Players Vs. GM

I am somewhat aware that occassionally players and GMs battle, on issues, on gameplay, on metaphorically and or literal applications of player speech and action, and so on. We used to think our GM was arbitrary, since two of us would die, two would get permanent limps, and the rest would reap the spoils with nary a scratch. He GMed alot "off the top of his head", which was good from a player standpoint and lateral thinkers, but if you are frequently singled out or the human target... you suspect the worst.

We did raise the question often, and changed our methods of play, to avoid the Ultimate Dagger of Doom, but to no avail. It became a one-upmanship, with us trying to get his best of him, as he was of us.

Anywho... we did try to list equipment and or buy items, so he could not prepare for what we were going to do, and in his mind spoil his campaign. We frequently made potions that we mixed innocuous ingredients together like milk and brandy and lime. We would take captives and give them the "truth serum". Our characters would argue that it "killed the last one", and we should use half the regular dose, because he must have been thinking about lying and that is why he died without even speaking.

Soon our relationship blossomed as he looked forward to what we would do with ten foot poles, and how he could keep the adventure going with as much vigor as we. What could have split the group later became the hook that drug us back for more. Everyone got involved, as more players began to think in other less obvious terms. Very fun times it was.

Gm styles vary, as do the way they dole out the magic. Recently I have seen the arguments on this topic that sound like blah blah blah. None of it really matters in the long run as long as players and GM are happy. Players get what they want in a campaign, and the GM gets what he wants. I dont crap on anyone's idea of a good time. Who am I to judge?