D&D General What is adversarial DMing?

[Umbran]

But how much of it is adversarial vs a misalignment of expectations? People not used to the harsher early days of the game could easily mistake that style of "the world is dangerous and if you're not clever and careful, you will die" for adversarial DMing.

So, I'm going to push back on the "misalignment of expectations" because some of the original, stated expectations Gygax lays out in AD&D are kind of adversarial.

Adversarial GMing is the GM equivalent of the CN rogue who steals from the party and stabs them in the back because "that's what my character would do".

 

[Hex08]

My player's think I am adversarial because I constantly berate them for their poor life decisions, character defects and physical abnormalities.

 

[AtomicPope]

An adversarial GM runs the game as if the players and/or their characters are the enemies.

But how much of it is adversarial vs a misalignment of expectations?

Probably half of it. I try to do my best to run the game knowing all of my NPCs are expendable and the PCs are not. However, when I invest hours writing story arcs and plots, designing encounters and dungeons, and then all of it falls apart to crappy dice roles it's really easy to get upset. It's also difficult to fight off the instincts to fudge the numbers and have it play out in a way that best suits your original vision. That's not adversarial, it's just not GMing.

A big part of being a GM is letting the players be story tellers, and have their PCs lead the story in a direction they want. Sometimes it's hard to let go of your original plans and go in this new direction, which is what makes dungeons great for GMs as they confine the story to a known section of the world. And this is where the difference can really stand out. A normal GM tailors a dungeon to challenge their PCs, thus letting them engage in a story from a point of weakness with the knowledge that they can and should win, albeit a costly victory. The adversarial GM will change the rules to punish players, force PCs to lose, and ensure that even in strength their victory is costly. The PCs are handily winning? More monsters show up! Now the PCs lose. There's an unusual situation that might benefit the players? Not this time. It comes up again later? Well, it benefits the NPCs so the ruling is applied differently now.

Let's be honest here, the GM can beat any party because their resources are unlimited. Only the players and their characters are limited. They have level limits, experience limits, action limits, everything they have is reigned in to ensure all of the players and their characters can participate, and none of them completely overshadow the others. The GM has a completely different role. It's to design a campaign that challenges the players and their characters, showcasing and outlining their strengths and weaknesses. The story is told together, as a group. Cooperation is key. If there's no sense of cooperation then someone, GM or player, is being the adversary. That doesn't mean there's zero competition. Not at all. There's lots of it, but always in the spirit of the game which is a cooperative story.

 

[overgeeked]

So, I'm going to push back on the "misalignment of expectations" because some of the original, stated expectations Gygax lays out in AD&D are kind of adversarial.

Right. Which is why I specifically pointed out that a lot of what Gygax suggests in the AD&D DMG is explicitly, negatively adversarial.

What I was saying in that quoted bit it that there might be times when it's more a matter of a difference in perception and expectations rather than a DM being explicitly adversarial. Like you want to run a hardcore OSR dungeon crawl but for some reason the players are not explicitly aware of that style. So the game starts and characters drop like flies. It's not that you're necessarily being adversarial in a negative sense, rather it's you running the game you intended to but the players have a different set of expectations. Just explicitly putting in the wiggle room required to not raise quite as many hackles.

Adversarial GMing is the GM equivalent of the CN rogue who steals from the party and stabs them in the back because "that's what my character would do".

Exactly. It's selfish, me-first behavior at the expense of the group's enjoyment. Adversarial players exists as well. As you mention, there's that party-destroying player, but there are others. Most player types taken to extremes would likely fit.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I disagree with the conflation of "challenging" and "adversarial." A good DM presents a meaningful challenge, though what counts as such will vary between tables and even sessions at the same table. An adversarial DM isn't interested in providing a real challenge; in fact, I would say the term very specifically means pretending to offer such a challenge while actually offering either a genuinely unwinnable scenarios (as in, not just "I didn't design this with a win condition" but "I will actively close off any win condition you find, so losing is the only option"), or scenarios that rely on DMPCs, stupidly obtuse and bizarre logic, or otherwise various "gotcha" processes that theoretically permit a win but practically enforce a loss.

Adversarial DMing is, for example, advocated as a way to deal with so-called problem players who have the temerity to play as non-human races, or "worse," monstrous ones. That is, you intentionally make that player's gaming miserable until they stop playing the wrong choices and start playing the right ones, because obviously anyone who wants to play a dragon-person is a dirty no-good powergaming munchkin and needs to learn how to be a good player instead.

Given I have been expressly told that it's perfectly cromulent to have NPCs be horrifically racist to non-human (or, more commonly, non-LOTR-hero) races in order to induce players to choose to play those races instead...yeah, adversarial DMing is alive and well, much to the hobby's detriment.

 

[Umbran]

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.

It is the DM's job to hold up their end of whatever the table agreement is. Presenting the setting as-is, without regard for what PCs the players decide to one, is one agreement, but there are many other valid possible agreements. And, the GM has some responsibility to communicate that before starting.

If you are running in a public setting, where you don't know who is going to show up, and they all want to play wizards, it is the GM's job to inform folks, "Look, the thing I have prepped really isn't designed for this party. I'll run it for you if you want, but I don't know if it'll be the most fun experience for you." Allow the players to make an informed choice. If they say they want to play anyway, then you go forward as best you can.