General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Look, I'm not trying to push buttons here. I really do believe what I'm saying. I see this sort of thing as really abusing the position of DM.
Where does it stop? One thing gamers can almost universally agree on is that railroading is bad. Yes, there are occasions when it might not be bad, but, by and large, we can usually agree on that.
But, isn't this the same thing? Instead of forcing the players to jump through my predefined hoops to get to the end of my story, I'm forcing the players to accept my predefined hoops in order to achieve my personal satisfaction.
GregK simply claims that I was wrong then and I'm wrong now. But, he provides no reasons. "A DM's authority over the game is absolute" Where is that written in the rules? Where in the rules does it give me, the DM, the authority to reach over with an eraser and change the name the player gives her pet? That's HER pet. That is not mine.
And, I see this frequently from players that I get from other groups. Players that turn to me with these blank, vapid looks waiting for me to wheel up the plot wagon and start dishing it out. No input. No initiative. The only initiative they take is mechanical because they know that most DM's out there won't futz with the rules.
People constantly complain about "the build" player. But, I contend that the "build" player is a direct result of DM's who refuse to cede any authorial control over the campaign. Why should I try anything creative when the DM is just going to tell me I'm imagining my elf wrong? That his sense of make-believe is "better" than mine?
I have a real problem with that.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
I think the focus on right and wrong has gotten us off track.
This is not a question of right and wrong. This is a question of compatibility.
Architect and his GM are not compatible. He should walk. Hussar, sounds like you should walk, too. This does not require a discussion of who is right and who is wrong -- that's an excercise in intellectual ... self-indulgence.
Further, by the way, the result is not "right" or "wrong." If anything, it is the process that is right or wrong. Friends ought to be able to reach negotiated agreements, without tirades or ultimata. Sounds like this GM can't manage that.
DTGMA (ditch the GM already), to mangle Dan Savage.
__________________ The mind is its own place, and in itself, can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. Visit Arva, where moral compasses go to die. www.arva.wetpaint.com
Last edited by Carpe DM; 30th January 2009 at 06:00 PM..
For instance, when I as GM kick a player out of my group because I don't enjoy GMing for them. I am 'acting as a GM'. Maybe it would be good if I did enjoy GMing for them, or if I were happy to suck up the unpleasantness, but I'm not, I don't, and it doesn't mean I'm 'not acting as a GM' when I do so.
No, you aren't. Or at least you might not be.
You're probably going to follow up now with all the horror stories of how some guy destroyed your game and made everyone miserable and how your decision to remove him was in the best interests of both yourself, the game, and everyone else at the table. In which case maybe you were. This feels like a trap to me, where its going to start out "because I don't enjoy GMing for them" and turns into "because he was a registered sex offender and I live next to a preschool."
Look, I'm not saying that being a person in the room entitles you to nothing more than the back of my hand. But "playing in the same game as this guy isn't fun" isn't something that only happens to DMs. In your case, you might get to kick someone out, but it isn't because you were acting as a DM when you made the decision. It was because, as the DM, you have better leverage in your social group. If your group meets to play D&D in the living room of one of your players, I bet he'd be awfully effective at kicking out people he didn't like, too.
Once you step outside your role as DM, its all about the leverage. The fact that maybe you CAN parlay that into, I dunno, insisting that you never have to pay for pizza, doesn't mean that not paying for pizza is a DM thing.
Where in the rules does it give me, the DM, the authority to reach over with an eraser and change the name the player gives her pet? That's HER pet. That is not mine.
.
Well, a GM recently was running a game where the premise included that the PCs were from a French culture, with French names. I asked to play a PC from a Germanic area, with a German name. The GM said yes, but it would have been entirely legitimate for him to say no.
I think architect's example of the GM negating her background concept and telling her to play a formerly evil PC wrestling with her horrific past acts was far, far worse. Unless that were built right into the game's premise - the intro proposal to the game - I would totally flip at something like that.
Anyway, if the game premise does not include Dragonborn (and why should it?!) then the GM is entitled to disallow dragonborn PCs. And that applies whether the game is Call of Cthulu or 4e Greyhawk.
Well, to me, deciding who gets to play in the game is part of the GM's role. YMMV. Even players with lots of leverage (host, GM's wife, etc) approach the GM about getting another player dropped, they don't just declare it to the group.
I dunno, do you think determining who plays is not normally part of the GM's role?
Actually, I've been thinking about it a lot, and... yeah, I'm going there again.
Let me analogize to a judge.
A judge, when acting as a judge, has a LOT of power. She can order you locked in jail, she can decide who does or does not own property, she can even terminate your legal rights to see your own children or order you executed. We give judges this power for a reason, and choose them and position them in ways to encourage them to use this power as wisely and as ethically as possible. To put things roughly, a judge has incredible power when acting in the interests of the lw and of justice.
A judge, when not acting as a judge, doesn't have any particular power. A judge on her day off, say, at her kid's Little League game, cannot order you imprisoned. A judge, even while seated on her bench at the height of her power, cannot properly make dictates that the law does not authorize, and will be reversed or censured if she tries. In those contexts, the judge cannot do these things because she's not acting as a judge. She's acting as just another person in the room, and she has only the rights and privileges of any other person in the room.
I think that DMs are the same way.
A DM has incredible power. We give the DM that power for a reason, though, and that power exists in the context of that reason. The DM has all kinds of power because we expect the DM to have a larger vision of the campaign and the game than the players. We give the DM this power because we expect the DM to use that broader vision to make wiser long term decisions than a player might make from the player's limited perspective.
But a DM who isn't acting as a DM, like our judge on her day off, is just another person in the room. A DM not acting as a DM has only the rights and privileges of just another person in the room. Its why being the Dungeon Master doesn't entitle you to demand that your friends wash your car or clean your kitchen. That doesn't have to do with your role as a DM.
The trickier questions are things that have to do with the game, but in my opinion, have nothing to do with your role as a Dungeon Master. That's why I'm always so interested in a DM's motives rather than his decision itself. A DM who, say, bans dragonborn, because he has an established 3e game in an established setting and he does want to switch to 4e but doesn't want to change the setting, is probably acting as a DM. He is probably concerning himself continuity and setting coherence, and is probably making the decision that he reasonably believes to be in the long term interests of the game.
But what about a DM who bans dragonborn because he just hates them? I don't think that DM is acting as a DM. He's not using his higher vantage point to make a decision that's best for the group. He's like the judge who tries to lock you in jail because your kid beat her kid in a baseball game. He's using his power and the trust reposed in him to make a decision that's personal rather than related to the role which granted him power.
Now of course the immediate response to this is, "But if a DM hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?" Which is fair.
But here's the thing! That's not a DM concern! That's a "guy in the room" concern. Take out the word DM. Add in Player. "If a Player hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?" Obviously he shouldn't.
The key here is that these sorts of decisions, made not as DM but rather as just some guy in a D&D game, have less legitimacy than decisions made as a DM. They're being made from a position that is on par with everyone else in the room. And as such, compromise or adjudication of issues that affect the DM not as a DM but rather as a player in the game need to be made from the perspective of a group of equals. Not from the perspective of one person dictating his will to his subordinates.
The only "power" a DM has to resolve "guy in the room" issues unrelated to his role as a DM is the power of the superior ultimatum- its generally harder to get a new DM than to get a new player, so the DM can make better threats to take his stuff and go home. But lets be clear, in the "ban X because I hate it" context, that's all that's happening- the DM isn't trying to bring an unruly player into line, two friends are sitting in a basement arguing and threatening to take their toys and go home if the other won't play the game the way they demand. One might own more of the toys, and therefore have superior leverage, but there's nothing going on other than a power play between moral equals.
I would beg to differ with this. I think a DM being upfront about not liking Dragonborn and banning them from play is probably the best solution for all, and here's why... He has to run the campaign world, now assuming a player character creates a Dragonborn because they like the race as a whole as opposed to the bonuses (which I think is a perfectly valid assumption), doesn't it then befall on the DM to create a portion of his campaign and adventures around Dragonborn? Now since the DM has already stated he doesn't care for the race, is it fair for him to have to spend so much effort and time dealing with an aspect of the game he dislikes? Another fact is that the DM will probably not do as good of a job catering to this player as he will the others for the simple fact he dislikes this portion of his duties... personally I'd rather a DM be upfront about this than wonder why the game seems to center around Fred's elf and Garry's Halfling but never my Dragonborn.
I don't think it's about "right" or "wrong" but I do feel if you choose (because no one is forcing you) to play in a DM's game, then you are choosing to abide by his particular biases for his campaign. If you don't like them then quit, I'm sure a DM who has biases that no one will deal with will end up without a group, but really it could just be that you have chosen the wrong group to be a part of.
The only problem I see is when a DM suddenly decides to flip the script midway through a game or campaign... the social contract has been broken at that point and really should be discussed byy everyone.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
Look, I'm not trying to push buttons here. I really do believe what I'm saying. I see this sort of thing as really abusing the position of DM.
Is handing out pregen PCs abusing the GM's position?
Is running a railroady scenario like Rogue Mistress ( and other Chaosium efforts) abusing the GM's position?
To me, 'abusing the GM's position' would be "Sleep with me for more XP!" or at a milder level "Give me that beer" - using in-game authority to demand out-of-game favours. Blatant favouritism would also qualify - if I let a player play I'm going to treat them equally with the other players; if I can't do that because I don't like them, or because it's my wife and she doesn't like her PC dying*, then I should not GM for that player.
Its not consistent for you to say that a DM should be able to ban tieflings because he hates them and a player playing a tiefling will force the DM to deal with tieflings, while also saying that the player should have the power to name his animal companion whatever he wants without DM interference. The DM has to deal with the animal companion as well.
And if we're positing DMs who, I don't know, have allergic reactions to tieflings, why shouldn't we posit DMs who react similarly to Tweety?
That... that kind of gets to my other point from the old thread, the one that was... less well received. I don't actually believe that some DMs will have their fun destroyed as much as they claim by player characters that they think are stupid. If you begin with the assumption that the player wants to play a character that, from the DM's perspective, is so incredibly stupid that the DM will be unable to enjoy the game, slowly detach himself, prepare less, and eventually lead to the total collapse of the game, then, well, its hard to say that the character should be allowed.
But I mean, really? Seriously? This sounds like cooking the hypothetical. If my wife likes eating chili, but I hate the smell of chili so much that even having it cook in the same household as me will drive me into misery and depression and resentment eventually leading to emotional disconnection between her and myself and ultimately ending in divorce, then she'd be awfully selfish to make chili, wouldn't she? Sure, I really don't like chili, but that much? Maybe I'm just being dramatic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by S'mon
Well, a GM recently was running a game where the premise included that the PCs were from a French culture, with French names. I asked to play a PC from a Germanic area, with a German name. The GM said yes, but it would have been entirely legitimate for him to say no.
And its legitimate under my rubric as well. Would you think his decision legitimate if he made it because he passionately hates German people? :-)
Well, a GM recently was running a game where the premise included that the PCs were from a French culture, with French names. I asked to play a PC from a Germanic area, with a German name. The GM said yes, but it would have been entirely legitimate for him to say no.
It would have been illogical for him to say 'no'. It would imply people from one region never traveled to the other. I suppose if each country were surrounded by enormous walls then maybe...
Quote:
Anyway, if the game premise does not include Dragonborn (and why should it?!) then the GM is entitled to disallow dragonborn PCs...
Why for the Dragonborn hate? The game is called Dungeons and Dragons. Lizard-y humanoids have been a part of the game for decades. A hugely popular series of novels and gaming tie-ins featured scads of dragon-men. What am I missing about the Dragonborn?
It's not like they're kender or anything...
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Look, I'm not trying to push buttons here. I really do believe what I'm saying. I see this sort of thing as really abusing the position of DM.
Where does it stop? One thing gamers can almost universally agree on is that railroading is bad. Yes, there are occasions when it might not be bad, but, by and large, we can usually agree on that.
But, isn't this the same thing? Instead of forcing the players to jump through my predefined hoops to get to the end of my story, I'm forcing the players to accept my predefined hoops in order to achieve my personal satisfaction.
GregK simply claims that I was wrong then and I'm wrong now. But, he provides no reasons. "A DM's authority over the game is absolute" Where is that written in the rules? Where in the rules does it give me, the DM, the authority to reach over with an eraser and change the name the player gives her pet? That's HER pet. That is not mine.
And, I see this frequently from players that I get from other groups. Players that turn to me with these blank, vapid looks waiting for me to wheel up the plot wagon and start dishing it out. No input. No initiative. The only initiative they take is mechanical because they know that most DM's out there won't futz with the rules.
People constantly complain about "the build" player. But, I contend that the "build" player is a direct result of DM's who refuse to cede any authorial control over the campaign. Why should I try anything creative when the DM is just going to tell me I'm imagining my elf wrong? That his sense of make-believe is "better" than mine?
I have a real problem with that.
I think your overgeneralizing and working from alot of assumptions here. I personally think there are alot of players who want to explore and interact with the DM's vision. In fact I have been this player, probably for he simple fact that I DM majority of the time and rarely get to indulge in this aspect of the hobby. If this means giving up a little control over things to see if the DM's vision is more enjoyable with these caveats...I don't usually have a problem with that, especially if he's upfront about it. No one is forcing me to play in his game, plain and simple.
In the case of this particular example I don't know the rest of the group so I can't specifically judge. Perhaps the name really isn't that serious of an issue and the DM really is being to anal. Perhaps he's trying to run a gothic horror campaign and knows one of his players can't help but make side jokes and comments thus he feels in limiting the silly names he is limiting that players chances to break the mood for everyone, in this case it seems worth it IMO. In the end I feel you should trust the DM to do what he feels is best to give you the best in-game experience in the parameters he has set down. It's funny how a DM can be trusted to make all the judgement calls in a game... but not that a certain element shouldn't be a part of the campaign... just saying.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
Well, to me, deciding who gets to play in the game is part of the GM's role. YMMV. Even players with lots of leverage (host, GM's wife, etc) approach the GM about getting another player dropped, they don't just declare it to the group.
I dunno, do you think determining who plays is not normally part of the GM's role?
It usually is. I don't think its inherent to being a DM though. I think its inherent to being the social center of the group. Its the same as being the guy who's house everyone comes to when they watch the big game. If he decides someone isn't welcome, that's that.
Its not DM authority. It may be social authority that is typically ceded to the DM, but it isn't something that stems from being the DM.
As for the host, stop and think for a second. You're actually saying that the person who owns the home where everyone plays can be vetoed by the DM when he decides that he doesn't want a player to enter his house? Of course you're not. You're recognizing that the host might consult the DM as a social courtesy. But its his freaking house! Nothing in the DMG gives the DM the power to force entry. If the host says you go, attending is a crime.
And of course the DM might object and move the game to another location and the host would have to decide what to do with that, but at this point it should be obvious that we're dealing with social norms and leverage and ultimatums, not with anything that comes from the role of Dungeon Master.
Quote:
Originally Posted by S'mon
To me, 'abusing the GM's position' would be "Sleep with me for more XP!" or at a milder level "Give me that beer" - using in-game authority to demand out-of-game favours. Blatant favouritism would also qualify - if I let a player play I'm going to treat them equally with the other players; if I can't do that because I don't like them, or because it's my wife and she doesn't like her PC dying*, then I should not GM for that player.
I agree with that, except that I think that in-game decisions that are made for sheer caprice are also abuse. There's not much difference between "its my wife so her character doesn't die" and "I'm the DM so everything I want happens and everything I don't want doesn't. Start roleplaying the way that I like, not the way that you like!"
Its not consistent for you to say that a DM should be able to ban tieflings because he hates them and a player playing a tiefling will force the DM to deal with tieflings, while also saying that the player should have the power to name his animal companion whatever he wants without DM interference. The DM has to deal with the animal companion as well...
...And its legitimate under my rubric as well. Would you think his decision legitimate if he made it because he passionately hates German people? :-)
pt 1 - Like I said, the Player Character can choose to name the animal however wished. My position is not inconsistent:
From my POV, a Player Character (not Player!) is at liberty to name her pet whatever she wishes. That falls entirely within the player's prerogative, along with stuff like loot division. In the absence of mind-control magic I believe in letting PCs do whatever the heck they want.
Playing a Dragonborn requires that Dragonborn exist in the campaign world, and is not something a Player Character can decide ("Hmm, I think I'll be a dragonborn!"), so it does not fall within the player's prerogative. The GM is free to allow it or disallow it.
NB: This is how I do it. I'm not trying to impose a Kantian Universal Imperative on you.
pt 2 - yes, if he (a Frenchman) created a world without Germans because he hated Germans, that's irrelevant. The decision is legitimately a GMing decision.
It would have been illogical for him to say 'no'. It would imply people from one region never traveled to the other.
No it wouldn't. There might not have been a Germanic area in his world. Or Germans might have been abhuman fiends, unsuitable as PCs. Or any other reason.
Edit: You sound like the kind of guy who demands to deplay a Samurai in a game of Pendragon.
Cadfan:
"As for the host, stop and think for a second. You're actually saying that the person who owns the home where everyone plays can be vetoed by the DM when he decides that he doesn't want a player to enter his house?"
No, I'm saying that the host typically recognises the GM's authority, approaches the GM and says: "I don't want that player coming any more". Then the GM either agrees, or ceases to game at that person's house. But the host does not typically just ring up the player and tell them they're dropped, without consulting the GM. As GM I'd certainly consider that odd behaviour. The GM is recognised as the executive authority, although in this case ultimate authority lies with the host because it's their house.
pt 2 - yes, if he (a Frenchman) created a world without Germans because he hated Germans, that's irrelevant. The decision is legitimately a GMing decision.
Well, congratulations, you've managed to create a definition of "GMing decision" that entitles GMing decisions to absolutely no presumption of respect whatsoever from the players.
Cadfan,
What if the DM realizes that his dislike for dragonborn will ultimately have a negative effect on the quality of the game he runs? If the presence bothers him, every time the character comes into play, the character is a reminder of how much he dislikes that race. It's reoccurence and having to make accomodations for it when he designs adventures, when the PCs interact with NPCs, etc. results in DMing becoming unfun and a chore. When, DMing becomes unfun, the game as a whole suffers in quality and probably dies often resulting in no game for anyone (if we are to believe the disproportionate number of players to dms).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
But what about a DM who bans dragonborn because he just hates them? I don't think that DM is acting as a DM. He's not using his higher vantage point to make a decision that's best for the group. He's like the judge who tries to lock you in jail because your kid beat her kid in a baseball game. He's using his power and the trust reposed in him to make a decision that's personal rather than related to the role which granted him power.
Now of course the immediate response to this is, "But if a DM hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?" Which is fair.
But here's the thing! That's not a DM concern! That's a "guy in the room" concern. Take out the word DM. Add in Player. "If a Player hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?" Obviously he shouldn't..
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
The DM doesn't have these lesser options. If the DM is unhappy with elements of the campaign world and the players insist on using them, which you say they should be able to use. He can't avoid those elements. If he hates tieflings and a player insists on playing one he can't ignore them and has to deal with their imprecations on the game. If a DM leaves the game than, usually, that campaign is over.
My rule in general is that the DM being happy with a campaign is more important than any particular player being happy with it because an unengaged player is unfortunate and will damage the game but an unengaged DM will kill it.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
No it wouldn't. There might not have been a Germanic area in his world. Or Germans might have been abhuman fiends, unsuitable as PCs.
I did kinda assume the presence of a faux-French culture meant the existence of a faux-German culture next door. My mistake.
Quote:
Edit: You sound like the kind of guy who demands to deplay a Samurai in a game of Pendragon.
I'm not that guy. He sounds like a bit of a prick. As DM I'm open to a great many things. That does not, however, imply that I make demands as a player.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
LOL. W
GregK simply claims that I was wrong then and I'm wrong now. But, he provides no reasons. "A DM's authority over the game is absolute" Where is that written in the rules? Where in the rules does it give me, the DM, the authority to reach over with an eraser and change the name the player gives her pet? That's HER pet. That is not mine.
Let's look at the 3.0 DMG
1. "Let's start with the biggest secret of all: the key to Dungeon Mastering (Don't tell anyone, okay?). The secret is that you are in charge. That is not telling-everyone what to do sort of in charge. Rather, you decide how the group is going to play the game and "you decide how the rules work, which rules to use and how strictily to adhere to them."(DMG p.6).
2. "the whole tenor of the game is in your hands".
3. Providing the World
" The dungeon master is the creator of his or her own campaign world" (DMG p.8).
4. "Other style considerations:
You should think about a few style considerations." (DMG p.8)
" Naming Conventions: Related to how serious or humorous the game is, character names should be fairly uniform in style throughout the group. Although any name is fine in and of itself, a group that includes Bob the fighter, Aldorious killraven of Thistledown and Runtboy as characters lacks consistency to be credible" (DMG p.9)
5. "Consistency is the key to a believable fictional world' (DMG p.8)
That the DMG tells the DM he or she is in charge of both the setting and the tone of the game, that consistency is important for a believeable world and naming conventions affect the tone and consistency, the DM has the right to limit charater names.
That all said, while I agree that the DM has every right to place the limits that they want, it doesn't mean that I am going to play with a DM if I dislike the tone of their game or the rules they set. As a player, it is my right to walk and either find another game or start one of my own.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Last edited by Greg K; 30th January 2009 at 08:23 PM..
"Consistency is the key to a believable fictional world' (DMG p.8)
This from the game that introduced elves fighting Jello molds to fantasy.
Quote:
Although any name is fine in and of itself, a group that includes Bob the fighter, Aldorious killraven of Thistledown and Runtboy...
Sounds like a D&D party to me. Also, a popular contemporary fantasy series sports characters named Whiskeyjack, Bugg, and Anomander Rake the Lord of Moon's Spawn.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
