Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[Greg K]

Not that its a great movie, but I got what they were trying to do. Its a decent enough literary device. I mean, Shakespeare used it.

I got what they did too. It still didn't stop me from thinking it made the movie suck!

 

[Mallus]

We haven't seen goofy names in more than 10 years, because we all agree that they really do break the mood...

Fair enough. But it's hard to argue that default D&D over the years doesn't have a fair amount of silly/bad puns baked into the core system cf. iconic monsters like gelatinous cube and beholder ("Oh, I get it, it's a floating eye!")

Based on your posts, I suspect you haven't seen a lot of things.

Based on your lack of actually knowing me, I suspect you're wrong. Wait, you read a lot of my posts? Good for you. They're enlightening (on occasion).

Account for the tastes of the majority of people? Yeah, sure.

That's all I'm sayin'.

How much do we know of the other players the OP is with?

I wasn't talking about the OP in line you snipped, it was just general advice.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You COULD run it yes, but it would most likely break the mood.

The DM cant force a mood on players. If everyone isnt on board, too bad for the DM. My tolerance for DM fappery has always been low. Write a book if you want everything to go how you planned.

Flexibility yes, but that does not mean one has to allow silly characters.
A DM should be flexible within the realm of the campaign.

People have been naming their offspring and pets stupid names for how long?

 

[Imaro]

Personally, I'm not really sure where I stand at on this issue. But I have two questions for everyone claiming the DM has no right to impose campaign nature, tone, setting, etc....

First do you believe too many cooks can ruin the soup?

Secondly, should the nature, tone and background of each player's character also be designed by everyone? I mean characters are an even bigger part of the game than the setting, so shouldn't any one player's character be subject to what everyone else thinks is fun and appropriate for the campaign as opposed to just the selfish desires of that particular player?

EDIT: This is just a side about the OP's particular situation, but I think humor can often be one of those things that is very, very subjective. Even amongst my longtime friends there are wide variations in the things we find funny, jsut something to consider.

 

[Mournblade94]

Um, its called anachronism. Putting modern concepts into an ancient setting so that the audience can better relate to it. The dancing wasn't supposed to be literal, nor the pro-wrestling style talking them up, nor the queen songs. It was supposed to communicate that to these people, the Tournament was like Superbowl Sunday.

Not that its a great movie, but I got what they were trying to do. Its a decent enough literary device. I mean, Shakespeare used it.

Is starting a post with 'um' somehow supposed to indicate there is something vital the person being quoted is missing?

If so, I sincerely thank you for my literature lesson this evening.

OK then find me the ancient setting that was in knights tale. You won't be able to because there was nothing short of an incarnation of Chaucer, and a short blurb on the craft of thatching that was medieval. Weaponry, dress, dance, tourney field and procedure... none of it medieval. And stupid humour to boot.

Anachronism is fine, but the writers of the movie were not trying to communicate anything about the middle ages except that it IS like a rennaisance faire. The movie performed no service to history or literature.

Yes shakespeare uses anachronism, but he used it well.

Sorry to derail the thread, when I mentioned it I did not expect people to actually come to the film's defence.

 

[Engilbrand]

My contention was that the player should be able to make up a backstory that fits what has been laid out for the campaign. If it seems like it makes sense with the campaign, but the DM refuses it, the DM should give reasons and a consensus should be reached. If the DM refuses and then TELLS a player what their backstory should be, there is now a problem.
It sounds like her DM is not the sort that I would play under. He was insulting to her and even admitted to being inflexible. No thanks. I've had my times with crappy DMs in the past. I'm glad that I have a great group now, and we're involved in a bunch of different games. I have told the main leader of the group that I won't play under one of the other guys, though. I've played under "Mike" a few times. He focused too narrowly on what was in the book and wasn't very flexible. When he took over one game, rules that I have been following for my character suddenly changed. While I usually like "Mike" as a player, I will refuse to play in any more games that he DMs.
The DMs that I play under that I like are very open minded. I have been able to create character ideas that they have then applied to the setting. For a Wraith Recon game, I gave a Genasi the Dhampyr bloodline. I have a backstory that he agreed to that involves the Shadowfell. He now has a new place to draw ideas from.
The last crappy DM I was under reinforced the idea that no gaming is better than bad gaming. It was 3.5, and I rolled more saves in my first game with the group than I had in the YEARS before then since I had started playing. He had a script in his mind, and nothing else was important. I convinced 2 players in that game who hated it to leave and join me for 4th edition. In my last game with him, I took down a Hellcat with a charge and 1 hit point. I described the hell out of my action. He decided to get excited and said, "No no no. He does this." He "corrected" me about my character's action so that it was what he wanted. At that point, I should have just called him a douche and left.
I wholeheartedly subscribe to the 4th edition idea that it is a joint game. I refer to the group as OUR 4th edition group. He refers to his as "MY" Forgotten Realms Group. If there's no room for player ideas, there's no point in having players. DMs are important because they set the scene, but they aren't the only important thing. Everyone is equally important. Without DM, there's no game. Without players, there's no game. A game is like a book. The DM sets up the different places and events that work with the characters, and the players have their characters interact with the scenes to shape what's to come.
I also have a problem with this idea that I'm seeing that DMs create everything beforehand and then drop the PCs into it, and the PCs have to fit. A group of us are planning to start Hunter: The Vigil next week. We had a pretty long discussion about the type of game we wanted. The DM wanted to do a "blue collar" gritty game. I told him that I'm up for that, but I need to have a character with powers. I'm sure that that sounds stupid to some of you, but I told him that I refuse to play a character who is a completely normal person with nothing special about him. That's not why I game. I game for fun. If I want to be a normal person without powers dealing with strange, mind screwing beasts, I'd just come to work. (I'm a high school teacher.)
Everyone needs to be on board and agree to the type of game that is going to be played. If my friend had just said, "We're going to play Hunter and you're going to be normal guys trying to survive all of the monsters in the area", I would have told him that I had better things to do. Actually, that was one of his ideas, and I did tell him that I had better things to do.

Summary: The entire thing needs to be cooperative. If it's not, then someone is doing it wrong. If I ever find myself in a situation where I'm with a new DM, I'm told to be creative and run things by him, and he just starts shooting down ideas without a good reason, I'll just tell him that I'm not interested in the way that he runs things and I'll leave.

 

[maddman75]

Personally, I'm not really sure where I stand at on this issue. But I have two questions for everyone claiming the DM has no right to impose campaign nature, tone, setting, etc....

First do you believe too many cooks can ruin the soup?

True enough. If the cook wants to make Chicken Noodle, he'd better make sure his guests aren't expecting cream of broccoli.

Secondly, should the nature, tone and background of each player's character also be designed by everyone? I mean characters are an even bigger part of the game than the setting, so shouldn't any one player's character be subject to what everyone else thinks is fun and appropriate for the campaign as opposed to just the selfish desires of that particular player?

No, each character is the domain of their player for most games. Though they should be subject to a veto, for examples like a wacky mime in a Cthulhu game. Other than that, the character is the player's primary way to influence the game world.

Some games do have a group creation method though.

 

[Mournblade94]

The DM cant force a mood on players. If everyone isnt on board, too bad for the DM. My tolerance for DM fappery has always been low. Write a book if you want everything to go how you planned.

No the DM can't FORCE a mood on the players, but the DM can tell players that they are not fit for the game he runs. Perhaps they would be a better fit elsewhere. I have told players before they won't work with the game I run. We are still friends.

I am in a relatively big gaming group. A common dialogue amongst us, is what players we think would be fit for a particular DM's game.

 

[Imaro]

True enough. If the cook wants to make Chicken Noodle, he'd better make sure his guests aren't expecting cream of broccoli.

Yet the difference doesn't have to be that great. Using your soup analogy, what if everyone agrees to Broccoli and cheese soup. But when you all start making it five different cheeses are suggested...various amounts of salt, whether to put the Broccoi stalks in or not comes up... someone has to keep the soup within parameters or else it will become a mess.

No, each character is the domain of their player for most games. Though they should be subject to a veto, for examples like a wacky mime in a Cthulhu game. Other than that, the character is the player's primary way to influence the game world.

Some games do have a group creation method though.

So players have a right to ownership of their characters and can influence the campaign world itself through those characters and they also have a right to shape the campaign world as well... Eh, I think the GM has just as much right to ownership of something as players do.

I'm sorry I see nothing wrong with the GM creating a campaign world he is happy with (especially if the players know upfront that this is the case.), I mean he's the one who has to run it for however long, and if he doesn't have a certain amount of ownership in it...then he doesn't have much investment in it and it shows. I mean in the end one person has to make the calls about the campaign world and I think it should be the GM.

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, but that's not what were discussing.

 

[The Ghost]

Who plays this grim, humorless kind of D&D? In over 20 years I've honestly never seen it.

I do, twice a month. The game is full of hopeless situations, philosophical debates, heated exchanges, and all the other tropes used in creating dramatic tension. The setting is very dire with little hope of success. I also, twice a month, play a game that is very lite and loose with lots of joking around.

I play both these games with the same group of players. I also enjoy both games equally.

I look at DnD like I look at other forms of entertainment. Movies, for example. In the past two weeks I have scene Doubt, Bride Wars, and The Wrestler at the movie theater. I enjoyed all three. One was very grim and humorless, another was lite and funny, and the last was somewhere in between. I guess I find entertainment in multiple genres of movies and multiple styles of DnD.