I would have to say yes, just because the more recent editions of D&D don't encourage that play style. And D&D is the original GM-vs-players RPG (followed closely by Call of Cthulhu & Paranoia, with props to Hackmaster for persuing this play method tongue-in-cheek). Listen to some stories surrounding modules like Tomb of Horrors, or take a look at some of the effects monsters can dish out (vampires drain on any hit, ghosts automatically age you a couple decades- oh, how I hated aging...), and try telling me with conviction D&D wasn't out to get its players.

Heh heh. That sounds pretty terrible, and I hadn't looked at the old game mechanics to support my hypothesis. You bring up some pretty compelling evidence, Mike.

Thankfully things have changed, but I'll never forget the days when just buying a lentern meant it was going to cost twice as much and it was going to leak. *sigh*

Yes.

But it is a case of DM [constrained by very specific guidelines] against the Players.

The DM doesn't "just make a dragon or something eat the players" because that would be "cheating". The DM may put a dragon on the map and the players may get eaten if they are reckless and stumble across that dragon. But the purpose of the dragon is not specifically to eat the players.

Obviously the DM has infinite power at his fingertips, but the presumption is that the DM uses his knowledge of the game to set up situations that are defeatable (or, if not, at least surviveable and/or avoidable) by the players - and then plays those situations - as written to the best of his ability. To not do so would be 'letting them win' - something you just don't do when playing against peers.

To put it another way: The DM's tactics, the way he approaches each encounter, is to kill/ defeat the players. But the DM's <strategy>, the way he sets up his world, is to provide the characters with challenges and create an interesting and dynamic world.

And simply having a [significantly more powerful] dragon eat the players is neither good strategy (overkill is not challenge for the players) nor is it fun for the DM (it is pointless and lacks challenge for the DM).

And this is why wandering monster tables became so important (especially for wilderness travel) to some DMs: Although it was considered 'cheating' and 'unfair' for the DM to intentionally throw a dragon at the PCs, it was not (somewhat ironically) considered 'unfair' when that same dragon was the result of a wandering monster roll on a pre-determined wandering monster table (especially when the players knew that 'dragon' was a possible outcome). That said, I usually allowed parties that immediately recognized that they were outclassed and attempted to evade such encounters to succeed (and was occasionally considered soft for that reason). But if they chose to engage, all bets were off.

On the other hand, I kinda miss what I see as the old school presumption that there are creatures out there that are beyond the character's abilities and that the players could encounter them at any time. When we used to play, overland travel was scary because, while the dungeons were nicely organized in 'levels', you could meet anything in the wilderness.

To put all this another way: If the players know that the DM is willing to intervene and ensure that they don't die (as many do) or is careful to make sure that the challenges aren't too difficult - doesn't this in some ways cheapen the thrill of victory? Sure, I have been corrupted into the modern view of DM as enabler, but I'm not entirely sure that the game is better for it. (And part of this is that we have, of late and against my natural inclination, been playing RPGA-LFR rather than sandbox games - and such games come with the presumption that every encounter is there to be defeated and is by definition carefully balanced for the party. And that just feels wrong to me, as a former old-school gamer).

Carl

You make some really good points, and (as usual) you bring up a point of view I hadn't considered--I can now understand why older-edition holdouts would look at the newer enabler-DMs as too soft. Also, I think you nail the issue of DM-lethality balance.

I don't employ wandering monster tables, but I make most encounters a step or more higher than the base party level, and I never bail my players out unless they give me a compelling, in-game reason to do so. Consequently, I've been told I run a high-lethality" game, despite my desires for the PCs to succeed, modify my game world, affect the story, and so on. I wonder if this style of DMing is the exception or the rule.

You've already touched on this, but I think having more powerful, accessible monsters that would probably kill the PCs if met is a good way to make the world breathe a bit more believably. In my games I often start by explaining to the players that if I say there are horrible monsters in the tower, going into the tower means dealing with horrible monsters, regardless of character level. After all, how exciting could it be to be the most powerful creatures everywhere you go? I'm sure there are some players out there who wouldn't much mind that, but it would bore the hell out of me on either side of the screen.

Great response, Carl, and thanks for making me think on this a bit more.

I was just thinking earlier today about my first DM. He ran a 1st ed game with a party of ten, and I suppose it's what most people would call high lethality. After a couple years of playing, I decided to try my hand at DMing. I asked him for his advice, and he said, "There are two ways to do it: You can build a dungeon for the players and run it against them, or build a dungeon against the players and run it for them. I prefer the second way."

It was and still is good advice. Right now, I build a 'dungeon' in a way that I hope makes cool things happen, and I play it in a way that I hope makes cool things happen. I've told my players - I don't care if they succeed wildly or die, I just want a good story. But I'm running a different kind of game, where they level by fiat and get feats instead of the treasure that isn't in the world to be found. In a game that's about killing monsters to get XP and loot, my old DM's way is probably one of the most solid out there.

"or those DMs whose first games were prior to AD&D."

Not really. In Brazil we never had D&D 1st edition. We only had Ad&d, then D&D 3.0 and 3.5. And most people used to play 'gm X players'. The 'gm + players' style arrived here just a few years ago (maybe 2 or 3). Many people still play 'gm X players' and feel that it´s good to be an 'evil gm'.
I think it has more to do with the 'aging' of the game and the players. As the players start to grow older, try new systems and get more information about the hobby, they start to realize that 'GM =/= PC Killer´s". As they realize that there are more rpg systems than Storytelling/D&D (the 'big ones' here).
But still, many people think that a GM should be evil and never talk with the players about the campaigns. Because they would never understand or be reasonable.
That is changing, at least.

I'm a little late to answering you, Swordgleam, but your early days of gaming sound much like my own; we had a huge group of 9-10 people, and we died a lot (although with a group that size pretty much every class was represented, and it was so fun, so there was no chance that we wouldn't be raised as we were minus a level).

Building a dungeon against the players and running it for them is some great advice. Thanks.

@ Kimble: Awesome to hear from you way down in Brazil--it's a chilly and gray here in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. :)

First, I'm really pleased to hear that tabletop roleplaying is a big deal in Brazil. I know games are played everywhere, but it's still really cool to hear about it. Second, I'm happy to hear that the "DM as a player" mentality is gaining momentum there. I know from experience that the Evil DM *can* be a lot of fun to play with some of the time, but I prefer that everyone has fun, all of the time, which I think is much more likely with a balanced DM who "run the dungeon for the players," as Swordgleam mentioned.

Thanks again, and adeus.