the GM, or

Maybe. The way I see it is if the DM presents a game idea, this is what they want to run, and the players agree...then reinforcing those ideas isn't adversarial. If enforcing those ideas becomes a problem, then it's a misalignment of expectations. Like the DM says they want to run an old-school dungeon crawl and the players agree. Then after a few sessions the players decide nah, let's just leave to do something else. Or a 5E game with variant encumbrance, to which the players agree, then all show up with firbolg and goliath artificers with the replicate bag of holding infusion in their back pocket. That's a clear sign that there's a misalignment of expectations.

2) unwillingness to accept that his role as the facilitator of the game is first and foremost about making the game fun.

What's fun is different from person to person. So making sure everyone's expectations are as aligned as possible for a group is paramount.

One common example here is the notion that the players better create a balanced party, or the world will punish them for their character generation choices collectively. To me, that violates both of the rules above.

I disagree. It's not adversarial to have a world that exists independent of the PCs. That's strong worldbuilding. If it's a party of all squishy wizards that doesn't mean they'll never face a well-armed and armored melee combatant. You don't give out extra healing potions because no one wants to play a cleric. To me, that's a player-side problem. They can generally be assumed to know what to expect, if they choose not to prepare for that, it's on them. They can easily pick up a hireling or two to cover their deficiencies. But if they choose not to...that's on them. A world that's always shifting to perfectly suit whatever the PCs have in tow is way, way too video gamey for my tastes.

Sometimes adversarial can be misapplied, though. If a DM can't let go of some precious idea he has about what D&D is about, even if none of the players enjoy it, then he may just be a bad DM, or at least a bad DM for this group, without actually being adversarial.

Bad DM for that group, yes.

Adversarial also implies at least some degree of conflict. I don't mean conflict IN GAME, I mean conflict between the players and the GM. By the same token, I've seen many cases of adversarial relationships between PCs that are managed cooperatively by the PLAYERS in such a way that it's loads of fun for everyone involved. Adversarial implies adversity at a meta-level.

Yeah, definitely.

 

[Nefermandias]

Which half?

I usee to be a pretty chill, "fan of the party", never say no DM through the course of 4e.... But then 5e came about and unleashed the Hyde within me.

Now I'm a killer DM who relishes on the player's suffering and tears. My philosophy shifted towards combat as war and I'm genuinely delighted when my cocky players underestimate something and end up getting their arses handed down to them. I'm not above mocking them and cackling maniacally when they get critted either.

 

[GuyBoy]

I see adversarial DM-ing as totally self-defeating. Ultimately, campaigns should lead to character advancement and success (or some level of success). Their achievements should be hard-won, sometimes at cost, and certainly not a smooth route to that success. Pain, both emotional and physical, should be on the characters path.......but ultimately, the BBEG should be foiled, the prince(ss) rescued, and heroic tales recounted over a fine glass of red wine. Well, my view at least.

To be fair, I’ve only experienced one truly adversarial DM, and he was only like this to one player (not to me, but to a friend), constantly killing his characters, including newly-rolled ones, which led to a bizarre arms race, as my friend (who is much better than me at character creation) made ever tougher characters, only to have the DM throw ever tougher adversaries to kill them. I still game with the friend. Not with the DM.

 

[overgeeked]

I usee to be a pretty chill, "fan of the party", never say no DM through the course of 4e.... But then 5e came about and unleashed the Hyde within me.

Now I'm a killer DM who relishes on the player's suffering and tears. My philosophy shifted towards combat as war and I'm genuinely delighted when my cocky players underestimate something and end up getting their arses handed down to them. I'm not above mocking them and cackling maniacally when they get critted either.

Sure. I think that might be a player empowerment thing. 5E has shifted so drastically to the non-challenging side of assuming the players must always win that it's pointless and boring unless the difficulty is cranked way up. The game went from "zero to hero" under TSR to "superhero to superer superhero" under WotC. The players just assume they're badasses and will easily win everything all the time. That's dull. Still, no reason to mock them and cackle. Maybe play an older edition or talk about house rules to tone the characters down.

 

[overgeeked]

I see adversarial DM-ing as totally self-defeating. Ultimately, campaigns should lead to character advancement and success (or some level of success). Their achievements should be hard-won, sometimes at cost, and certainly not a smooth route to that success. Pain, both emotional and physical, should be on the characters path.......but ultimately, the BBEG should be foiled, the prince(ss) rescued, and heroic tales recounted over a fine glass of red wine. Well, my view at least.

Not in mine. I used to think the same but shifted to more emergent storytelling. Whatever happens in the game is the story. No pushing towards story structure or pre-defined happy endings. Some games work out that way, others are Game of Thrones nightmares with beloved characters dying left and right. That's the luck of the dice. Those stories can still be recounted over the beverage of choice, however.

To be fair, I’ve only experienced one truly adversarial DM, and he was only like this to one player (not to me, but to a friend), constantly killing his characters, including newly-rolled ones, which led to a bizarre arms race, as my friend (who is much better than me at character creation) made ever tougher characters, only to have the DM throw ever tougher adversaries to kill them. I still game with the friend. Not with the DM.

Yeah, that's bad DMing.

 

[payn]

I see a lot of solving out of game problems with in game solutions. I don't think that's exclusively an adversarial GM thing, but definitely one of the hallmarks. I think some folks try and explain away adversarial GMs as just being tough, or maybe a good GM who just made a mistake. I still think adversarial GMs are a thing, but there isnt an easy single thing you can point to and say, "yeap, thats it." Its usually a combo of bad GM choices and behaviors that are easy to conceal as legitimate and defend piecemeal. Its the sum of the parts that usually make the adversarial GM.

 

[iserith]

Laughing at players when their characters roll badly. Cackling when monsters crit PCs.

If doing these are wrong, I don't want to be right.

 

[Nefermandias]

Sure. I think that might be a player empowerment thing. 5E has shifted so drastically to the non-challenging side of assuming the players must always win that it's pointless and boring unless the difficulty is cranked way up. The game went from "zero to hero" under TSR to "superhero to superer superhero" under WotC. The players just assume they're badasses and will easily win everything all the time. That's dull. Still, no reason to mock them and cackle. Maybe play an older edition or talk about house rules to tone the characters down.

These guys have been putting up with my bs since the late 90's. I still remember when 3e came out and we went together to the store to get the new books... I like to believe they would have left already if they didn't like the style.