Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[architectofsleep]

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.

THAT is a great idea! Thank you!

 

[Jack7]

Thank you!

Glad to help, and good luck.

 

[Obryn]

...Our group (the players, anyway) is really laid back, though. We spend 8-10 hours a week at the gaming table, and only about 4 of that is spent actually gaming, and maybe 30 min. of that is spent actually role-playing (the rest is mostly battle, and then either buying things or saying "we rest," or making plans about where we're going next). The rest of the time is spent joking around, shooting the bull, etc. Sometimes, when something extraordinary happens in game, like someone failing a necessary roll, we stop and joke about it and everything gets really silly. So, I was pretty sure that naming my oft-dying-or-running-away animal companions something silly wouldn't really be a game-breaker.

Well, this might be the problem right here. It sounds like the DM is taking this a lot more seriously than the players are. It's possible the DM would love to be running a more serious game, and so tries to nudge you in that direction once in a while. Maybe not; this is just complete armchair speculation. But it would certainly fit in with the rest of the stuff you're saying, where he encourages you to have angsty, serious characters.

It may just be that the players want to play a different kind of game than the DM. You can either find new games, or compromise.

For example, I sent him an idea for a cleric who was really, really good (not necessarily lawful), and that was her fatal flaw. It caused her all kinds of anguish, seeing the suffering and not having the power to help with it. This also gave me an angle into an overarching goal of seeking power, or seeking the power to be a force of change in the world. He sent it back to me saying, how about I make her have done all kinds of evil acts in her past and is now full of anguish and trying to atone for her deeds? Ok, that's another idea for a cleric background, but completely not what I had in mind. But I guess it fit his world better.

Now, this is a bit too much IMHO. It sounds like you started with a very interesting, non-insane character background with a lot of room for character development. I can't see why this would be problematic.

-O

 

[Nebulous]

We're mid-level characters (about 8-10th level), and I was asking about playing a character who had been struck mad by a god (insanity is allowed as a character trait in this game). This fact was just a reason for how my character was going to behave, and not an ever-present you're-always-connected-to/talking-to-this-god kind of thing. Now, even though our characters are currently dealing with gods, or at the least their avatars, he said no, I couldn't be that, because our characters shouldn't have gods in our background. Ok...a little bit contradictory with how the campaign is currently playing out, but I can accept that. He then said I should have been driven mad by my past actions (this is kind of a theme with him), instead. To me, that's a bit more boring and watered down. It could work, sure, but it wouldn't make me love my character. Like I said in my o.p., it wasn't that big of a deal. I said no, and we came up with something else, and I'm saving my other character ideas for another campaign. But I still felt creatively stifled. I am at my best as a roleplayer when the stakes are high, and when I don't feel like I'm playing just another cookie-cutter role.

Well, honestly, with that little bit of perspective, i see why you're upset architect. What you were suggesting doesn't sound game-breaking, unbalanced, ridiculous, or blatantly against the "world" your DM has created. I thought it was going to be something much more drastic.

So you wanted the "divine intervention madness" and your DM said no, it has to "bad past actions madness." In a case like this, i would almost always go with something that inspired the player. Now, there may be more to the case than what i see, but i would let you do that no problem.

 

[Mournblade94]

Quite possibly. That's part of why I posted here: to get some perspective.



I agree. I have no problems picking a class or a race or whatever the GM limits us to. It's hard enough to find a character concept that I haven't done, hasn't been overdone, and that I like, though, that it really feels stifling when it comes back to me completely edited. For example, I sent him an idea for a cleric who was really, really good (not necessarily lawful), and that was her fatal flaw. It caused her all kinds of anguish, seeing the suffering and not having the power to help with it. This also gave me an angle into an overarching goal of seeking power, or seeking the power to be a force of change in the world. He sent it back to me saying, how about I make her have done all kinds of evil acts in her past and is now full of anguish and trying to atone for her deeds? Ok, that's another idea for a cleric background, but completely not what I had in mind. But I guess it fit his world better. I didn't want to play it, so I went with my current character that I built in conjunction with him. I'm not excited about this character, either, but since I didn't start out with what I thought was a great idea that got squashed, it wasn't as hard to swallow.

Now see that is a perfectly appropriate background you constructed. I do not think a DM should rewrite a background, only make sure that it fits within his world. If I read a background, and I think something might be better, I will suggest it to the player, but ultimately it is up to the player. If there is something in the background that conflicts with the world, then I let the player know, and ask him to change it. Sometimes players are not accepting of their background changing for any reason and there you will have a problem.

 

[fanboy2000]

Counterintuitive

Apparently, your DM hasn't learned the trick to dealing with silly names: repetition. It's a bit counterintuitive, but saying a PC's name (or an animal companion's name) a lot in the course of a game takes the silliness off and it just becomes a part of that game.

In my games, I write down initiative order using PC names exclusively and call out turns using PC names. After calling out the name a few dozen time (in just one combat or encounter) the name stops being silly/annoying/irritating and just a part of the game.

Of course, I like the names Fido and Tweety because their easy to remember and pronounce. To many serious names suck because they are hard to pronounce and remember. (How come no one discusses that aspect of fantasy names?)

 

[Mark]

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.

Well, given your responses I think I need to suggest that you make every effort to compromise with your DM and, failing that, give in on more points than not if it means the game can go forward without continued strife. The fact that you are willing to post/talk about it leaves me thinking that you will have better luck being the one to give in on more points than hoping that the DM will change to your ideal of gaming. It can be a hard pill to swallow but the sooner the medicine is taken the sooner the health of the relationship can improve.

To that end, I would suggest that you allow for anything on paper to be serious, and feel free to make your table jokes as you would otherwise. A pet wolf name Thunderfang on your character sheet but referred to in game as Loopy is less likely to put off the serious-minded DM than what you currently seem to do now, even though the result for you would essentially be unchanged.

As to the background issues, the DM knows his world better than any and also the type of campaign he is trying to run. As said above by others, it might be that your background idea does not track with the DM's vision of his setting, the campaign or the growth of the party that he wishes the campaign scope to cover. He obviously listens to you and works with your suggestions, so you might want to leave it at that and see how the campiagn plays out. There are many DMs with much less interest in allowing any player input or even in having any background or RP points at all. Unless this DM has shown a pattern in the past of constantly disallowing any of your input at all, I'd say let that one go and let time prove you right or wrong. Your gaming options seem to steer you toward being patient and standing pat.

Good luck and good gaming!

 

[Dark Mistress]

Well I think it depends a lot on what type of game the GM is trying to run. For me it would depend. Sometimes i let in very silly stuff and sometimes I am very strict about what I am letting in. Just depends the type of game i am running.

I agree your cleric concept sounded fine, but i do think in most games i would have a problem with the animal companion names. Unless i was running a light hearted somewhat silly game which I rarely do.

 

[Carpe DM]

Why not quit over a name?

On the one hand, as a DM I think I'd dislike it if players named themselves something frivolous. (Naming pets something frivolous is just par for the course, IMO.)

But you feel controlled and micromanaged. Whether it's because the GM has a hard-line take on the rules, or because she is actually micromanaging you, you feel like you can't play what you want to play.

So walk. Not every marriage works out. Not everyone likes strawberry ice cream. I've done this a lot of times -- walked on games where I had every sense that the GM was a good and competent person, but we clearly didn't see eye-to-eye on where the GM / Player dividing line was. I have no tolerance for GM meddling, and so I don't play with GMs who meddle. It's not that they are engaged in wrongbadfun. It's that I don't like it.

 

[architectofsleep]

Why not quit over a name?

On the one hand, as a DM I think I'd dislike it if players named themselves something frivolous. (Naming pets something frivolous is just par for the course, IMO.)

But you feel controlled and micromanaged. Whether it's because the GM has a hard-line take on the rules, or because she is actually micromanaging you, you feel like you can't play what you want to play.

So walk. Not every marriage works out. Not everyone likes strawberry ice cream. I've done this a lot of times -- walked on games where I had every sense that the GM was a good and competent person, but we clearly didn't see eye-to-eye on where the GM / Player dividing line was. I have no tolerance for GM meddling, and so I don't play with GMs who meddle. It's not that they are engaged in wrongbadfun. It's that I don't like it.

Interesting. You hit the nail on the head: I'm feeling micromanaged. I'm being micromanaged. And that is the real crux of it. I can handle a certain amount of it, but when it comes to something as meaningless as an animal companion's name, it just seems like I've stepped into the realm of the ridiculous. I'm going to try to work it out, first, but if the micromanaging continues, in all likelihood I will walk. Maintain the friendships, but leave the game. :-/