Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[phloog]

In the interest of being incredibly lazy, let me give my response to this and the forked thread at the same time about DM effort/reward.

I've been in parties with the following character names:

Sir Anus of Colon
Gowulf Khlobz
DeMetrius Velveeta Thorndyke
Randolph Lagenta Glitch
(etc. - a list too long for the boards)

and had a grand time...I've DMed games with similar goofiness (Archimedes Kartoffelopolis comes to mind.) I've run grim and ultra-serious games, and I've run games where the group encountered Punchmunchkin the Riddling Gnome.

In all cases, the party was either full of players of a similar mindset, or had players who preferred serious names but could immerse themselves without it being broken by the goofiness.

One of the issues I've had with a few of the directions these discussions have gone is they've tended to speak of a two-way conversation DM to player....everyone in the group has to remember that it's about making sure everyone has a good time. If a player insists on silly names and it doesn't work with the group as a whole, that player should find another game. If a player is in a group of silly namers and cannot abide, then that player should find another group.

The DM has a responsibility to provide the framework of a good story. A character concept, name, background, that is incompatible with that framework shouldn't be allowed, because it damages the whole for all players. Having said that, I would add to the definition of a 'Good DM' the ability to understand clearly at what level a given 'difference' breaks that game. If it really seems incompatible, you have to make the call to disallow.

Interesting note, though...in the last ten years or so of my 30 years of DMing, I've never had a player argue with me when I ruled against a character choice, and it comes down to trust. They understand that I'm not doing this lightly - any time I don't allow something it's because the game would suffer for everyone.

However, I would also point out that if DMing is to not become a chore, and is to be in itself a 'reward' for 'all those hours' you put in, it's often a really good idea to let your players surprise you and beat on the limits.

I think we start to go down a nasty road when we start talking about who 'owns' the characters....I think I'd rather switch hobbies if I found that an issue in my games.

 

[Mallus]

But I have two questions for everyone claiming the DM has no right to impose campaign nature, tone, setting, etc....

It's not about rights, it's about what works. And any DM starting from the position of 'imposing' anything on their players/friends is only making their job more difficult.

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

Depends on the quality of the cooks, doesn't it?

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?

I do believe you're getting this backwards. The point is your fun shouldn't depend on the other players playing their characters to your liking. My fun ends where yours begins. It's the J.S. Mill school of D&D.

People sharing a campaign should try to indulge one another. If someone's playing their PC a tad silly... let them have their fun. If someone soliloquy is running a bit long, let them go, trusting that they'll cede to extra time in the stoplight to you when your favorite shtick comes up. This includes the DM as well. If your DM is obviously really proud of some bit of setting history, some lineage of ancient kings or homebrewed cosmology, indulge them a little.

It makes the game go much smoother.

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.

Nonsense. I'm objectively funny...

 

[Gentlegamer]

Currently I'm playing a druid, and I've been coming up with slightly silly names for my animal companions, just for a little fun. Think "Fido" for a wolf, or "Rex" for a dinosaur, or "Tweety" for an eagle. Kind of undercutting their ferociousness or their skill, for irony's sake. Nothing game-stopping, and just mildly amusing the first time you hear it. Now he goes and tells me I can't name my animals (or my characters) anything silly. Because he can't take characters with silly names seriously.

What the heck? Now he's telling me what I can and can't *name* my characters? It's really frustrating, and it's totally lowering my morale. Ugh. I can't quit over a name, but dang, if it ain't fun to play, why go?

Consider a reverse situation: you acquire cohorts/henchmen of some kind and the DM gives them "silly" names (where you are somewhat of a "serious" player or the general tone of the game is more "serious" than the given names).

This is exactly how the character names Bigby, Sigby, and Rigby came into the original Greyhawk campaign, by the way.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

Rob and Gary's original Greyhawk campaign is another.

 

[Mallus]

The players do not however have the ultimate say.

Sure. Didn't mean to imply they did.

I have always been of the philosophy the DM has the veto power.

I agree w/that. The DM needs something like the right to final edit. I'm just a strong advocate of saying 'yes' to most player input. I've found it frequently increases the players involvement in the campaign and makes the campaign setting richer.

I did not mistake it for an historical film, but instead of making a good movie about the middle ages, they created a 20th century modern world that has jousting.

Yes, it's a contemporary sports film/romance in showily-faux medieval drag. It embraces the fake-ness of movies and I loved it for that --okay, I'll stop...

...sigh yes I have to admit that.

Don't get me wrong... Excalibur is one of my favorite films... and I should stop talking about movies, shouldn't I?

 

[Mallus]

Rob and Gary's original Greyhawk campaign in another.

Thanks... I'm trying to pimp my campaign's story hour and you go invoking the classics...

edit: I started playing in 1e Greyhawk. For me, D&D will forever be as silly, serious, and generally bug-f**k crazy as that setting.

 

[The Ghost]

I do believe you're getting this backwards. The point is your fun shouldn't depend on the other players playing their characters to your liking. My fun ends where yours begins. It's the J.S. Mill school of D&D.

People sharing a campaign should try to indulge one another. If someone's playing their PC a tad silly... let them have their fun. If someone soliloquy is running a bit long, let them go, trusting that they'll cede to extra time in the stoplight to you when your favorite shtick comes up. This includes the DM as well. If your DM is obviously really proud of some bit of setting history, some lineage of ancient kings or homebrewed cosmology, indulge them a little.

It makes the game go much smoother.

Within context, yes. However, if we are playing a game based largely on Tolkien and someone wants to bring in an Illithid Psion or a renegade Githyanki do we indulge him? I don't think so. If we are playing a game based in Sigil - sure, why not? But not one based in Middle Earth.

I don't buy the argument that says you are somehow entitled to play whatever character you want in our game even if, especially if, that character breaks the tone, flavor, or mood of the campaign. There is a time and place for silly and wacky and a time and place for grim and serious. It's like I like Maker's Mark and I like Coca-Cola but Maker's Mark and Coca-Cola mixed together is disgusting.

 

[jdrakeh]

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.

More importantly, almost all FRPGs do it

 

[Obryn]

Within context, yes. However, if we are playing a game based largely on Tolkien and someone wants to bring in an Illithid Psion or a renegade Githyanki do we indulge him? I don't think so. If we are playing a game based in Sigil - sure, why not? But not one based in Middle Earth.

I don't buy the argument that says you are somehow entitled to play whatever character you want in our game even if, especially if, that character breaks the tone, flavor, or mood of the campaign. There is a time and place for silly and wacky and a time and place for grim and serious. It's like I like Maker's Mark and I like Coca-Cola but Maker's Mark and Coca-Cola mixed together is disgusting.

Once again, I don't think anyone's actually saying this.

If the players and DM are in agreement that they're going to play a Middle Earth game, then the question of an Illithid Psion shouldn't really even come up.

Likewise, if everyone's sitting down to play Call of Cthulhu, an orc who communicates in interpretive dance would be disruptive.

-O

 

[merelycompetent]

This is exactly so. In subsequent conversation with my GM, he has stated that he is stubborn and inflexible, and hopes I can be flexible enough to work with him.

Hmmm... stubborn and inflexible. The first, IMO, is almost a pre-requisite for DMing. The inflexible part, combined with announcing it in tandem with a requirement that you, the player, be flexible enough to work with someone who's admitted to being inflexible...

Based on past experience, and what you've posted so far, I do not see a good outcome from this. A good DM *must* be flexible! The RAW simply can't cover all the things that happen in a session, nor all the crazy-wonderful ideas players come up with.

Well, I plan on staying in his game until my one-off is over, and then re-evaluating. If I still feel constrained to the point where it's not that fun, then I'm leaving.

It really looks like this is a case where your play style and the DM's play style are not a good match, even after you've both talked to each other and tried to work things out. That usually means one of you won't be staying. I hope that things work out well for you all. If I may offer some advice: 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.

Good luck!