I was thinking about what I wrote in my Why I DM post, and had some further thoughts to add.
I talked about the players giving me a constantly changing challenge that the AI of strategy computer games can't. Following that line of logic, why don't I just play multiplayer mode for those games? I would be challenging myself against a human opponent who I would have more difficulty predicting and manipulating. The answer lies in how the strategy game changes in multiplayer mode.
For me, these strategy games are a mental exercise and challenge. As soon as I enter multiplayer mode, it becomes a competition. First of all I don't like the hassle of setting up a multiplayer game in the first place, and second I don't like to lose (who does), which I often do because of how I play. I don't play strategy games to win; my goal isn't to 'beat' the AI. I will often draw the game out so it will last longer when I could have 'beat' the game fairly quickly. I don't care about competing, so when I do play against another human, my opponent often defeats me fairly easily because I'm not playing to win. So I usually stick to single player and spend the time to enjoy the game. My goal when I play a strategy game is to develop a strategy and see if I can execute it. It's an exercise of my mental faculties. I get enjoyment just from the play itself and the complex challenges that arise out of play.
I DM RPGs in the same way, I get enjoyment from the challenge of the play itself. In my last post about this, Scott Anderson said he doesn't see the DM as being oppositional or antagonistic. Well, I don't either, as I tried to explain in my reply. The reason RPGs are superior to computer strategy games is the human factor involved, as I explained in my previous post. And as I said above I don't play to compete. I don't take on a competitive stance when I DM. D&D is a cooperative game, and not just for the players. The DM has cooperate with the players just as the players have to cooperate with each other. I prefer to run D&D than to play strategy games because there is the human factor, but also because it is a cooperative game. I'm not out to kill the PCs, or stop their plans, my job is to cooperate with the players by presenting the setting as it is and narrating the consequences of player actions and how those actions affect the setting. My role is purely dependent on the players, so I have to cooperate with them to play the game in the first place. If I take an antagonistic role, the game will be over shortly and no one will have enjoyed themselves.
Is there an extreme form of the cooperative DM?
ReplyDeleteThat is to say, shouldn't the DM be responsible for presenting a challenge to the players? How can she do this if she doesn't take an aggressive (antagonistic) posture?
creating a challenge for the players isn't antagonistic, it's cooperative. An antagonistic Dm actively prevents the players from participating in the game, he purposefully ruins their 'fun'.
ReplyDeleteAnd besides the DM shouldn't be thinking about how they can provide the next challenge to the players, they should be thinking about the consequences of the players actions in the setting. The DM doesn't have to create a challenge because the players will create their own challenges simply by interacting with the setting.
A DM is cooperative when they present the setting in such a way that the players have a reason to interact with the setting in meaningful ways; an antagonistic DM would present the setting as bland, or boring and unchanging(you might see some similarities between the antagonistic DM and a new DM). With an antagonistic DM the players choices have no consequences, and eventually the players will resent the DM and view him as their antagonist.