Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[S'mon]

I'd recommend you leave. Neither of you will win in this situation by continuing.

I agree. If you don't like his GMing, seek a GM more to your tastes, or try running a game.

edit: BTW from your subsequent description of your GM, he sounds really annoying. If I wanted to play Nice Too-Good Lady PC and the GM told me to play ex Evil Lady Tortured by Her Terrible Deeds PC I'd be really really annoyed too.

 

[architectofsleep]

UPDATE: I sent an e-mail to him about the naming thing. I tried to be as reasonable as I could, and to argue each of his points rationally, using words suggested by many of you.

He just responded to me with this tirade, starting off with insinuating that if I don't like his GM style (which, apparently is completely represented by the naming issues), I should probably leave the group. (I never suggested that I would leave the group if I didn't get my way -- in fact, I suggested that we compromise, or if not, I would accept his final ruling, but I wouldn't like it.)

Then he gave me some long-winded reason of why he liked things the way they were, and how his idea of light-hearted was different than mine. He cited all kinds of extreme character names that he saw once he started gaming with people other than his core group of friends. (My animal names were nowhere near as funny or weird.)

THEN he proceeded to tell me what kinds of weird animal names he would accept. I may as well say now what names I had used thus far: Mittens the lioness (from the Simpsons, "my cats name is Mittens"), and Marshmallow the bear (from having fed bears marshmallows at the zoo when I was a toddler -- yes, I'm that old). Here are the names he would accept: "Patches, Rex, One-Eye, T-Bone, Blue, Caspar, Dusty, Lefty, Scratches, or Oddball are all good examples of fine pet names. It's when I imagine the name belonging to a little old ladies sweater wearing dog or cat that I have a problem with." Oddly, Rex, one of the examples I cited earlier in this post, would be acceptable. And Mittens is acceptable. So, to me, his idea of silly is a bit incomprehensible. I just don't see the distinction between "Patches" and "Marshmallow."

He then said that he thought the difference between his idea of light-hearted and mine was because I am a woman. *rolling my eyes*

Lastly, he said he would not compromise, and, the part that really stuck in my throat, was when he said, "if I'm going to spend hours upon hours preparing a game so I can DM it for other people, my enjoyment needs to come before theirs." This, I don't get. I'm not just some pawn in his world, there to play for his pleasure. We are all in this together. Doesn't it need to be fun for everyone?

His response seemed to me to be overly hostile and selfish. He always said to bring up rules problems out of game so that it doesn't slow down the game. So I did. And now I'm treated with obstinance, sexism, irrationality, and selfishness. Maybe I do need to walk over a name.

 

[coyote6]

That response seems a bit much. OTOH, some people communicate poorly via the written word, and (especially with email) can come off as more irritated or hostile than they mean to. He could be stressed out about other things, too, and taking it out inappropriately.

However, possible reasons for his response aside, it's still overly obnoxious to me.

And I'm with you on not getting the names thing; I think he just hates marshmallows, little old ladies, and/or small animals.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I don't quite get the issue with the backstory ... if you truly mean for the backstory to have no mechanical effects, can't your character claim whatever he wants, anent "being touched by a god"? Who's gonna prove different? (And whether they can or not, it's good RP.)

So, for me, "Can I have a god directly meddle in my background?" is a no, but, "Can my PC claim that a god meddled in his background?" is a "great idea!"

As for silly names, I don't like 'em, and I don't allow 'em. Luckily I don't have players very inclined to do stuff like that, so it's been a non-issue.

 

[Jasperak]

AOS, that guy sounds like a dick.

Sorry Morrus' G'Ma. I'm too much of a boor to dance around my opinon.

If I were in your position AOS, I would say the same to his face and actively recruit the rest of the players away from such a self-righteous obnoxious tard. D&D above all else is game where a bunch of people get together and have fun, not some tin-pot dictator's soap box. Now I normally side with DMs on most issues but not in cases were they stoop to such ignorant condescension. Let the little ck take his football and play his way. On second thought, stay in the group and silently and slowly work against him. No be better person and quit the group and offer to run a game for the others. Take a chance. Kick him in the junk.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

UPDATE: I sent an e-mail to him about the naming thing. I tried to be as reasonable as I could, and to argue each of his points rationally, using words suggested by many of you.

He just responded to me with this tirade, starting off with insinuating that if I don't like his GM style (which, apparently is completely represented by the naming issues), I should probably leave the group. (I never suggested that I would leave the group if I didn't get my way -- in fact, I suggested that we compromise, or if not, I would accept his final ruling, but I wouldn't like it.)

Then he gave me some long-winded reason of why he liked things the way they were, and how his idea of light-hearted was different than mine. He cited all kinds of extreme character names that he saw once he started gaming with people other than his core group of friends. (My animal names were nowhere near as funny or weird.)

THEN he proceeded to tell me what kinds of weird animal names he would accept. I may as well say now what names I had used thus far: Mittens the lioness (from the Simpsons, "my cats name is Mittens"), and Marshmallow the bear (from having fed bears marshmallows at the zoo when I was a toddler -- yes, I'm that old). Here are the names he would accept: "Patches, Rex, One-Eye, T-Bone, Blue, Caspar, Dusty, Lefty, Scratches, or Oddball are all good examples of fine pet names. It's when I imagine the name belonging to a little old ladies sweater wearing dog or cat that I have a problem with." Oddly, Rex, one of the examples I cited earlier in this post, would be acceptable. And Mittens is acceptable. So, to me, his idea of silly is a bit incomprehensible. I just don't see the distinction between "Patches" and "Marshmallow."

He then said that he thought the difference between his idea of light-hearted and mine was because I am a woman. *rolling my eyes*

Lastly, he said he would not compromise, and, the part that really stuck in my throat, was when he said, "if I'm going to spend hours upon hours preparing a game so I can DM it for other people, my enjoyment needs to come before theirs." This, I don't get. I'm not just some pawn in his world, there to play for his pleasure. We are all in this together. Doesn't it need to be fun for everyone?

His response seemed to me to be overly hostile and selfish. He always said to bring up rules problems out of game so that it doesn't slow down the game. So I did. And now I'm treated with obstinance, sexism, irrationality, and selfishness. Maybe I do need to walk over a name.

You don't need that crap. Have you considered gaming over the internet?

 

[jdrakeh]

I dunno. I think the GM has ever right to disallow silly names, especially if they're run contrary to the established theme/tone of the game. Frex, I gamed with a guy who came up with outrageously stupid character names like "Mister Nuckinfutz" during Shadowrun games.

This did not amuse me (as the GM) or any of the other players, as we had all agreed beforehand that these games were to be serious in tone. We all explained to the player in question what the issue was, and he refused to hear it, explainig that acting like a moron was how he had fun. *Sigh*

In retrospect, at that point, I should have told him to pack his stuff and leave. He was breaking the agreements that he had made prior to play, refused to compromise (even a bit), and then cried to high heaven when NPCs reacted accordingly to his outrageously stupid names.

As for backgrounds, I think that sword cuts both ways, too. I've seen players abuse the hell out of a background to give their character all kinds of neat-o stuff that the rules otherwise forbid. So, in instances like that, I think the GM should be able to full-on veto a background if necessary.

As for your particular situation, as we've really only heard your side of it, I don't think I can fairly weigh in on the matter.

 

[S'mon]

There are players I've kicked out of my games who would probably say worse about me than architect has about her GM, so I'm reluctant to make a judgement on who's right & who's wrong, but it seems to me there is major incompatibility and lack of respect here. I think this is definitely a "no gaming is better than bad gaming" situation.

 

[architectofsleep]

You don't need that crap. Have you considered gaming over the internet?

I thought about it, but honestly I don't know how to do it or where to find a game, etc. It's a good idea.

 

[architectofsleep]

I don't quite get the issue with the backstory ... if you truly mean for the backstory to have no mechanical effects, can't your character claim whatever he wants, anent "being touched by a god"? Who's gonna prove different? (And whether they can or not, it's good RP.)

So, for me, "Can I have a god directly meddle in my background?" is a no, but, "Can my PC claim that a god meddled in his background?" is a "great idea!

Oh! What a great idea. I didn't think of that. If I stay with the game, I'll bring it up. Thanks!