Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[architectofsleep]

As a DM, if a player is unwilling to work with me, they're gone. I've got more players than I know what to do with, and I do try to maintain a consistent tone in the game. If they're not interested in the kind of game that I run (and I'm upfront on that, and ask for suggestions and feedback ona regular basis), then they should find another DM.

There aren't too many players and GMs out by me. I understand that a GM has certain rules, and if they're upfront about it, it's a lot easier. I was taken completely by surprise with the whole "silly names" thing because it never came up until recently. And honestly, with the tone of our sessions, where we spend more time b.s.ing than we do playing, I never thought it would be a problem, especially with such mild goofiness as I was offering.

I do think it's not necessarily the right tactic to say "it's my way or the highway." I'm sure it works for you, but I personally prefer to work with other people to find compromises, to make sure everyone is having fun, and to not burn bridges. To that end, I tend to pick my battles, and it always surprises me when other people don't, and when they take stands on things that are really, in the grand scheme of things, not that important.

Which is why I'm not walking on the game over this. It's going to take quite a bit more. But my frustration was building up enough for me to rant about it (and hopefully get it out of my system).

 

[architectofsleep]

My point of view is a simple one: It is his game, but it is your character.

You live in his world, but you create your own viewpoint of it. I'd suggest simply talking to your DM. I'm sure you can work something out if you both are willing to try.

That said, when it stops becoming fun, then why play?

I completely agree. Once I stop being annoyed about it, I'll talk to him. And if the not-fun starts to outweigh the fun, then I'm definitely walking, because it would be better for everyone.

 

[architectofsleep]

I've been that DM --a long time ago, mind you-- and all I can say is I'm glad I'm no longer. The game works better when it belongs to everyone participating. So I sympathize.

The DM shouldn't try to legislate the tone of the player characters. You can't legislate gravitas, or, more accurately, attempts to do so end up being sillier than campaigns that embrace lightheartedness. Many DM's aspire to Tolkien's heights. Do I need to discuss how many succeed?

My experience is that a campaign worth taking seriously will be taken seriously by the players, despite the presence of animal companions w/pun names.

My experience also shows me that the silly and serious can co-exist peacefully in D&D --hell, in the entire fantasy genre. A campaign can contain jokes without being a joke campaign. Our long-running 3.5e game is a testimony to that, as is our new 4e game, come to think...

Thank you! You put how I feel more eloquently and precisely than I did. You get exactly what I was trying to say.

Do you mind if I use some of what you said if I talk about the name issue again with my GM?

 

[The Ghost]

So, I was pretty sure that naming my oft-dying-or-running-away animal companions something silly wouldn't really be a game-breaker.

This may be where the DM is having a problem - I would be too. Often times the silly names and puns are fun the first time you do it. After it has happened a number of times, then silly can, and often times does, move into just being annoying. Just a thought.

 

[architectofsleep]

This may be where the DM is having a problem - I would be too. Often times the silly names and puns are fun the first time you do it. After it has happened a number of times, then silly can, and often times does, move into just being annoying. Just a thought.

You may be right. He let me have the first silly name with no objection, but as soon as that animal died and I named my second one a silly name, he objected. So, yes, I've only actually had two animal companions, but it was going to be a theme, if they kept dying. I found out after the second name that the whole "no silly names" thing was actually a house rule that everyone but me knew about, and we still don't know why he let me get away with the first one. Alas, he got my hopes up, and then dashed them!

And for the record, the silly names I put here were not the silly names I used in game. The ones I used were much less silly, imo. But to protect the innocent, the names shall remain changed.

 

[architectofsleep]

How difficult would it be to find a new game? How many other games and with others DMs have you played in the past? Have you DMed for this DM or with this group previously to now? Do you sometimes DM and would you be willing to start up your own campaign or group?

It's pretty hard around here. Everyone is really spread out. You can either drive forever for a good game, or have your choice of a few crappy local games, or luck out and find and excellent local game, or GM yourself.

I would GM, but finding quality players who are as dedicated to gaming is just as hard. So many groups I've been in have failed because of other commitments of the players. A couple of great things about this group is that we all get along really well out of game, and we all put gaming as our number one recreational priority, so people rarely miss, and we get to have marathon sessions.

 

[Mallus]

Do you mind if I use some of what you said if I talk about the name issue again with my GM?

Please do.

If you could use an, ahem, example of a successful campaign that contain jokes without being one, the 1st link in my sig is the Story Hour based on our 3.5e campaign. The writing --most of it by one of the players-- is quite good.

 

[Jack7]

AOS, there are a couple of easy compromises here if the DM and you will agree to them. (I takes two to tango.)

Name your animal companions something solid but also have nicknames. In important situations (as far as game play) you can call them their "real names" and in silly moments, moments of comic relief, and relaxed times, call them by their nicknames. As a matter of fact as DM I usually have players come up with appropriate names but I also give them in-game nicknames, the players themselves do, or sometimes my NPCs do, and often times those nicknames stick. If they are on an important mission, or in a formal setting, they are called by their real names. If out in the field, working, adventuring, or just hanging around they often call each other by their nicknames. Just like happens in real life. Some characters get multiple nicknames. I've got a player who has a soldier named Marsippius Nicea (he's from the city of Nicea). His original nickname was Nice Mars, cause when not in a fight, he acted like a gentleman. Later that got shortened to NM. Then later to Nicee, or Nickee. Now he's called Nike cause he's so good in a fight. But people also call him Cap'in M, cause that's his military rank. Point is things and people change over time, and a good character does, and a good character has multiple traits that can serve to describe him. Formal names aren't the only option, and neither are nicknames. It could easily be both. And as time goes along nicknames by habit, action, or trait will pop-up. And so nicknames will change.

As for your "character design" it might be inappropriate at first, but later on, as the game develops, it might become more logical and even appropriate to the setting, story, plot, and campaign.

I personally, as a DM, feel that classes (professions), races, societies, cultures, and individuals ought to change over time. Just like in real life. The USA of today is not the USA of the Revolution or the Civil War or the Indian Wars. A soldier of today is not the same as a soldier of 100 years ago, or even of thirty, twenty, or ten years ago. As things change in the world this puts pressure on everything else to change. So, maybe your DM will change and the Druid will change as time goes along.

So, just see if the DM is up for compromises on both sides, without it having to be either/or for either one of you.

So give it some time, and see if you can reach an accommodation. Compromise is a natural part of real life, and is helpful in games as well.

 

[Simm]

Reading what you have posted about your ideas for character backstory and your DM's proposed changes I think he may be being overly cautious but with good reason. It may be that he has encountered players of the "uses backstory to make the game unnecessarily difficult for other players" school of character creation. If that is the case try to find some way for your character to include pragmatism in his personallity.

 

[Dausuul]

I think it's legitimately within the DM's purview to nix names and back stories that s/he feels are not appropriate. It is not, however, within the DM's purview to unilaterally edit the PC's back story. The PC's back story is for the player to write. The DM should specify which elements are not okay and why, then let the player come up with the alternative.

That said, I also think a good DM ought to think carefully before putting the kibosh on a concept. The main reasons I'd nix a concept would be if I felt it was disruptive to the tone of the game - to the extent that it would bother me every time it came up - or if it required the existence of elements in my game world that I don't want my game world to contain.

So I'm not going to allow a character named Tweedles the Dumb in an epic high-fantasy campaign, and I'm not going to allow a samurai in a Bronze Age Middle Eastern setting. On the other hand, if you can translate your samurai into a samurai-like concept suitable for ancient Babylon, go for it.

To this specific case, in a campaign with active involvement of gods, it seems weird to refuse to let a character have been driven mad by one. I'd be leery of allowing a character who'd been driven mad, period, since I've had bad experiences with players who want to play CRAZY! characters; but if I'm allowing that, driven mad by a god doesn't seem unreasonable.

On the other hand, I'd be pretty reluctant to tolerate Fido or Rex.