Yes, I'd say we do. I've asked players what they wanted from me as a GM before and one that always comes up is 'challenge, puzzles, adversity, danger'. Gms do other stuff as well, of course, but I think that's the biggest thing, to provide situations where there is something threatening, something that kicks the PCs and forces them to make choices, take risks, *do* something.

http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/

One of the playtests I ran at Conception was 'Stitch', only the 2nd time I have run it. The first time was awesome because I was totally in the players face. This time I let the players tell me what was going on and as such the game lost its panic and pace.

I think that GM's do need to be more confrontational in games but that advice has to be given in each game as to precisely how that should come across. More on this when I report on the Stitch playtest.

Cheers

Iain

Mob Justice now available! 'The Giant Brain':Small games, big ideas.

If you're saying "Do we need adversity in games?", then yes.

That doesn't have to come from the GM. It's an appropriate role for the GM to have, but not necessary. I've played great Prime Time Adventures games where the players provided their own adversity and the GM just facilitated.

Graham

I think the question isn't illustrated well in the Indy v. Swiss Scientist example. That enemy isn't really genre appropriate to Pulp Action, and therefore the problem isn't GM unwillingness to antagonise, but flawed genre view.

I think the villification of the GM is an absurd but understandable backlash against certain types of play. I also think utterly refusing to entertain the idea that GMs are useful and at times desireable is definitely a baby/bathwater scenario.

But, yeah, you've gotta push the PCs.

My players like nuanced moral/ethical decisions. Even when playing Superhero games they don't want Doctor McNazi. Which is fine - but when we play Spirit Of The Century, they know there will be Nazis to punch, and they enjoy that as an occasional aside, not something to play every week.

I think it is necessary for a GM to provide his players with adversity, and although I don't think it's necessary to always provide it in the form of a truly hatable dyed-in-the-wool villain (I like realistic personalities as well) I also think that it can make for a really cathartic romp, given the correct vehicle. I mean, comic book superhero action wouldn't be the same if all the villains were just misunderstood, would it? And high fantasy also thrives on characters that are hopelessly evil more or less for the sake of it.

On the other hand, I believe that a good GM also should provide intrigue, plot twists and other means of keeping an ongoing campaign interesting. Oh my god! Our allies just turned out to be the villain's henchmen all along! What do you mean, you're my father? We look nothing alike... oh now hold on, just take off that big black asthma inhaler mask again... And so on.

On the other hand, it must be thoroughly understood by all involved that any opposition provided by the GM is provided in the spirit of the game, and in no way vindictively. That means that, while the GM should provide some kind of challenge, he must also allow for the players to get a few lucky breaks too once in a while. It's carrot and stick, all the way, except usually you get the stick before you get the carrot. A villain who is never once affected even by your most elaborately cunning plans and powerful attacks is no fun at all. You have to present a formidable foe who is nevertheless vulnerable to a properly formulated plan.

It's rather like a computer game really. Make it too difficult with no sense of progression and your players will get frustrated. Make it too easy with no sense of challenge and your players will become complacent and bored. The idea with modern computer gaming is to intersperse fairly easy (and often very open) sections in amongst the tricky stuff, each escalating slowly to the next major scene (or boss battle as they are often called). The easy bits, such as searching around the town for bargains, wading through a few easy encounters and so forth, provide the adrenaline and "I am a living God" factor that makes the players feel good about themselves and lets them relax and enjoy the benefits they've bought with experience. The ensuing chaos prevents them from losing interest. The plot ties it all together.

Ash

I challenge you Graham. My point comes on the back of a PTA game. The GM stated categorically, that leaving the players to do it all fell flat in his experience. It was necessary for him to frame things in an aggressive manner to make it work. Purely facilitating didn't do it.

Players are never going to go for the balls-out nastiness that a third party is going to smack down on them. No matter how hard they try, subconsciously if nothing else, they're looking for the way out when they frame the threat.

I agree that, generally, someone needs to provide adversity. We don't essentially disagree on much, except that I think other people can provide it apart from the GM.

I don't really know PTA that well. But I've played games of Dogs, for example, where the GM sat back and let the players have at each other.

So, when you say players never go for balls-out nastiness: I do! Seriously, if you want to see balls-out player-vs-player stuff, we should play sometime. Looking for a way out? Bollocks. I'm looking to kill the fucker opposite or for him to kill me.

(I am not always like this, but give me half a chance and I'm there).

But, like I say, no essential disagreement. Adversity good.

Graham

This, I think, is a 'Different Strokes' situation. Some people thrive on this kind of game, others (especially old-fashioned role-players who've never really experienced the Indie style of game before) don't. It's always a risk making broad sweeping changes to the way a game is played, and most of the time all you end up doing is reducing the market for your games. However I maintain that it's better to try something new once in a while than let the hobby stagnate.

I've drifted off point. Basically, I'm saying that you can't base a prognosis on a single test case. The game didn't suit the players you speak of, that's fair enough. Even the best RPGs have their naysayers. That's not to say that the style and rules of the game were at fault.

Ash

I don't think that is in any way Indie specific Ash. People often get the level of challenge and adversity wrong in Trad games as well, either because the GM makes things too hard or too easy in a GM-led format, or because the players create adversity for themselves when it isn't needed or go to great lengths to avoid it and then end up unfulfilled. I think I've been in Trad games with all those variations.

http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/

G – I’m challenging your “players doing it for themselves” angle (i.e. saying its not necessary for GMs to be confrontational). You can play it down and dirty, I know I can, but from a game designer point of view do you think most players can? I think not. Going from experiences at many conventions, but here’s a Conception example – a lovely couple from the Pompey crowd were in the Agon game I played in. Unless the GM pushed them they didn’t say a word. They were in my Delta Green game too, now admittedly, there were some strong personalities around that table, but even when I tried to engage them directly I didn’t get massive amounts back. It was only when I pushed with a “someone’s doing this to you, what are you going to do about it?” type tack that I got a solid response.

Writing a game its difficult to put in advice for players, hell, some don’t even want to read the book you’ve made, let alone buy it or digest the information thoroughly. Assuming the GM has bought it though, we can put something in their to guide him/her. Should it be a pointer to be aggressive (when necessary)?

This doesn’t mean stymie the players at every turn, but it does mean make things go bad in a really challenging way. If players are left to it, and I heard this from people running other indie and more trad games at Conception and many other conventions previously, the game can fall flat. It only needs someone like you or I there to stir it up, but actually, from a designer point of view, do we not need to encourage GMs to be confrontational? You can add a caveat saying “if its all going swimmingly, don’t stick your oar in”, but should the starting point in a GM advice chapter not be to push the players?

Its not necessary all the time, but as a baseline start position, is it not a requirement for a good, dynamic game?

We’re all agreed adversity is wanted and needed. I’m saying should it be up to the GM to make sure it happens? Should my New Game advice GMs to make things difficult (but notably not impossible) for players?

So I thought I'd break it down a bit. Questions being asked in this thread include:

-What type of antagonism is appropriate for a particular game?

-Does the game text provide a process to produce that appropriate antagonism?

-Are players told to expect that kind of antagonism?

-Are players and GMs so used to not causing upset that they don't know how to react to or produce that kind of antagonism?

All this is mixed in here, and I get the feeling people are asking and answering at slight tangents. Gaz, is there anything you want to focus in on particularly?

-Matt

Realms Publishing

I played in several games over the last week that lacked an aggressive prodding from the referee. Similarly, I thought a couple of my games could actually have done with a bit more gee-ing up and had more direct antagonism from me. Games have a tendency to float along, when they could be better, more exciting and driven harder.

My Shield analogy works here. You think the situation is prefectly well fragged thank you very much, and then something happens to make it even more so. This should be the GM, keep tipping things off balance and framing the scene in a way that is that little bit more disadvantageous than the players would do for themselves.

The Big Question is, should we encourage our GMs to drive the adversity aggressively, not just provide a counter point to the players, but one that backs them against a wall or forces them to make moral choices, and right now? Should a game designer point out to the GM that its his job to ensure the players feel they’re fighting against something and its not as easy as putting the right points in the right resources, things change, unepected baddies turn up at the wrong time or bite back hard when threatened. Should we be looking for tough love?

Or is it prefectly fine to let the game meander, with players setting the pace and the GM hanging in the background “facilitating” and hoping the players are setting their own pace, that they are comfortable with? I know I’ve sat in games aching for something to happen and not knowing how or being unable to achieve that. If some men had walked in with guns while I slept, I’d have been delighted.

Gaz,

Basically, yes, there needs to be adversity. The "default" if you like is that the GM provides it and the players react. Look at D&D, the DM creates the Dungeon and the players kill the things which need killing and take the stuff that needs taking. Players are fed adversity by the GM (spoon fed it, one encounter at a time in the case of the classic D&D dungeon crawl) and they deal with it reactively.

Other games expect the players to create adversity for themselves (which IME doesn't really work too well, hence the comments about PtA) or for each other (which works very well sometimes, like in the Best Friends game I ran). If the players won't bring it, those games just fail to work.

The advice that the GM need to apply pressure on the players to make them get into conflict with one another is heard repeatedly in a lot of these books. Yet I've never read any game which had instructions for actually doing this and readers/GMs/players are just somehow meant to "know" how to do it without being told.

It all comes down to what I was saying about choosing the right players. An active player will happily seek conflict out. A reactive one will basically avoid it or just sit around waiting for something to happen.

That game of Agon was exactly what you describe: two of the players just sat there waiting to be told what to do. Another three didn't really throw themselves into it.

Oh no, I didn't intend for it to sound like I was suggesting that. I was more commenting on the specific example that had been given.

Ash

Referees are not supposed to be aggressive, they are supposed to be fair and balanced.

This is the heart of the problem for GM in the vast majority of RPGs - he's supposed to referee AND play the other team. So necessarily aggression must be curtailed since he can kill all the players with fiat quite easily. I've played my share of 1st lv D&D vs earth elementals, 50+ ogres etc...Very aggressive GMing and completely fucking dysfunctional.

So ultimately you need mechanics which can set the level of threat so the GM can go for balls to the wall all out aggression without breaking the game. See Agon, PTA and Dogs for examples (PTA without the GM providing adversity is a big drift from the rules as written).

It's all in the mechanics people. This is why in Labyrinths and Lycanthropes there is a mechanical incentive for the current Labyrinth Lord to spank the PCs and the rules do the refereeing to eliminate death by fiat.

So the mechanics should provide the adversity, the GM or players facilitating specific threat within the scope of the mechanics.

+++
JoE
+++

Prince of Darkness Games
Rock N' Role-Play....

Some people seem to think that by "aggression" I mean use big numbers or roll lots of dice in an unfair manner to beat player characters up? Crazy.

I'm mean have plot stuff happen, that's not necessarily very nice, in order to get the players to react and keep them unbalanced and on the edge of their seats. Have NPCs with complex or reactionary moods and agendas. Unexpected and savage twists in story and theme.

Stokemon - roger that. Its as you've asked before, what do GM's do that they take for granted and you never see written down anywhere. I need to look into that more thoroughly. This thread has illustrated some lack of communication (probably on my part) about what I want a GM to do. And most importantly how to do it.

Hmmm...

A balanced system *will* be fair, so the GM can be as aggressive as he likes and try and grab as many dice as possible. Dogs does explicitly tell you to do this IIRC.

Now your all oh be aggressive but don't try to beat the players. Feckin treehugger. ;)

All you're saying is what AD&D said - have meaningful encounters (bangs if you prefer) that the players will care about.

Hmm imagine if the players were allowed come up with their own encounters...

+++
JoE
+++

Prince of Darkness Games
Rock N' Role-Play....

Sit back when the players are doing fine, jump in and stir it up when they aren't. Be aggressive about doing it if the players want agression, or helpful if what they want is help.

I see the GM as being a facilitator, not just an opponent. You help the players and yourself tell the story you want to tell. If you want a story about being pushed to the wire and beyond, desperately scrabbling against adversity to win or lose, then aggression is just right. If the players are tired after a week at work, falling asleep at the table despite the caffeine and just want to feel good by hauling in some treasure then an aggressive GM is not going to go down well :)