Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[S'mon]

I'm pretty sure that last time the undercurrent was dragonborn and tieflings. I think that colored a LOT of the discussion.

Oh yeah, how if a player wanted to play a dragonborn, it wasn't legitimate for the GM to say "No, I don't like them". Please let us not go there again.

 

[Cadfan]

Oh yeah, how if a player wanted to play a dragonborn, it wasn't legitimate for the GM to say "No, I don't like them". Please let us not go there again.

Actually, I've been thinking about it a lot, and... yeah, I'm going there again.

Let me analogize to a judge.

A judge, when acting as a judge, has a LOT of power. She can order you locked in jail, she can decide who does or does not own property, she can even terminate your legal rights to see your own children or order you executed. We give judges this power for a reason, and choose them and position them in ways to encourage them to use this power as wisely and as ethically as possible. To put things roughly, a judge has incredible power when acting in the interests of the lw and of justice.

A judge, when not acting as a judge, doesn't have any particular power. A judge on her day off, say, at her kid's Little League game, cannot order you imprisoned. A judge, even while seated on her bench at the height of her power, cannot properly make dictates that the law does not authorize, and will be reversed or censured if she tries. In those contexts, the judge cannot do these things because she's not acting as a judge. She's acting as just another person in the room, and she has only the rights and privileges of any other person in the room.

I think that DMs are the same way.

A DM has incredible power. We give the DM that power for a reason, though, and that power exists in the context of that reason. The DM has all kinds of power because we expect the DM to have a larger vision of the campaign and the game than the players. We give the DM this power because we expect the DM to use that broader vision to make wiser long term decisions than a player might make from the player's limited perspective.

But a DM who isn't acting as a DM, like our judge on her day off, is just another person in the room. A DM not acting as a DM has only the rights and privileges of just another person in the room. Its why being the Dungeon Master doesn't entitle you to demand that your friends wash your car or clean your kitchen. That doesn't have to do with your role as a DM.

The trickier questions are things that have to do with the game, but in my opinion, have nothing to do with your role as a Dungeon Master. That's why I'm always so interested in a DM's motives rather than his decision itself. A DM who, say, bans dragonborn, because he has an established 3e game in an established setting and he does want to switch to 4e but doesn't want to change the setting, is probably acting as a DM. He is probably concerning himself continuity and setting coherence, and is probably making the decision that he reasonably believes to be in the long term interests of the game.

But what about a DM who bans dragonborn because he just hates them? I don't think that DM is acting as a DM. He's not using his higher vantage point to make a decision that's best for the group. He's like the judge who tries to lock you in jail because your kid beat her kid in a baseball game. He's using his power and the trust reposed in him to make a decision that's personal rather than related to the role which granted him power.

Now of course the immediate response to this is, "But if a DM hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?" Which is fair.

But here's the thing! That's not a DM concern! That's a "guy in the room" concern. Take out the word DM. Add in Player. "If a Player hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?" Obviously he shouldn't.

The key here is that these sorts of decisions, made not as DM but rather as just some guy in a D&D game, have less legitimacy than decisions made as a DM. They're being made from a position that is on par with everyone else in the room. And as such, compromise or adjudication of issues that affect the DM not as a DM but rather as a player in the game need to be made from the perspective of a group of equals. Not from the perspective of one person dictating his will to his subordinates.

The only "power" a DM has to resolve "guy in the room" issues unrelated to his role as a DM is the power of the superior ultimatum- its generally harder to get a new DM than to get a new player, so the DM can make better threats to take his stuff and go home. But lets be clear, in the "ban X because I hate it" context, that's all that's happening- the DM isn't trying to bring an unruly player into line, two friends are sitting in a basement arguing and threatening to take their toys and go home if the other won't play the game the way they demand. One might own more of the toys, and therefore have superior leverage, but there's nothing going on other than a power play between moral equals.

 

[Mallus]

Tone is important.

Sure. But complete uniformity of tone is not.

And a DM that needs to prevent a player from calling their PC's pet 'Mittens' in order to preserve the campaign's tone probably hasn't done a very good job establishing that tone in the first place. If they had, the tone wouldn't be so fragile as to be threatened by a dire lion named Mittens.

 

[Nebulous]

Now of course the immediate response to this is, "But if a DM hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?" Which is fair.

But here's the thing! That's not a DM concern! That's a "guy in the room" concern. Take out the word DM. Add in Player. "If a Player hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?" Obviously he shouldn't.

I for one hate dragonborn, mostly because the art i have seen of them, which inundates the PHB and DMG, are not good pictures IMO, and because they do not fit the kind of pseudo-medieval campaign i'm currently running. Although that campaign is the new FR and it's a core race there, convenientaly explained by the Spell Plauge problems.

Anyway, i haven't had any players want to play a dragonborn, and i told them last week i'm glad about that (prompting a joke about his next character being a warforged/dragonborn).

Now, if one of them had INSISTED on playing a dragonborn? Well, first i would explain again why i don't like them, and i think they should be a rare and misunderstood species currently residing on a different continent. If the player STILL wanted to do it, or offered a reasonable explanation, i would give in. It doesn't matter enough to me to cause waves, it's just a game of the imagination anyway, but as DM i would put something i feel very strongly about first. In the end, if i'm having a good time with the story and characters, then so are the players.

Although i would be quick to inject a healthy dose of "fear and misunderstanding" about this draconic race blazing through town, and i would let the player know it's going to draw stares. If nothing else, it would become a strong story/roleplaying element.

 

[S'mon]

"But what about a DM who bans dragonborn because he just hates them? I don't think that DM is acting as a DM. He's not using his higher vantage point to make a decision that's best for the group. He's like the judge who tries to lock you in jail because your kid beat her kid in a baseball game..."

I disagree. A GM is not a judge. A judge should not adjudicate based on his/her personal enjoyment. A judge is paid to be impartial. A GM isn't paid. The GM's reward is enjoyment. A GM needs to take his/her own preferences and enjoyment into account when making a decision.

For instance, when I as GM kick a player out of my group because I don't enjoy GMing for them. I am 'acting as a GM'. Maybe it would be good if I did enjoy GMing for them, or if I were happy to suck up the unpleasantness, but I'm not, I don't, and it doesn't mean I'm 'not acting as a GM' when I do so.

 

[Hussar]

Oh yeah, how if a player wanted to play a dragonborn, it wasn't legitimate for the GM to say "No, I don't like them". Please let us not go there again.

No, lets.

What's the difference between that case and this one?

You say it is perfectly legitimate for the GM to say, "I don't like them" and that's the end of the discussion. The GM's preference is prime.

What difference does it make if "them" is dragonborn or what the player wants to name her pet? After all, both decisions are player decisions - the player wants to play a dragonborn, the player wants to name her pet "mittens".

So, if I'm understanding you right, the DM has absolute authority in game over every single facet and the players have none. After all, if I, as DM, can veto the NAME of a character, that's pretty absolute authority.

Where does it stop? "I don't like them" is a pretty broad and well oiled slope. "I don't like you doing X" is the same thing is it not? Should a DM be allowed to veto any player action in the game simply based on the DM's preference? Or is this solely limited to character creation? If so, then why? Why does the DM's authority stop when the game starts? If I have the authority given to me by virtue of sitting in the big chair to rewrite your character concept to suit my whim (or preference if that makes you feel better), then why can I not rewrite anything else?

How does this point of view not totally legitimize railroading?

 

[chriton227]

The OP actually used the word "silly" to describe the names she was giving the animals.

The reason you changed the phrasing from "silly" to "minor elements of humor and lightheartedness" is because there's a difference between "silly" and "minor elements of humor and lightheartedness."

True, but a "silly" name is not the same as a "silly" character or "silly" behavior. I've met and aggressive rottwieler named "Princess". It is a silly name. It was not a silly dog. The name certainly didn't make interactions with the dog silly.

In real life, what about "Rosey" Grier? Rosey is undoubtedly a silly name, especially for a guy of Rosey's size and strength. Do you think the guys that Rosey Grier drove into the ground in the NFL thought the game in general or being mauled specifically was silly because the guy doing it was named Rosey? Was Robert Kennedy's assassination and the apprehension of Sirhan Sirhan silly because a guy named Rosey helped to apprehend him and made sure that he survived to be brought to trial instead of being killed by the crowd?

To me, a silly name *is* a "minor bit of humor and lightheartedness", not a full out decent into vaudeville or Monty Python slapstick. If on the other hand, the OP's bear was yellow, wore a red shirt, craved hunny, and got stuck in rabbit holes, *that* would be a silly bear (a silly old bear to be exact).

It is a false dichotomy to say that things are either "silly" or "serious", there is a whole continuum in between. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "serious as a documentary on effects of small pox on Native American populations" and 10 being "a Looney Toons/Animaniacs marathon weekend", I would rank an otherwise serious character with a silly name about a 2 or 3. A name is just a name, it is the actions of the character that really set the tone.

 

[S'mon]

No, lets.

But you'll only get me banned again...

 

[S'mon]

What difference does it make if "them" is dragonborn or what the player wants to name her pet?

From my POV, a Player Character (not Player!) is at liberty to name her pet whatever she wishes. That falls entirely within the player's prerogative, along with stuff like loot division. In the absence of mind-control magic I believe in letting PCs do whatever the heck they want.

Playing a Dragonborn requires that Dragonborn exist in the campaign world, and is not something a Player Character can decide ("Hmm, I think I'll be a dragonborn!"), so it does not fall within the player's prerogative. The GM is free to allow it or disallow it.

 

[Simm]

Now of course the immediate response to this is, "But if a DM hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?" Which is fair.

But here's the thing! That's not a DM concern! That's a "guy in the room" concern. Take out the word DM. Add in Player. "If a Player hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?" Obviously he shouldn't.

The difficulty I have with this statement is that a player who is unhappy with elements within a campaign has the opportunity to avoid them or, if all else fails, to leave the game. I may not like tieflings. I may really hate there fluff and implementation within the game but if another player insists on playing one I might find it irritating but it isn't that much of a problem. I can even turn it into an advantage by creating dynamic tension between our characters. This will be disruptive but probably not fatal to the game.

The DM doesn't have these lesser options. If the DM is unhappy with elements of the campaign world and the players insist on using them, which you say they should be able to use. He can't avoid those elements. If he hates tieflings and a player insists on playing one he can't ignore them and has to deal with their imprecations on the game. If a DM leaves the game than, usually, that campaign is over.

My rule in general is that the DM being happy with a campaign is more important than any particular player being happy with it because an unengaged player is unfortunate and will damage the game but an unengaged DM will kill it.