Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[Greg K]

Professor,
Have yourself an XP.

Hussar, I do appreciate your point of view, and think DMs who get overly pedantic about their world can be annoying as well. However for me, it reduces my enjoyment as a player when DMs allow everything and anything; particularly races such as dragonborn and teiflings. Again, it might be because I am 'old school'; but for me they are the new dark elf and half dragon. It can be cool in some settings, but lots of times, I find them kind of out of place. Especially dragon borne, who are not really that human looking. Also, I like my DM to have a vision; and I like that vision to be somewhat restricted; for me, its about consistency and suspension of disbelief. No, they aren't making the next middle earth--and to be perfectly honest, there isn't a whole lot special about middle earth in my mind anyways-- but it is nice to have a cohesive theme and mood; and some races/classes/character concepts, can ruin some moods and themes.

 

[Oryan77]

Hey, a thread all about me! It's taken 5 years or so, but I'm finally being ranted about....I'm almost famous!

I am the DM that architectofsleep is complaining about. So I'd like to defend myself so I don't get my DM membership card taken away (man, 12 pages of this but I got through it, sorry for the long post)....

I have a GM who is, apparently, a control freak.

A DM that is running a published campaign setting is sorta expected to be a control freak when it comes to running the world around your characters. I'm not running a campaign where players get to help me create the world around us beyond what their PCs do in game.

For example, I come up with a really great concept for a character background that I'm really looking forward to playing, and he comes back with a watered down, much more boring version of the same, telling me I can't play it the way I want to. Ok, fine, I'll come up with something else, because I don't want to play a background he writes up for me, you know?

Her background had to do with a god possessing her mind and controlling her for a period of time. I am not a fan of having direct contact from a god with low-mid level PCs unless it was initiated in game so that I can control what the god does. I would never let players dictate what the gods do in a Planescape campaign, that's my job as the DM. So I suggested that she make it some type of powerful fiend, undead, or wizard that possessed her mind for a short time instead.

She also wanted to do The Shining "index finger talking" scenario all the time so other players will know her PC is crazy. I thought that was a bit silly, especially since it was a famous scene in a movie. She got upset and told me she didn't get it from the Shining, she got it from a Muppets movie. So being from the Muppets is even more proof how "silly" it is.

And finally, if her cleric was going to heal a party member, she wanted to make the other player say a random phrase in order to get the heal. So they don't get healed unless the player says whatever the cleric tells them to say. This will only annoy players and I said this isn't something that would go over well with the group.

Yes, I don't like silly names in the campaign I'm running. She originally named her first lion animal companion "Mittens". I didn't like this, but I didn't think it was too bad so I let it slide. But that lion died and when she got a new bear companion, she wanted to name it "Marshmallow". I saw this was going to be a repetitive occurrence. For me, that's just too silly and I'm not interested in keeping the silly name thing going for every companion. So I asked her to change it. Yes, she even tried doing the old "I'll use a french word for marshmallow then", and I told her I was ok with that because it sounded more fantasy and as long as I don't have to hear the name Marshmallow then I could deal with it.

I'm not even against giving cliche pet names, just as long as it could fit as a name for an animal you are sending into battle and risking death. Yelling out, "Marshmallow, attack the Fire Giant" would make me cringe if I heard that in a serious fantasy movie. Some people might get a kick out of hearing that in a movie, but that's just not my taste.

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?

Then apparently I misunderstood your history idea. I wasn't trying to rewrite it. I thought you wanted her to be possessed by a god, forced to kill townsfolk, and since she was a good cleric, she was traumatized by what the god forced her to do and it made her insane. All I did was ask that it not be a god that possessed her but a fiend or something instead. I also threw in some other ideas in case you were interested...ya know....I was trying to be helpful

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....Alas, he got my hopes up, and then dashed them!

I apologize then if I got your hopes up. Remember, you came into the group as a friend of another player & I never "interviewed" you & you never got to "interview" me. This is why you get annoyed whenever you learn the "do's & don'ts" of the game during the game....it's always a surprise to you (which is understandable).

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.

This is a really good suggestion and I may have been ok with this as long as it wasn't a modern day reference. As part of her argument, she brought up the fact that a player has a silly nickname. So I guess we are already doing what you suggested. His nickname is a bit silly sounding but no more than Bilbo is silly...it's not the same as a goofy pet name.

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!"

This was suggested and I told her I didn't have a problem with this. I don't think it mattered though. The fact that I dared to alter her original ideas was enough to thwart any attempt to work something out.

AOS, that guy sounds like a dick.

Yeah, the way she describes me on Enworld, I do sound like a dick. I'm sure I could make her sound bad too if I was the one ranting. It's too bad she's the type of person that just reacts to the surface of what someone says rather than try to understand what is being said. What I've told her in private was not meant to be condescending or full of myself...I was simply trying to explain where I'm coming from as a DM trying to run a game.

The micromanagement, the sexism, the blatent rudeness.

Anytime a man says anything to a woman about gender, of course she is going to claim he's sexist. The OP is an extremely defensive person. Sometimes it's hard for me to finish a thought without being interrupted due to her being defensive. I am not sexist. I am a dumb caveman at times, but all I said to her was that 'my opinion on what names are silly or not may be because I grew up with a bunch of "macho" men'. Every one of my friends would roll their eyes at a name like Marshmallow. She couldn't understand why I thought a name is silly or not and that was the only explanation I could think of. I can see more woman being ok with a name like that than I can see my male friends being ok with it.

If a player WANTS a little bit of wackiness, why shouldn't they get it?

Yep, you're right. But when I'm running a game that isn't wacky, they can go find a game that fits their needs. I'm not currently interested in running a wacky game. If I was running that game, I'd welcome silliness.

We didn't start this campaign with everyone saying, "what kind of game should we play, ok, I'll run something that fits those requirements". I started this campaign with a set style in mind. Players came into the group knowing what kind of game I was trying to run. They have free will, if they don't like it, they can find another game. In the OPs case, she didn't come in with this knowledge. So she has been learning it as she goes. Apparently it isn't what she wants and I understand that. But I'm not going to change what I've worked so hard to construct just to fit her preference. I will do what I can to please her, but in the end, I have the last say on the style of this campaign.

But I do have a hard time working with people who aren't flexible,

First of all, I have been flexible many times on many situations with all of the players. Just because you don't always get your way does not mean I haven't been flexible.

I was hoping to use it to demonstrate how rewarding it can be to have a flexible GM, but he's been using it to demonstrate to me how he thinks a player should act: no complaining or whining whatsoever, no disagreeing whatsoever with anything the GM says, and overall obsequious behavior. For some, he may be the ideal player, but to me, it's like he's being a Stepford wife or a bobblehead yes-man. It's kinda creepy.

I've told you that you don't need to demonstrate anything when it comes to DMing. I have played with a lot of people and I have read DMs thoughts online about many many issues. I understand the differences in DMing playstyles.

When I asked you not to pick a silly name, you retaliated by saying, "well I'm going to make you have a silly character name in my game". Yeah sure, you were kidding, I know. But you were saying that as if you were proving a point. I told you, if you were running a game that required us to have silly names, I'd have no problem AT ALL making a silly name for my PC. I will fit my PC into the type of game world you are trying to run. Yes, I don't argue with DMs, I don't require them to cater to me, I try to help them run a good game. Calling me creepy for that is flat out weird. People always complain about bad players that are argumentative ect ect. I've never seen anyone try to make me look bad for trying to be a good player.

Oooooo - this would be my opportunity to break him. Make the most outlandish rulings both in his favour and against him. See how far you can push his 'yes-man' attitude. But I am a petty and vindictive jerk!

This would be actions of a bad DM and I'd hope she wouldn't do this to me. I don't play with people that are not fair to their players. If I'm trying to be a positive player and help the DM run a good game by not being disruptive, why would you try to disrupt your own game? If she started playing a DM vs Player game, I'd just stop playing.

I think the real problem is when a GM doesn't let that campaign setting evolve and grow through the actions of the PC's

The OP sorta makes it seem like this is how I do things. I don't. I want the players to immerse themselves in the world and do their own thing. I even take time to think up side plots for each individual PC so they can do 'their own thing' in between adventures. My hope is that by doing this, the game becomes more personal to them. It's hard to do effectively though because players feel like they are taking time away from the other players by attempting personal goals.

If you do part company, make every reasonable effort to do so on good terms. No sense in burning bridges unless you really have to.

I have played with many players that did not enjoy my style of DMing the same way I didn't enjoy their style of being a player. The relationship always ended bad because they kept playing in a game that annoyed them. I was the first to suggest to the OP that she leave the group if I make her unhappy. The last thing I want to do is make a player unhappy. I have no hard feelings if a player doesn't enjoy my DMing. I would rather them leave sooner and still think well of me than them leave later and tell their new group (or Enworlders) how crappy of a DM I am. It looks like I'm going to be that "bad DM" that she complains about anyway...oh well.

This is not a question of right and wrong. This is a question of compatibility.

Exactly. A lot of players are incompatible. My long time friends back on the east coast have no problem with my DMing style but a lot of strangers will have a problem. I told her this when she began complaining via email. I tried to be open and honest about how I DM so she could determine if we're compatible or not. It's not a big deal if she figures out we're not. I just wish it didn't get to the point where I'm being blasted online about it.

----------------------------------------

Well, after finding out this thread was created and seeing how you favor me mostly as a bad DM and even belittle my attempt at being a positive player, I don't think we should even game together in our other games. It also hurts that you'd call me names and label me as sexist. I don't agree with your politics and I even let you freely express your views in my home...and I've never called you names like this.

I can respect your opinions about my DMing, but I'm not interested in you trying to teach me how to be a good DM because there's no reason for that...I'm sure you're an excellent DM for your style of gaming but I prefer DMing my campaign the way I'm doing it. You won't be teaching me anything I don't already know about. I think if I were to play in your off-shoot game now, I'd just feel like you had ulterior motives and wanted to prove something to me. Even when I tried to reassure you that I would not be a problem player, you argue with me for the sake of disagreeing with me and tell me I should argue with you as the DM. It's a no-win situation with you. I'm not a demanding player, I don't whine when I don't get my way, I don't argue at the table, I try to fit in with the campaign, ect ect. I thought telling you this would make you feel good about DMing me...but you still managed to turn it around against me to make me look like I'm a pompous jerk.

As I've said in our emails before I found this thread, I hold no ill feelings towards you. I am upset with what you've said about me and causing the public to think bad of me, but whatever. Next time you meet a possible DM, before you give him a hard time like you've given me, just think to yourself, how would you feel if you found a thread like this on the internet that was all about you?

 

[architectofsleep]

Oryan,

Nobody knew this GM was you until you said something here, so nobody was judging you personally.

Yes, I would have talked about any problems I was having. And I have talked about it. And not only here. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to get things off my chest in a way that isn't going to be harmful to you or to our relationship as players. Plus, I got a lot of insight from other people about where you might be coming from.

I think I mentioned more than once that I didn't really have a problem with you declining my character background, but rewriting it and watering it down is something I did have a problem with. BUT it wasn't a big enough problem that I felt I needed to bring it up to you directly. I have lots of ideas; if one doesn't work, I can come up with another one. I only used it as a means to exemplify for others why I thought the micromanaging thing wasn't just a one-time thing. There were other examples I could have given, but I didn't.

The initial problem I had was with cracking down on innocuous names. And then with further e-mails between us, I saw a lot more cause for concern. After talking it over with people, pretty much everyone agreed that our styles were incompatible.

I think it's clear that they were right.

Beyond that -- whose style is right and whose is wrong? I don't think most of the intelligent comments here called it either way. They simply called them different styles, and usually stated which ones they preferred and why. I don't think anyone is being especially judgmental of you or of me, and those who were, well, personally, I tried to ignore those comments.

That aside, my question to the community was a valid one, and I don't regret bringing it up. Where does GM control end, and player control begin? Can they successfully meld? I'm sure I didn't say at as eloquently in the beginning, but I was airing a grievance, so a certain emotionality touched it.

Anyways, best of luck to you and yours in all your gaming ventures.

 

[Jasperak]

Yeah, the way she describes me on Enworld, I do sound like a dick. I'm sure I could make her sound bad too if I was the one ranting. It's too bad she's the type of person that just reacts to the surface of what someone says rather than try to understand what is being said. What I've told her in private was not meant to be condescending or full of myself...I was simply trying to explain where I'm coming from as a DM trying to run a game.

XP for you, for coming here and expressing your side. I apologize for my hasty comment, although I did intend for it to be taken in a more hypothetical manner. Intentional or not, the side we originally got made you out to be "not a very flexible member of the D&D community "
[insert rigid prick pun]

I am not touching the rest of this thread with a 10' pole, although the question of DM's control v. Player's control merits discussion.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Oryan77, you have proven your case well. Kudos for coming here and outing yourself. It seems to me like you were being a level headed DM.

 

[Oryan77]

Nobody knew this GM was you until you said something here, so nobody was judging you personally.

I'm not worried if people know it's me or not. But if you want to speak your mind and bash me, I'm going to explain my side of it if I have the chance.

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to get things off my chest in a way that isn't going to be harmful to you or to our relationship as players.

Think about this for a second. You didn't get things off your chest in a way that wasn't harmful to me or us as players. My wife found out that you were bashing me behind my back and doesn't feel comfortable seeing you in our home or knowing that I'm still playing D&D with you. You weren't just "discussing" a player vs DM issue, you were belittling me behind my back. The end result was that not only are you not playing in my campaign, but I'm not even playing in yours. So I think your posts were harmful to our gaming relationship.

but rewriting it and watering it down is something I did have a problem with. BUT it wasn't a big enough problem that I felt I needed to bring it up to you directly.

It was a big enough problem for you to rant about it though. So obviously it wasn't just a small issue for you. As I said, I must have misunderstood your history idea because I swear to you, my purpose was not to rewrite it & water it down, it was to make it work in the campaign. If asking that the history not involve a god, silly quirks stolen from the Muppets, or quirks that would annoy other players is considered rewriting & watering down, then I guess I am guilty and I stand by my decision. Those were the only issues I had. I never meant to make it seem like I was altering everything else you had written as a history. My other suggestions were only ideas to play off of what you came up with.

I don't think anyone is being especially judgmental of you or of me, and those who were, well, personally, I tried to ignore those comments.

It would have been nice to see that you had my back though when people trashed me. I mean, if you're going to rant about me behind my back, and I find out, it would have been nice to see that you stuck up for me in your thread. Discussing DM control is cool, but you came off to me as if this was the "Oryan is a crappy DM" thread.

I apologize for my hasty comment,

It's cool man. I understand how these type of threads go. I just wish she held me in a little bit more of a positive light than she appeared to. I know it's a small thing & kinda silly, but even if I saw her defending me once, it would have meant a lot to me.

Oryan77, you have proven your case well. Kudos for coming here and outing yourself. It seems to me like you were being a level headed DM.

Thanks. It's rare to hear both sides of the story. Believe me, I can rant about her as a player the same way but there is no reason for that. It's better for both of us to go our separate ways.

The funny thing is, I posted an ad yesterday on Enworld looking for a new player (I noticed she posted looking for a DM). I hope this thread isn't going to scare any potentially compatible players away

 

[Obryn]

I'm glad to hear the other side here.

But um... I'm still going to go with architectofsleep on this one. Your response is a bit too much "I banish thee, heretic, for doubting my excellence!" for my taste.

-O

 

[merelycompetent]

Hey, a thread all about me!...

As I've said in our emails before I found this thread, I hold no ill feelings towards you. I am upset with what you've said about me and causing the public to think bad of me, but whatever. Next time you meet a possible DM, before you give him a hard time like you've given me, just think to yourself, how would you feel if you found a thread like this on the internet that was all about you?

This is the best public response I've ever even *heard of* to a situation like this. Polite, courteous, reasonable.

Kudos to you, Oryan77. You get the first xp I've ever handed out. As soon as I figure out how.

(Edit: 'Tis done. Wasn't hard, either. I'll take my Geek Card back now.)

 

[S'mon]

Oryan, you definitely come across as something of a control freak GM.

Anyway, this thread has been useful as I have seen some things I need to watch in my own GMing. Compared to Hussar's mandated style I'm certainly more towards the viking-hat end of the GMing spectrum, and I need to be careful I don't take it too far.

 

[Cyronax]

One of the main points that was in contention here (whehter or not it was part of a misunderstanding) was still the amount of divine intervention at hand in a campaign. If a DM doesn't want his game to turn into a Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal style game (at even a minimal level), that shoule be his perogative.

The DM still has to enjoy the game too. All to often the 'player's always right' crowd on these boards can forget that part too. If the DM just doesn't allow something despite doing his/her best to accommodate some type of compromise, then I either adapt or I leave and find a new campaign.

And I say this as a player who has periodically tried to play an anesiac power-downed immortal type character and at one instance a 'plaything of the gods' similar to Jason (of the Argonauts). And most cases the DM at the time asked me to prune back the story slightly or completely

C.I.D.