Adversarial Game Styles in D&D
A post was made asking DMs if they would be successful over the weekend killing some characters and encouraging them to do their jobs and kill characters. In the course of the discussion it was pointed out that character decisions and dice kill characters, DM’s do not. There were a number of objections, this was taken as an attempt to hide behind the dice rather than take responsibility for killing the PCs. Crowing about killing PCs is a bit of an odd move, as you have so much power in the game world. Also, when the dice are doing the killing, why does the DM crow? Saying a game is deadly is really just saying PCs have fewer options, and is nothing to be proud of.
I'm not sure of the perspective of those making the objections, so rather than address their arguments I'm going to focus in on an issue I've seen addressed many times on social media and heard in person. Specifically, how people understand adversarial refereeing styles. The assumption is that an adversarial style of play, where it’s the ref’s “job” to fairly challenge the PCs as much as possible, is inappropriate as a play style. I've seen the argument is that it's abusive , sometimes it's that it's non-consensual, other times that it is aggressive.
I think that this is a great example of how things are taken out of context. But to get there, I have to go through a bit of explanation. Rather than address the individual points in the thread I'm going to start off fresh.
Start here: D&D is a game.
Games have rules, but D&D has both house rules and RAW, and all rules can be interpreted and played in different ways, or play styles. So to understand the context of the original tweet, it is required to know both the game being played and the style of play involved.
Contrasts frequently help make things clearer, so I’ll use an obvious one. Take two D&D campaigns for two different groups. .
One game of D&D is narratively focused, the DM regularly sticks their hand into the game mechanics to direct the story, or manipulates the background of the game world to ensure that characters get to shine or reach player set goals, story beats are used, the game is tied into the PCs backstories, and there is a lot of in character RP. I’ve played in D&D like this. D&D played with a strong narrative focus is often about the game world engaging with the character. Fairness, in that context, is about adherence to the rules, except in cases of narrative preference. People enjoy this play style as it can be immersive and emotionally resonant.
Another game of D&D is adversarial, the DM’s job is to create as deadly an environment as possible, so the only ones who survive are those who combine luck and smarts. The ref is fair, otherwise the game isn’t enjoyable. Fair means that the rules apply to everyone, everyone gets to know the rules (because it's a game, players get to know the rules). They don’t get to know the plans and details of the adversaries, but the rules have to be transparent. And in games like this when the dice are rolled, the result stands. There can be discussion before they are thrown, but once everyone agrees to throw them, they stand. In this style of game the ref is challenging and engaging the player, not the character. People enjoy this game as some people like challenging, unforgiving environments, or outsmarting others, it is engaging as there is real risk, characters can die, and survival means that the player was smart enough to figure out how to beat the dangerous environment. I’ve played in games like this as well, and they can be enjoyable and mutually agreed upon (e.g. consensual).
Of course there are degrees between, the point being these are two extremes.
So if you run the second type of game, if you advertise it’s deadliness, if you call to arms with other DM’s to run games in your style and make them deadly and challenging but fair, if you celebrate what you do, here is what it can mean:
- You are a jerk, you run games where the players think there is a way to survive and complete their task but in reality they have no chance of survival, and even if they figure it out you change the rules to make it harder and more challenging, It’s a ego trip for you, and you crow about it like a jackass.
- You run a challenging but fair game. Players who like your style of play enjoy a challenge that is not throttled back to ensure that you will survive, they like the thrill of facing death and outsmarting it. You crow about it so people know that’s the game you are playing, you are letting people know that your game is deadly so if that’s a problem, don’t play it. But you are also letting people who like this kind of game know that your game is challenging, so if you want to be the best in the West, play with me.
I think 1 is a jerk. If you don’t make the game fair, if there is no way for the players to figure out the problem or reach their goals, then you have broken the social contract.
I know DMs who did this. They were assholes. They were on power trips and would abuse their authority to win at all costs. They would get visibly upset when the PCs were doing well. It was obvious stuff, giving favored players exceptions, the monsters “always” having more HP than average, etc, etc.
But that’s neither inherent in the system or in the play style.
Maybe another example will make it clearer.
Say I run a narratively focused D&D game. I control the narrative so that one player always gets the opportunities (e.g. the challenges are always well suited to a particular player) or I always ensure that the party wins, sometimes in clumsy, obvious ways, to preserve the story. It all feels like the ref’s personal fantasy novel and the characters feel they have no agency.
That DM would be an asshole too.
But again, that’s not inherent to the game or the playstyle.
What matters is that everyone enjoys the play style, if someone who ran a narratively focused game where the campaign tied in to personal backstories and had deep emotional resonance then yeah, bragging about killing PCs would be shity.
But that’s not the case here, people who play in these games know exactly the game they are playing. If I’m not mistaken many or most of the posters in that thread run games for friends. If they weren’t impartial in the ways you can be they would not be running games for this long.
Look at it another way.
Say I was running a more narratively focused game, and in the process of something bad (but not fatal) happening the player cried, or broke down, or had an extreme experience of loss or sadness, because of the bad thing that happened to their PC. I’ve watched this happen, I’ve heard about it on Twitter.
There was a discussion of it, and everyone was on board with the subject matter (say for example that consent forms were used) and everyone is happy with the way it went. Then the ref crows on Twitter that their games are so good, so immersive, that players have these intense emotional experiences regularly in their game. I’ve made players cry they were so immersed in the game!
That would be fine, because all the players agreed to it, and they all like playing games where they have these sorts of cathartic, personal identity exploring experiences. I regularly see people talking about running consensual games where sexual assault or trauma is allowed, in the context of an understanding between ref and players, these things are appropriate. TTRPGS, and role play in particular, can be use to explore feelings, to reframe life experiences, and to tap into things that are hard to access otherwise.
The third way I would encourage reconceptualising this is to think about the gamist aspects of the question. In a game where narrative is more of a focus and character investment is larger in terms of time and complexity (e.g. backstory, ref integration of backstory to game) character death is a bigger deal, as the game is MORE ABOUT THE CHARACTER.
In other modes of play (e.g. adversarial) characters are pawns that represent the players, so when the pawn is removed, it might be disappointing as you are out of the challenge, but the challenge isn’t just about the character, it's about the player.
For example in my games, if we are playing a deadlier adventure, players will often run two PCs, so when the first one dies they can keep playing without interruption. That should tell you what you need to know about their attitude towards PC death. It isn’t the same as in other styles of play, so crowing about it isn’t being a jerk.
If you play in games like this being killed is something that is celebrated. Dying a good death, or a funny one, is celebrated. Surviving is celebrated. Everyone likes to beat the challenge, but failing can be spectacular and fulfilling, immersive and fun, and failing to beat the challenge for a while then beating the challenge, that’s gold. Saying you are a deadly DM is saying that players find your game challenging and keep coming back. That’s a good thing.
I really think that there are different views of PCs at work here, the idea being that a game with many PC deaths is inappropriate as players invest a lot in their characters. I think this is not the case to the same degree or in the same way as players interface with their characters in an adversarial style game.
So let people crow about it, they are just having fun, and celebrating their style of play, I regularly see threads on twitter asking things like, “Dunk on your favorite PC couple and how it worked out”, I don’t chide people playing these games because they are promoting a playstyle that can be emotionally abusive. And you can see how they could, character focused games that engage emotions can cause real hurt. Role play has impact. Exploring romantic relationships between characters could easily bleed over into real life in damaging ways. But rather than assume that, when I see someone crowing about a game style I don’t play, I assume they must enjoy it and be good at it, which means that people are playing their game and having fun, so everything is good.
I think the best suggestion in the thread was to try an adversarial game and see if it could be done fairly and fun. But that’s an investment that many won’t be likely to make.
This view of adversarial games is one of the most pervasive misunderstandings about Gygax that persists. It's quite irritating. Adversarial is not abusive, or unfair, it's a challenging style of play that some enjoy.
No comments:
Post a Comment