D&D General What is adversarial DMing?

[Lanefan]

Setting aside how a group of wizards would perform in a dungeon crawl (amazing, I was told recently, just because of unseen servant alone), the question I would have here is why is the group creating a gang of wizards when the DM is running a dungeon crawl? Is this group talking to each other at all? Does that make the DM adversarial or the group just uncommunicative? If I as DM say I'm presenting content X and the player agree, then show up with characters that aren't very good in content X, that's not on me.

As DM I'd never tell them out-of-character what the next adventure was going to be* unless they had some way in-character of finding out and then did so. In general terms, if asked ahead of time I might say there'll be a variety of different adventure types as the campaign goes along, but that's about it.

* - the exception being if I'm planning on running a module that some players might have already been through or DMed, I'll ask if they have; in these cases I have to trust the players not to tweak the party makeup due to this meta-knowledge. They're usually pretty good about it.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

She's not.

She's (IMO rightly) thinking she's going to run a dungeon crawl with whatever party shows up. Nothing adversarial there.

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.

I agree with "make the character you want to make if allowed by the setting" but I don't agree there's a player-side right to expect anything about the setting to be altered because of the characters we-as-players have chosen to play.

In other words, the DM makes the setting and then the players make their characters, in that order because before the DM makes the setting the players can't know what'll be allowed as PCs and-or options in it; and time will tell whether the characters work in the setting or not.

 

[Mort]

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.

I think the key here is the players' perception of the situation.

If the players only see that everything sucks all the time, no matter what they do they never get any clue as to why and think there is nothing they can do about it, things will always just be that way, that's just the campaign? That's a problem and, frankly, the players are justified in feeling annoyed /unhappy.

If the players see that everything sucks, but not only are they slowly doing something about it, but they start seeing that it's an artificial fixable issue and it's telegraphed that their actions could help solve it? Then, still sucks or not, they see progress and are likely to be much more satisfied about it.

That's also the difference on whether this is adversarial or not. Never impart any information on the true issue and everything always sucks, they players have no clue why? IMO - adversarial and unfun. Everything sucks, but the players can and do make inroads as to why and see ways to change it (even if they ultimately might not succeed)? Likely non - adversarial and likely more fun for the players.

 

[Desdichado]

I disagree here in that I see is as the DM's job to present the setting as it is, neutrally and without regard for what particular PCs the players decide to run in it. Thus, if the players have an all-wizard party and then bite on an adventure hook that takes them into a full-on dungeon crawl then so be it: I just run it neutrally just like I'd run it with any other group of PCs.

Yes, I realize that that's the default position that most people have, which I'm suggesting I know that I'm unusual for rejecting outright. In such a game run by me, there wouldn't ever be a hook that led to a full-on dungeon crawl.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Colloquially, adversarial GMing is when the GM is a jerk. We can faff about trying to define it like legal scholars, but that broad definition suits me. I know it when I see it. Adversarial GMs are the kinds of fellows who brag about killing PCs, work to foil the PCs, or neener-neener the PCs like that scene in Jurassic Park where the black tech guy has AH-AH-AH YOU DIDN'T SAY THE MAGIC WORD.

 

[overgeeked]

So even if we don’t agree on the details, the general consensus is any DM who treats the game as a competition and tries to win against the players is an adversarial DM. I wonder if the same applies on the players’ side of the screen.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Most people seem to agree on a few extreme cases of adversarial DMing but not so much on the rest. So help me out. How do you define adversarial DMing?

For me, "Adversarial DM'ing" is the DM specifically trying to DM his/her game as "uncaringly as possible"...in terms of PC survival or detriment, and not hiding his/her emotions when highly unusual dice/situations come up...even at the expense of a PC.

I would classify myself as "mostly adversarial" in this regards; maybe 90/10. I don't like to see PC's die, and sometimes it honestly pains me to have to roll the damage dice and say "...oh man... sorry... 19 points of damage; Freelick, the Franetic of Glossamere, is impaled, and dies". But I'm not going to downgrade that damage to only 9 points just so Freelick lives. A non-Adversarial DM would probably do that, favouring the PC because of a "fluke dice roll".

Adversarial means I do 'try my darnedest' to "kill the PC's"...but only insofar as I am playing to role of the bad guy; the bad guy WANTS to see the PC dead. I may even play up the 'glee' of when the bad guy hits/hurts the PC for effect (e.g., "Ok, his turn... [rolls dice, gets a 19]... HA! Take that, Glascia! Straight to the sternum! You're going down, Fighter!"). But...and this is key... my PLAYERS understand that I'm NOT CHEATING and I am NOT TRYING TO KILL THEIR PC!

Usually I may smirk when something bad befalls the PC's, but that's for added effect. It gets the Players more emotionally invested in the situation because I am, effectively, "everything". To relate to real life...it's like when you go to wash your car in the drive way. You walk outside, around the corner of the house to turn on the water...and step in dog poo. You clean that off, then get the bucket, sponge and rag, and hose. You turn on the water and discover the hose nozzle is busted. Wonderful! You take it off...and cut your hand in the process. Band-Aid it, then start washing. You start to scrub the car only to realise the soap you are using stings your new cut like a mother! You put on a rubber glove...and get back to it. Surprise! It has a hole in it. ... ... So, in this 'real life' scenario, I, the DM, am the one rolling the dice behind the screen for all the fumbles you are making ("Perception...you failed? Huh... you step in dog poo"..."Right, you think you have everything; make a Cleanliness check to see how you do. Another fumble? LOL! ...Your nozzle is broken and you cut your finger for 1 damage"... "That's two fails in a row...time to roll on the Murphy's Law table...", etc). Sometimes life is darkly funny...and if you were the DM watching such dark humour unfold unexpectedly, well, enjoy it! It makes all the times when the PC's plan is smooth as butter and they kick azz that much more special.

So, long story short, "Adversarial DM'ing" is when the DM specifically doesn't care about your PC's success or failure...and at the same time gets enjoyment as a Player does...but from the perspective of the monsters/environment...as the game unfolds and dice are rolled. Players rejoice and high five when the fighter one-shots the Orc Chieften...so why should they get all the excitement when the Dice Gods smile on them? If a DM rolls well for something that tosses a spanner right into the PC's plans...he smiles, lets out a chuckle, and may even say "HA! Take that!". It's enjoyment at fluke rolls and surprising turns that can happen in an RPG, plain and simple.

Now, a DM that specifically sets PC's up for failure, knowing the most likely outcome...? That's not Adversarial DM'ing. That's just being a Richard!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[tetrasodium]

So even if we don’t agree on the details, the general consensus is any DM who treats the game as a competition and tries to win against the players is an adversarial DM. I wonder if the same applies on the players’ side of the screen.

in most ttrpgs & d&d players don't usually have a level of system & narrative control needed to be "adversarial" players as the adversarial term is used for adversarial GMs/DMs. That's not to say that players can't be problematic in their own ways so much as that they get other terms like

Spoiler: but not limited to

• murderhobo
• chaotic stupid
• Lawful Anal
• That guy
• One of those roleplayers
• spotlight hog
• metagamer
• powergamer
• derailer
• novelist
• joker
• problem player
• etc

That's not to say that those are all prima facie problematic players if the moniker fits at all, just that taken to an extreme they tend to cross a line somewhere. Take the power gamer as an example, played right it doesn't matter if bob has an array of nuclear warheads in his back pocket if he pretty much only brings them out when things seem to be going sideways in order to pull the group out of what looks like an expected death spiraling trainwreck when things have gone wrong. If instead bob is orders of magnitude beyond the group average & pulling out those warheads on a regular basis in ways that make the rest of the group look/feel inadequate that's a completely different story.

 

[Oofta]

I view adversarial DMs as doing everything they can to kill off the PCs, but there can be good and bad adversarial DMs.

An example of a good adversarial DM is one that let's the group know what kind of game they run. Then it's kind of a competition between DM and players that involves a lot of skilled play. Probably a lot of new PCs as well. So lots of deadly traps and puzzles, lots of difficult combats including some that retreat is the better part of valor and so on. Not the type of game I enjoy most of the time, but I get it.

Bad adversarial DMs? The ones that hold nothing back and just want to lord their power over the PCs as they enact their own version of the SAW movies. I've had DMs like that. Bring two PCs to the session and kill every PC off one after another in "inventive" ways.

So adversarial DMs are not inherently bad. For that matter, not all bad DMs are adversarial DMs.

 

[Greenfield]

I'm detecting an interesting twist on this topic: I see the "Adversarial DM" as one who will change the encounter/setting (sometimes on the fly) to make things harder for the PCs, often maliciously.

Some have suggested that a "Good DM" should change the encounter/setting to make it better suited to the PCs or party makeup.

I guess I'm seeing those two positions as opposite sides of the same coin. I'm thinking that part of the challenge for the party is to be able to adapt to the in-game situation, rather than expecting the situation to adapt to them.

This is simply an opinion, and YMMV, of course.