You know, sometimes I want to to see if I can outsmart the DM and just have my character survive the intelligently crafted character-pulper of an adventure that he/she/it has devised. Its a competitive approach to gaming and so what? If it is fun for both the GM and the player, then what the fuck does it matter?

There is something to be said for the stark enjoyment of this kind of play. It is adversarial, but then again, it does touch on that primal part of the human psyche that wants to shout, "Ha! Motherfucker! I just beat the shit out of your Tomb of Horrors rip-off!" when we do succeed.

Indeed, if it is done in a well-made fashion, not the "cow from space" horror story that so often gets attributed to adversial GMs.

For me, this is the easiest way to GM. Don't hold back, don't fudge rolls to favour anyone, don't sweat the world simulation aspect or story arc or whatever is your main job in another GM style, just let your players and your prep clash into each other, play the adversaries smart, look who comes out on top, and shake hand afterwards.
That's the style I'll tailor my homebrew for, with limited GM resources, randomly determined dungeon layout and so on. World simulators and other non-adversial GMs can still leave that part out and prep as usual - adversial GMs like me however need something to provide a fair challenge ground without tying their hand on the back.

Quote from: jeff37923There is something to be said for the stark enjoyment of this kind of play. It is adversarial, but then again, it does touch on that primal part of the human psyche that wants to shout, "Ha! Motherfucker! I just beat the shit out of your Tomb of Horrors rip-off!" when we do succeed.

I played with a tough and competitive GM in college.  While I it wasn't my favorite style of pay, the one thing I can say about it was that when we got some sort of success or reward, it felt like a big achievement in a way that it doesn't if the GM is going easier on the PCs.

Quote from: jeff37923You know, sometimes I want to to see if I can outsmart the DM and just have my character survive the intelligently crafted character-pulper of an adventure that he/she/it has devised. Its a competitive approach to gaming and so what? If it is fun for both the GM and the player, then what the fuck does it matter?

There is something to be said for the stark enjoyment of this kind of play. It is adversarial, but then again, it does touch on that primal part of the human psyche that wants to shout, "Ha! Motherfucker! I just beat the shit out of your Tomb of Horrors rip-off!" when we do succeed.

I'm J Arcane, and I endorse this message.

Quote from: jeff37923You know, sometimes I want to to see if I can outsmart the DM and just have my character survive the intelligently crafted character-pulper of an adventure that he/she/it has devised. Its a competitive approach to gaming and so what? If it is fun for both the GM and the player, then what the fuck does it matter?

There is something to be said for the stark enjoyment of this kind of play. It is adversarial, but then again, it does touch on that primal part of the human psyche that wants to shout, "Ha! Motherfucker! I just beat the shit out of your Tomb of Horrors rip-off!" when we do succeed.

I'd say that competative play is the hallmark of games and why people have played them for millenia.  Friendly competition within the rules is the norm of fun in a game, rather than the exception.  It's what drives, boardgames, cards, sports, pretty much anything normally called a game.  It even drove the parlor games of the 18th century, the competition being to show off your intelelct, learning and creativity.

I think what you describe I'd call a tough and fair GM, no plot protection for anything neither the GM's creation or the PCs.  I want the GM to run the opponents well, if they are organized and intelligent they should act it and not show me mercy unless it makes sense for a world-oriented reason.  I prefer the challenge/dungeon/etc. make some sense for a world-oreinted reason, becasue it helps me compete as a player and as a GM I want to feel I created a challenging but not an priori impossible adventure.

Any DM worth his salt LIVES for the moment when his players outwit/outsmart/defeat him.

Lord Hobie

As long as everyone at the table is having fun, the style doesn't matter. It's when some people show up looking for story telling and others show up looking for an arena of death that things start to fall apart.

Quote from: jeff37923You know, sometimes I want to to see if I can outsmart the DM and just have my character survive the intelligently crafted character-pulper of an adventure that he/she/it has devised. Its a competitive approach to gaming and so what? If it is fun for both the GM and the player, then what the fuck does it matter?

There is something to be said for the stark enjoyment of this kind of play. It is adversarial, but then again, it does touch on that primal part of the human psyche that wants to shout, "Ha! Motherfucker! I just beat the shit out of your Tomb of Horrors rip-off!" when we do succeed.

I eagerly await the next issue of your news letter. Please subscribe me immediately.

I'm not sure I play for the challenge, but I enjoy having things which would be challenging, according to the reality of the game, be challenging for me the player.

So I don't see challenge as something to exclude from world-simulation.

Conversely, given the fact that the GM usually has no formal restraints (i.e., not like Skyrock's game), I look at simulation as an important element of making a challenge coherent rather than arbitrary. I.e., the 10'x10' room with 200 Purple Worms (don't ask me how they fit in there) just isn't an interesting challenge; for that matter neither is a "clue" that's based on a completely idiosyncratic conception of the game world that the GM hasn't filled us in on.

Quote from: Elliot WilenConversely, given the fact that the GM usually has no formal restraints (i.e., not like Skyrock's game), I look at simulation as an important element of making a challenge coherent rather than arbitrary.

Yes, there must be some limitation. You can do this by system, but the most common way is prep work: "Here's my dungeon, and there are exactly 30 orcs in it. They are all the ammo I as the GM can throw at my players, and if they're all slayed, the outwitted me."

World simulation can also work. However, as this always demands common sense, this can get a bit fuzzy at times, especially as everyone has other experience, knowledge and expectations and thereof a different common sense.
Not that it can't work, I know some adverserial GMs who do a really great job with world sim as limitation technique. However, I also do know some who do it horribly wrong, and I had to do with more than one group that got at odds about the expectations of plausible consequences for a cop kill in a cyberpunk metropolis. (A really tricky question, as several assumptions clash into each other (overwhelming crime and anonymity in cyberpunk vs aggravated cops in nowadays cop-kills), and most systems don't offer a mechanic to just check whether a police investigation against the PCs is successful or not. Moreover, the answer to that question is a very important one - an attack by a SWAT team + manhunts + wasted expensive forged IDs + whatnot makes a big difference in how difficult the life of the PCs is.)

Quote from: Lord HobieAny DM worth his salt LIVES for the moment when his players outwit/outsmart/defeat him.

I'm down with that.  Few things are more entertaining than the players surprising me with their cleverness.

That being said, I don't want an adversarial GM.  I want a calm, cool, impartial motherfucker.  I want a GM that has "4 balrogs" in his key and it doesn't matter whether I bring a lone 1st level commoner or the entirety of the Round Table, either way there's gonna be 4 balrogs in that room.

Quote from: jrientsI'm down with that.  Few things are more entertaining than the players surprising me with their cleverness.

One of that few being when they surprise you with their stupidity. (although in players' defense. it's usually not insane stupidty, it only looks that way from the omniscience seat)

Hell frakkin yes! This is one reason I was so excited about D&D's CR/EL system when heard about it, and so bummed out when I found out it doesn't really work.

IMO the best "killer DM" game would be one where the DM gets a set number of points per total PC levels and gets to build adversaries from it. You want to blow it all on a big demon? Go for it! You want to spread it out among thirty orcs, a minotaur and a black pudding? Nice!

That is a really killer idea. Any implementations?

There's Epos, a German indie RPG that does that. Unfortunately there isn't a translation planned, and a translation at this point would demand much ongoing maintenance as it's still playtested and evoluting.

I tried something similar with my game, but the balancing issues of a complex cyberpunk/fantasy setting with spirits, monsters, robots, computer programs, gatling guns and so on grew over my head. I'm now doing this with random charts - not perfect in balancing view, but a limiter without to much exploit issues.
However, there too isn't a translation planned in the near future. (I'm already happy if I get the version in my native tongue on a playable level...)