The Party vs the DM

[Mastikator]

There seems to be this idea that the DM and the players are opposed, and if the players overcome an obstacle then the DM looses.
I was just wondering how often this is true, or more specifically;

what constitutes a "DM Victory"?

[Knaight]

A GM victory is, to me at least, the consistent meeting of at least two conditions. These core conditions are.
1) The GM had fun.
2) The players had fun.

[Typewriter]

I think that's a bad mindset because the DM should be the one trying to make sure everyone is having a good time. Then there's the fact that the DM has unlimited power so if he wanted to 'win' he just would.

A victory to me is two things:
1. My players trust me with that unlimited power. I tend to do something odd in each of my campaigns, whether it's a custom crafting system, or a strange way to do stats. My players never question me anymore, they just have faith that it's going to be fun.
2. My group took turns switching DMs recently (I'm the DM 90% of the time), and after a couple campaigns one of my players told me he was really looking forward to playing in one of my campaigns again.

Essentially, all I want as a DM, is for my players to trust me to make sure they have a good time, and that they do have a good time. Anything else is just a bonus.

[Tyndmyr]

There seems to be this idea that the DM and the players are opposed, and if the players overcome an obstacle then the DM looses.
I was just wondering how often this is true, or more specifically;

what constitutes a "DM Victory"?

Within the context of the game, the DM is not trying to win. There are no win conditions for him in the game.

The DM is instead trying to organize and run a satisfactory session.

[Vladislav]

There seems to be this idea that the DM and the players are opposed, and if the players overcome an obstacle then the DM looses.
I was just wondering how often this is true, or more specifically;

what constitutes a "DM Victory"?

Where is this idea? I've never seen it, except for perhaps marginal people who aren't worth of my time to game with.

How often is this true? Never, except for said marginals.

[The Glyphstone]

Where is this idea? I've never seen it, except for perhaps marginal people who aren't worth of my time to game with.

How often is this true? Never, except for said marginals.

That's how it seems to me too. There's been a real rash of these 'Player vs. DM', 'DM-hating players', 'DM authority' type threads lately, and they all seem to be started only by people trying to quash or fight back against this self-perceived injustice.

[Comet]

The Dungeon Master wins when the players cannot solve his dungeon. He is the Dungeon Master, after all, and building deadly dungeons is his greatest form of expression.

On a more serious note, I find the GM to be victorious when the players are having fun and they become vocal about their appreciation for the GM's scenario design and general cool dude behaviour. Knowing that people think your creativity has provided them with something exciting to play with and expand upon is a grand feeling.

[valadil]

There seems to be this idea that the DM and the players are opposed, and if the players overcome an obstacle then the DM looses.
I was just wondering how often this is true, or more specifically;

what constitutes a "DM Victory"?

I don't subscribe the adversarial type of GMing, but I've known GMs who do. From them I've learned of a couple win conditions. One of them wanted to kill exactly two PCs per fight. More was okay, but he didn't want to TPK. The other victory would be luring the players into any kind of trap or ambush. Even if the players fought their way free, that they couldn't see the kobold ambush coming counts as a victory in and of itself.

[jmelesky]

There is a notion that the DM should act to prevent players from abusing the system. That could be interpreted as "DM vs. Players", but in reality it's "One Player vs. Fun", with the DM on the side of "Fun".

[Jubal_Barca]

Victory for the GM is making the most badass plotline possible. The players are characters in a story, but the setting and most of the storyline is really written by the GM. Thus, a GM victory for me is creating the most awesome cinematic moments for my PCs and making real drama happen.

[dsmiles]

A GM victory is, to me at least, the consistent meeting of at least two conditions. These core conditions are.
1) The GM had fun.
2) The players had fun.

This is exactly how the DM/GM 'wins.' Of course, this is also how the players 'win.'

Now, how characters or the BBEG wins are totally different conversations.

[Yukitsu]

In my group, we RP our combat abilities with live fire exercises. The players win if they emerge alive, and the DM wins if they don't. Generally, the easiest way to emerge alive is to take out the DM. We've gone through like, 90 DMs in 2010. Not as bad as our attempt at mass combat with that one killer DM in 2004. We call it the massacre of 04.

[Tyndmyr]

*jots a note about never playing with Yukitsu's group*

[Ajadea]

-snip-First up is my character from the best game I'm in right now, Antal Nirum, a Halfling Factotum.
-snip-

Here's to the better part of a year's entertainment. You lot provide an excellent read.

I rather like it. Actually, this is pretty much my favorite game ever, and I think the banter is a good part of it. We seem to have managed to capture the 'sitting around a table together' feel with all the conveniences of pbp

Guys, leaving aside what happens IC for a moment, I feel we deserve a pat on the back as a group, both players and DM.
We're playing together since June. Everyone stuck to this game (or gave warning when real life got in the way), and that's very, very rare in pbps. I mean, have you seen this recent thread?

Well done people! I'm really glad to be playing with you.

Oh, and totally unrelated, but I was talking to a friend who said that she was bored and looking for IC threads to read at one point, and stumbled across this one and she's been following it ever since! She says that Ajadea's a very good DM and it's an interesting story. Not that we didn't know that already

Emphasis all mine.

These reactions are what I define as a GM's victory.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Pizza. The GM wins when he or she gets some pizza.

[erikun]

There seems to be this idea that the DM and the players are opposed, and if the players overcome an obstacle then the DM looses.

Really? If they can't overcome an obstacle, then I don't get to show them the rest of the dungeon. I would personally call that a DM loss.

I will side with the others who said that a DM win is when everyone enjoys themselves. That frequently means giving the players what they wanted - an engaging roleplay, a challanging fight, or just a bunch of orcs heads to bash in.

For this conversation, I'd say the goal is giving the players a challanging set of encounters/dungeon (where winning is not automatic) with a chance of victory (where losing is not either). If I can successfully do that, I'd call it a "DM Win" regardless of the state of the BBEG at the end.

[navar100]

There seems to be this idea that the DM and the players are opposed, and if the players overcome an obstacle then the DM looses.
I was just wondering how often this is true, or more specifically;

what constitutes a "DM Victory"?

This was the prevalent thought pre-3E. It was subtlely reinforced because the rules stressed what player characters could not do more than what they could. 3E started the trend of reinforcing what player characters could do rather than what they can't. This led to the end of thinking the DM is The High Lord Master Of Everything You Pathetic Player Fools. 3E stressed the DM runs the campaign, but it is everyone's game. DMs are supposed to play with the players instead of against them. DMs can still have rules and restrictions, but they're meant to help the game be fun, not to stroke the DM's ego of power.

Old school thinking still creeps in from time to time, even for those who never played pre-3E. The DM becomes high on the power trip of being in charge, and the players don't know any better having not played in a "normal" game.

[Katana_Geldar]

The only game where this mentality is still prevalent is Paranoia.

[TheOasysMaster]

In my Star Wars game that I'm running, I just used the phrase, "You guys vs. me"...
Kinda a challenge I suppose.
All the CRs balance out, and the composition of the enemy forces make sense, so I'm not necessarily out to kill the PCs, since that wouldn't be fun. But the NPCs under my direct control ARE...
I don't know if anyone 'gets' my distinction, but, yeah.

There are times when the game is a competition between the DM and the PCs, like in a dungeon-crawl, or the Tomb of Horrors and I think other times its a cooperative effort between players and DM, like in an actual story-based campaign setting, like Dragonlance.

All that matters is that fun is attained.
=D

[Vladislav]

This was the prevalent thought pre-3E.

I played a lot pre-3E, and that's a first to me. I rarely, if ever, witnessed this mindset. In fact, I recall a 2E book called Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide (which I still own!), having a whole chapter dedicated to "don't make it DM vs. players".

[Seatbelt]

Aside from all the stuff about good story and having fun and all that.. there is a dirty little part of me that enjoys making the PCs squirm a little. My favorite encounters are the ones where everyone survives, but only barely.

[Quietus]

Ajadea has it perfectly correct here. Winning involves everyone having fun, of course, but for me personally, I get that sense of "Okay, I've done something worth being proud of" when I hear my players talking excitedly about something I've done.

[Aidan305]

The only game where this mentality is still prevalent is Paranoia.

Personally, I'd be tempted to argue that. Paranoia is more of a player vs player mentality, with an omniscient GM prodding them in to dancing for his/her amusement in the process. Yes, a successful Paranoia game is generally measured by how few players get out alive, and yes, they exist only to serve your every whim, but I'm not sure I'd call it a Player vs GM mentality.

[Jay R]

It's a false impression, but a very easy one to fall into, for several reasons.

1. The DM is in the business of designing traps and encounters that threaten the PCs. If the PCs get through the encounter trivially, the DM considers that he has failed. It's easy for players to see that and conclude, not that he wanted to challenge them, but that he wanted to kill them. It's not true, but it's a common conclusion.

2. Newer DMs also fall into the same fallacy. They start trying to develop more challenging encounters, which leads them to be aiming at deadlier ones. It's easy to forget the purpose and just concentrate on the goal of inventing deadly attacks.

3. A perfect DM is impartial in his rulings - neither for nor against the PCs. The PCs are not impartial - they are trying to "win". It's easy to ignore the rulings in which he did what the players wanted, focus on the ones in which he ruled against the PCs, and concluded that he's against them.

4. The DM is running every enemy the PCs have. And since the game is supposed to be about challenges, he runs enemies more often than he runs friends.

5. Every single bad thing that happens to the PCs was done by the DM. The good things feel like they came from their own actions.

6. Every disagreement between the PCs and the DM is about him trying to do something they don't like. Nobody argues that he's giving them too much treasure or letting their plans work when they shouldn't.

So it's very easy to consider the DM an enemy, just as it's easy to think that your teacher or boss is against you. It's almost never true, but it's a very easy mistake to make.

[Starwulf]

Emphasis all mine.

These reactions are what I define as a GM's victory.

All those quotes, plus the sterling recommendation from a friend who saw I was joining up to one of your most recent games(Scatter The Pieces with Sunpeak Spire) who told me that I was in for one awesome ride and that they've played in several of your games before, has me even more amped, though of course, I still have to hope that I'm one of the lucky ones to get picked! The Detail in your map alone fills me with joy and excitement :)

On another note!

That's how it seems to me too. There's been a real rash of these 'Player vs. DM', 'DM-hating players', 'DM authority' type threads lately, and they all seem to be started only by people trying to quash or fight back against this self-perceived injustice.

Stupid DMs! Who the hell do they think they are, giving freely of their time and effort to craft enjoyable campaigns for people like me! Then, even worse, they refuse to let my character with minimal background, and 100% human, suddenly sprout wings and fly, then later turn into the Arch-Devil Mephistopheles! I mean, cmon, what are all these "rules" and things! Bah! Pat-ooeey!

please note the above rant is 100% sarcasm! I love me some DMs!

[Ajadea]

Ajadea has it perfectly correct here. Winning involves everyone having fun, of course, but for me personally, I get that sense of "Okay, I've done something worth being proud of" when I hear my players talking excitedly about something I've done.

I think the best "victory" I had was the second quoted one, when Sallera spontaneously showed up out of nowhere and said we were awesome. The fact that the players (and me) are not the only ones deriving entertainment from the adventures of the characters is very satisfying to me.

I always see the Party vs DM thing like this.

As the antagonistic NPCs, I will not care if I kill your characters. My goal may be to destroy the PCs and everything they hold dear to their hearts. That is what their role is, and I play it.

As the environment or Joe Peasant who doesn't know a thing, I really don't give a damn one way or another. The environment is, whether or not there are people in its way. Joe Peasant probably doesn't want you to die randomly, but he's not going to jump in front of a dragon, brandishing nothing but a hoe, and try to save you.

As a supportive NPC, I give things to make sure the characters achieve the outcome I desire. These things may be magic items, allies, information, political power, or even just a place to stay when not out saving the world.

As me, as Ajadea the DM who runs all this, I want to see where you go, and give you a way to go wherever you want to go. I want you to be able to do nearly anything you set your mind to*, if you are willing to overcome the challenges that stand between you and your goal. But I will not ever make it easy. Though I will leave many ways to succeed, I will never remove the possibility of failure. The reward given after an uphill battle is worth something, the reward that is earned after a risk is always the sweetest.

*Mind you, if you want to take off in a spelljammer ship in my E6 world, time travel when extreme temporal magic does not exist, or kill a great wyrm dragon with a twig as a level 1 commoner, we will probably have to have Words about that.

[Gavinfoxx]

There are a few games that specifically cater to the adversarial style of gameplay. Most notably that I can think of is Hackmaster.

[Tyndmyr]

Personally, I'd be tempted to argue that. Paranoia is more of a player vs player mentality, with an omniscient GM prodding them in to dancing for his/her amusement in the process. Yes, a successful Paranoia game is generally measured by how few players get out alive, and yes, they exist only to serve your every whim, but I'm not sure I'd call it a Player vs GM mentality.

Would agree. You're not trying to kill the players personally. You're trying to get them to kill each other.

A good game of paranoia has them turning on each other before they leave the briefing room, and a wild flurry of notes being thrown around as the bodies hit the floor.

[Gravitron5000]

Personally, I'd be tempted to argue that. Paranoia is more of a player vs player mentality, with an omniscient GM prodding them in to dancing for his/her amusement in the process. Yes, a successful Paranoia game is generally measured by how few players get out alive, and yes, they exist only to serve your every whim, but I'm not sure I'd call it a Player vs GM mentality.

I have to second this. The most fun session I've had DMing Paranoia the environment caused a grand total of 1 clone loss (NPCs none). Only one clone made it out alive.

*Edit: Apparently I have to third this. I think I have to blame Nin-G-AAA

[Delwugor]

This week I was asked to bring back a Greyhawk horror campaign I stopped early last year, everyone said they liked it and wanted more.
As far as I'm concerned that is the best GM Victory I could have.