m7600
Habitué
- Messages
- 1,201
Antagonistic DMing is somewhat unfashionable these days, and that's not really surprising. It's gotten a bad name. For example, suppose that you're invited to a new table, and everything is great at first. Then you begin to notice that the DM is trying to kill the characters. Perhaps the rounds of combat are a bit tougher than what you're used to. Perhaps there's too many traps scattered around the dungeon. At some point, the DM succeeds in killing one or more characters, or worse, there's a total party kill. This is not what you signed up for, if you were expecting to join a table that focuses on storytelling and role-playing. Assuming that's the case, you'll probably avoid that table like the plague and look for a new one instead.
But things don't have to be this way. Antagonistic DMing can be a lot of fun for everyone. But, in order for that to happen, there's a few things that both the players and the DM might want to agree on before starting a new game, not afterwards. This keeps things fair and it allows everyone to be on the same page.
1) Is the DM going to be antagonistic? I'd say that this is the first thing that the players and the DM should decide. If new players join, they should know from the very start what kind of gaming experience they can expect. But what does this kind of experience even look like? Well, there's several options. One is to run a classic module like the Tomb of Horrors. The DM should make it very clear from the start that all of the characters will probably die, and that the goal for the players here is to survive as long as they can. Another option is to set up a game that takes place in a combat arena, sort of like The Black Pits from BG1:EE and BG2: EE. The characters have been captured by a villain, and they're forced to fight as gladiators, facing several waves of monsters, until they fight the final boss. If they can defeat the boss, the players win. If the DM manages to kill all of the characters, the DM wins.
2) Will the DM make their rolls behind a screen? This should be decided as well, but I think that the answer will almost always be "no". Setting aside the DM screen and rolling in the open might seem like sacrilege to some D&D fans. But, like every other aspect of D&D, this is customizable. For a game that focuses on storytelling and roleplaying, it makes sense for the DM to roll behind a screen, because they can fudge the dice to make the story more interesting. In an arena-style game, in which the objective of the DM is to kill the characters, it makes sense to roll in the open, just to keep things fair.
3) Is meta-gaming allowed? Meta-gaming is highly frowned upon, because it ruins the immersive aspect of a typical D&D session. But, to use the example of the gladiatorial arena, this is not a typical D&D session. The DM is actively going for a total party kill. The party, on the other hand, is actively trying to outsmart the DM and get to the final boss. It makes sense to allow meta-gaming for this type of session. The emphasis here is, essentially, on power-gaming and number crunching. You know, min-maxing, buying the best possible gear from the arena merchants, looking for any sort of exploit or edge that might exist. Luck is essential for storytelling, things might turn very differently if you roll either a 1 or a natural 20 in a key moment of the campaign. But in an arena-style game, you want to minimize luck as much as possible. So, sure, go over the Monster Manual to look up the stats of the monsters that the DM is throwing at you. Even with all of your meta-gaming knowledge, can you still make it to the final boss and escape from the arena?
4) Is roleplaying optional? This might seem like a dumb question, since, after all, you're playing a role-playing game. True, but an arena-style game isn't a typical storytelling game. Instead of saying "M'lord, I shall valiantly defend thee from the grotesque abominations that lurk within the dark chambers of this nefarious Arena", it might be more fun to just say to the DM "Your last wave sucked, we killed your Carrion Crawlers without a scratch! We don't even need to rest to recover our spells!". The DM will probably reply with "Oh yeah? Wait till you see the next wave, you're positively screwed this time!"
5) How powerful is the DM going to be? In an adventure that's focused on storytelling, there seems to be a consensus that the DM is like some sort of God. Whatever the DM says, goes. But in an arena-style game, that would be extremely unfair. In this case, the DM is more like a referee, or better yet, they're almost like another player, meaning that there's rules that the DM has to follow. They can't just make stuff up like they normally would. For example, suppose that the party defeats one of the waves. The DM can't decide, out of the blue, that a meteor falls from the sky and kills the entire group. So, the DM isn't God. If we've decided to play this specific format, there has to be a general set of rules that the DM can't break, if only for the sake of fairness.
I'm probably leaving a lot of stuff out. But I hope that I've made a convincing case for why and how antagonistic DMing can be fun.
But things don't have to be this way. Antagonistic DMing can be a lot of fun for everyone. But, in order for that to happen, there's a few things that both the players and the DM might want to agree on before starting a new game, not afterwards. This keeps things fair and it allows everyone to be on the same page.
1) Is the DM going to be antagonistic? I'd say that this is the first thing that the players and the DM should decide. If new players join, they should know from the very start what kind of gaming experience they can expect. But what does this kind of experience even look like? Well, there's several options. One is to run a classic module like the Tomb of Horrors. The DM should make it very clear from the start that all of the characters will probably die, and that the goal for the players here is to survive as long as they can. Another option is to set up a game that takes place in a combat arena, sort of like The Black Pits from BG1:EE and BG2: EE. The characters have been captured by a villain, and they're forced to fight as gladiators, facing several waves of monsters, until they fight the final boss. If they can defeat the boss, the players win. If the DM manages to kill all of the characters, the DM wins.
2) Will the DM make their rolls behind a screen? This should be decided as well, but I think that the answer will almost always be "no". Setting aside the DM screen and rolling in the open might seem like sacrilege to some D&D fans. But, like every other aspect of D&D, this is customizable. For a game that focuses on storytelling and roleplaying, it makes sense for the DM to roll behind a screen, because they can fudge the dice to make the story more interesting. In an arena-style game, in which the objective of the DM is to kill the characters, it makes sense to roll in the open, just to keep things fair.
3) Is meta-gaming allowed? Meta-gaming is highly frowned upon, because it ruins the immersive aspect of a typical D&D session. But, to use the example of the gladiatorial arena, this is not a typical D&D session. The DM is actively going for a total party kill. The party, on the other hand, is actively trying to outsmart the DM and get to the final boss. It makes sense to allow meta-gaming for this type of session. The emphasis here is, essentially, on power-gaming and number crunching. You know, min-maxing, buying the best possible gear from the arena merchants, looking for any sort of exploit or edge that might exist. Luck is essential for storytelling, things might turn very differently if you roll either a 1 or a natural 20 in a key moment of the campaign. But in an arena-style game, you want to minimize luck as much as possible. So, sure, go over the Monster Manual to look up the stats of the monsters that the DM is throwing at you. Even with all of your meta-gaming knowledge, can you still make it to the final boss and escape from the arena?
4) Is roleplaying optional? This might seem like a dumb question, since, after all, you're playing a role-playing game. True, but an arena-style game isn't a typical storytelling game. Instead of saying "M'lord, I shall valiantly defend thee from the grotesque abominations that lurk within the dark chambers of this nefarious Arena", it might be more fun to just say to the DM "Your last wave sucked, we killed your Carrion Crawlers without a scratch! We don't even need to rest to recover our spells!". The DM will probably reply with "Oh yeah? Wait till you see the next wave, you're positively screwed this time!"
5) How powerful is the DM going to be? In an adventure that's focused on storytelling, there seems to be a consensus that the DM is like some sort of God. Whatever the DM says, goes. But in an arena-style game, that would be extremely unfair. In this case, the DM is more like a referee, or better yet, they're almost like another player, meaning that there's rules that the DM has to follow. They can't just make stuff up like they normally would. For example, suppose that the party defeats one of the waves. The DM can't decide, out of the blue, that a meteor falls from the sky and kills the entire group. So, the DM isn't God. If we've decided to play this specific format, there has to be a general set of rules that the DM can't break, if only for the sake of fairness.
I'm probably leaving a lot of stuff out. But I hope that I've made a convincing case for why and how antagonistic DMing can be fun.
