Is D&D meant to be about the DM vs players?

DND or not, it doesn't change the DMs role as storyteller. Stop trying to play damage control just because you got called out on being a retard. It's an anonymous forum, your precious e-peen isn't in danger.

It's the groups story that includes the GM.

The gm has a responsibility to try and balance risk and reward other than that he should be on the players side (not the same thing as the player characters side).

This how I DM youtu.be/Ds0ZY4ruxNI

So the DM who chooses to be against the PCs is a literal piece of shit?

It's meant to be FUN.

Thus, the players get a challenge that makes them think they might die, NPCs to interact with, and a world to play in.
I get to do all the autistic building of things, and see them heading towards the inevitable surprises and twists.

Neither

If it's a collective story, then the dice tell some of that story. The DM decides how much. If you're a player and things are going your way dice and all, you're less likely to see it as adversarial, but as soon as things start going tits up, the look on your face will change and the DM starts looking like a grinch.

I usually like to start my games by gathering everyone around the table. I set up some ambient music to inspire them as they go through the rulebooks to create their characters.

After generating stats, I give my players a setting primer just so they have a good idea as to the world they will be entering, and work with them to make a great party together.

Then, after careful hours of deliberation, everyone has their characters ready with interesting back stories that tie themselves to each other and the world.

After that, the game officially begins. I give a sly grin and announce to the party "Rocks fall, you all die." Then everyone gets up and shakes my hand, congratulating me on a good game.

One time, a player tried to get past this strategy by creating a character that might conseiviably survive rocks falling on them, but they weren't able to handle my counter-play of "you die anyway."

It's pretty fun, and I highly recommend using this strategy as it's basically unbeatable.

Well don't mind what it was meant to be, what it in normal circumstances boils down to is adversarial.

Neither, but closer to the latter than the former.

D&D is a cooperative game rather than a competitive game, but part of making it a game is making sure there's a challenge.

Yes.

...

Veeky Forums would have you believe the DM is a servant there only to make sure the player master race is adequately entertained and any lack of fun or problem with the game lies squarely on DMs shoulders and it's the DMs responsibility to solve.

Why would anyone want to DM? Veeky Forums sure as fuck doesn't know. Maybe because the DM is a masochist who gets off on being a slave.

>Why would anyone want to DM?

I love GMing; but I have the rare fortune of having a good group of players and not a bunch of munchkin twats.

Collaborative 90% of the time while adversarial the remaining I.E. BBEG dungeons should aim specifically to stop and/or kill the players

I try to lose in the most entertaining way possible. What do I get if I win? The players are dead, the campaign and story are over. It's like a show getting canceled before it gets good. Not that I don't make it a challenge but as the GM you can "win" any time you want, the whole world is at your beck and call. The whole idea of competition kinda goes out the window when it's literally the PCs versus the world.

Just tell a story with your friends man, you only have to write the first part and they do the rest.

Either you're lying or you're such an autist that your players were happy to get away from you.

Lots of people enjoy the game in different ways. There is no one correct way to enjoy the game, just the ways you enjoy it.

Some people like fighting player vs GM and vying for victory.

Some people like cooperative story telling.

Some people like intrigue, like hex crawl, like dungeons, and more.

No one is really wrong, just different.

Except Steve, Steve can fuck off.

It's more healthy to see the DM not as your enemy but as the storyteller and he might even root for you. Always remember the DM experiences the same journey as your party just that he sees the whole picture.

Literally.

>Why would anyone want to DM?
Because it's fun seeing how the players get around your challenges and interact with the world that you present to them.

It's only a hassle when you have shitters who go out of their way to act like a self-absorbed tools, more concerned with looking cool than working together with the GM and the rest of the party to achieve an interesting narrative.

Yes unless there is full disclosure and it's a 1-shot dungeon

Why not both?

adversarial.

This is how to proper DM

Character creation
>3d6 rolled in order
>Core book only
>Require a MINIMUM of 1 page of backstory
>Must fit in with existing setting. No exceptions. No Snowflakes
>If one of the players makes a paladin call out any slight violation of their oath. The Paladin should fall or die before the end of the campaign. Come up with some situations to ensure they fall just in case they insist on playing an actual saint.

Adventure
>Average of one PC death each session
>have a DMPC to show the shitters how its done, and to maintain the narrative
>Ambushes, traps, and betrayals should all be common and never telegraphed
>If a player does not keep track of their rations, food, and/or spell components then they are assumed to not have any and suffer the condequences

Campaign
>Plan out the story in advance
>if the players deviate from this then steer them firmly back on track
>If the players continue to deviate from your mastercrafted story then have your DMPC lead them back by the nose
>If the players still refuse to follow your magnum opus then call into question whether their characters would "do that". You are the master of this world. You know what its denizens would do. Players are just visitors

If everything goes correctly your players will be defeated and their spirits broken. They will worship your mastery of storytelling and game design and never question you again. Do well enough and you can start charging people to play in your games.

Neither. It isn't that well thought out.

I'd rather just play a video game at that point.

But video games don't allow you the freedom RPGs can!

Neither do you, which is why I'd rather play video games.

>>have a DMPC to show the shitters how its done, and to maintain the narrative
Until this I thought you were sincere.

WHAT D&D IS ABOUT:

OD&D was about something.
It became ultra famous and was also the first and only rpg at the time.
People with all sorts of opinion on what an rpg should be played it, instead of trying to find whateaver the hell would fit their needs and playing it, they couldnt do it anyway since d&d was the only rpg around.
New edition was made not in a bubble but influenced by players, so it was influenced by all those players with all sorts of different views of what an rpg should be.
So AD&D, already became a mess.

Other editions become a mess, because of the mass of players jumping quickly from 0D&D to AD&D, expecting it to fix the flaws their found (what at their minds, are 0D&D flaws, but arent to many other players), this brought an extreme amount of new (as in never played rpg before) players to AD&D, to those players AD&D basically became their 0D&D, because many never tried other games. And those players had different views of what an rpg should be too, despise all playing the same game.

And those AD&D "first time players", jumping into the next D&D system expecting fixes to their problems created the same situation again..
And this happened again, and again...... and will happen again and again....

So yes, you cant know what d&d is about.

>Why would anyone want to DM?
Because, unless playing those solo dm things that can't compare with having a dm, its impossible to play rpg without a DM.

>Neither do you, which is why I'd rather play video games.
Even the most simplistic rpgs, allow more freedom than dwarf fortress

What the fuck are you blathering about? Did you forget to take your meds?

What's funny is that the D&D arcade games offer more freedom than you do.

The purpose of the dm is to run the world and facilitate gameplay. Different groups and gaming traditions have different ideas on what gameplay should comprise. When people with different ideas about how dnd should be played form a single group, there are misunderstandings and this question comes up.

It comes down to a question of what level of lethality you enjoy. Personally i like a high degree of lethality. It provides challenge. I don't mind loosing a character, i come from a gaming tradition where it is expected that your characters can die and you can end up having to reroll a new character.

Some people look at dnd differently. They do not want to play with a high degree of lethality, they do not want their characters to die, they do not want to have to reroll. This is not bad or wrong, just different. Often these players want more of a narrative experience, and believe that loosing a character will disrupt the narrative. This is a reasonable position, though i would argue that it is possible to introduce new characters as necessary without disrupting the narrative in many cases.

The problem is when you get a high lethality dm and narrative players, or vice versa. They feel like they are in conflict. The solution is to sit down before the game begins and iron everything out and make sure everyone is on the same page.

We know a DM who has the "against the players, kill them at any cost" mentality. When he plays a character though, he's so fucking precious about that character.

That's royally fucked up.

Either one. It's your game, play it how you want.

No, what Veeky Forums wants from their DMs/GMs is somebody who keep tracks of dice rolls. That's literally it. Any actual GMing would be considered "rail roading" because of this weird insistence of SANDBOX IS THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PLAY D&D!!!! even though lots of players can not handle a sandbox all, ussually including the ones who ask for one.

Speaking as a GM, I would LOVE for a party of players who have enough initiative to let me sit back and follow their leads.

I had a game not long ago where my players followed the rail road so hard that they skipped tracks and reached the station before I could. I was prepared for everything... except them doing the obvious, and not getting on with shenanigans that day

next game the orc set fire to a bar and nailed all the exits shut with everyone inside.

Joke's on you, I cheat anyway