Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[S'mon]

Divine intervention - a player should never be able to mandate divine intervention ("My father Zeus would rescue me!") IMO, but whether a PC believes they were possessed by a god should normally be within the player's prerogative I think*. The GM can determine the truth of the matter for his own purposes, or, perhaps better, keep it deliberately unresolved. Maybe some fraction of the god's psyche possessed the PC, as occurs in many real-world religions - it's not a particularly big deal if the Loa rides you awhile, or you felt filled with the Holy Spirit. The GM should be able to run with that.

*With the understanding that the player cannot mandate any mechanical effect from this. I had a player recently claimed his PC background made him unkillable. Nope.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Mandated? That's a bit strong dontcha think?

I'm not mandating anything.

The problem is, people keep exploding my position to include all sorts of things it shouldn't. Most of the time, we'd likely agree, I think.

99% of the time, the conversation will likely go something like this:

DM: I am running a new campaign. You can have options A, B, and C.
Player: Hrm, I don't really like those, can I try D?
DM: Well, no, I don't think so for these reasons...
Player: Ok.

or

DM: I am running a new campaign. You have options A, B and C.
Player: Hrm, I don't really like those, can I try D?
DM: Ok.

IMO, that's what's going to happen 99% of the time.

With Oryan and his player, apparently we've strayed into that 1%.

Now, this is where my "mandated" style comes in. When you reach and impasse and neither the DM nor the player wants to budge. Apparently, there are a number of DM's out there, who have chimed in on this thread, who think that booting the player out of the game is the better option. That maintaining their vision of the campaign is more important than the player.

I disagree. I think, at this point and ONLY this point, the DM should step back, really look at what's important and probably back down and let the player have what he or she wants.

I mean, apparently in this case we're talking about a Planescape campaign. Complaining about silly names in a PS campaign seems a bit strange considering the whacked out crap that the setting is filled with. All sorts of anachronisms and steampunkesque bits. A pet named Fluffy doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Certainly not something to get into this big of a fight over.

((Now the other issues, like a diety possession and whatnot, I am NOT going to comment on))

So, yeah, I do think that in those very rare situations when there is an absolute impasse, where you have tried to compromise and nothing seems to fit with both the DM and the player, giving way to the player is the better option.

Note, this is only my opinion and should not be seen as anything other than my opinion. If you want to wear the "viking hat" more power to you. I've certainly been there in the past. I used to agree with GregK and S'mon 100% about this sort of thing. I don't anymore because I find it works better the other way. YMMV and all that.

 

[Vegepygmy]

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

Not in my eyes. I think this is simply an incompatibility issue, and if I had AOS playing in my game, I bet I'd respond pretty much exactly the way Oryan did.

 

[ProfessorPain]

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

Maybe I am just old school, but I don't get a control freak GM vibe from him. Remember it is the job of the GM to enforce the rules of the game, so that everyone has fun and the game is balanced. What this player proposed was potentially unbalancing. I know I wouldn't want another player to have that background in my campaign, unless it fit with the rules and setting. Relatedly, it is the job of the GM to make these kinds of editorial decisions to maximize everyone's enjoyment of the game. He has to consider the other players' tastes. My gut tells me, he was making this call on behalf of everyone else in the group. If they don't want silly names, or a character with that sort of background, then it is perfectly acceptable for the GM to prohibit those things. Another point, it sounds like this was a new player coming into the group (a friend of a friend situation). It isn't very gracious to immediately get in an argument with teh GM when you are new to a group. You kind of have to adapt to the groups style in those situations.

 

[S'mon]

My POV is that the DM should make every effort to see things from the player's POV, to think how the player's desires can be squared with the DM's desires, and not arbitrarily squash something without considering it (unless the player has already established they're a fount of crappy ideas - I had one of those recently).

But at the end of the day it's up to the DM to make the call. If Oryan can't stand animal companions to have silly names, very well. I do think it's better he stand firm than run the game boiling with resentment (which Hussar doesn't think ever happens).

I guess my problem is that in the abstract I disagree with Hussar's approach - I believe in the unquestioned authority of the GM, and all that entails. But in the concrete, I would not have done what Oryan did. I'd have wanted to talk through with the player how to make her ideas work in-game, while retaining their essential essence. Unless she was a total munchkin or similar* I'd have treated her with more respect than I think Oryan did. With the great authority of the DM comes great responsibility to use it wisely.

*White Wolf playing, elf-murdering moral relativist, to give one particular example.

So, I'm probably not very clear here, but I think my problem with Hussar's approach is that it says "In the last resort, say yes." I argue the reverse - in the last resort, you need to follow your instinct and say no, if necessary. If you can't stand Dragonborn, and the player won't agree to you reskinning them to fit your campaign, you need to stand firm and ban them. But first find out what it is the player really wants - the powers? Well, maybe you have a human-looking clan descended from a dragon with those powers. To look like an alligator? Well, there are some lizardmen in that marsh...

 

[S'mon]

Maybe I am just old school, but I don't get a control freak GM vibe from him. Remember it is the job of the GM to enforce the rules of the game, so that everyone has fun and the game is balanced. What this player proposed was potentially unbalancing. I know I wouldn't want another player to have that background in my campaign, unless it fit with the rules and setting.

My POV is that the player has no right to mandate any mechanical benefit from their background. So there's no way "I was possessed by a god" can be unbalancing - any benefits acrued would be at GM's discretion, and in 3e/4e would count to standard wealth by level. I'd treat it as at most a plot hook.

 

[ProfessorPain]

My POV is that the player has no right to mandate any mechanical benefit from their background. So there's no way "I was possessed by a god" can be unbalancing - any benefits acrued would be at GM's discretion, and in 3e/4e would count to standard wealth by level. I'd treat it as at most a plot hook.

Even without specific mechanical benefits, having that kind of 'relationship' with a divine entity, will create balance issues. Again, I am just going on what has been said, but when a player asks for this sort of thing, it usually isn't just a fluff thing. There are expecting some benefits, even if they are stricly in terms of story (religious or political power, having the knowledge that the god possesses etc). It is also unfair to the players who are not possessed. It really gives that player a shine the others are going to have trouble to compete with; it all but forces the GM to center the story on that player. I am not saying it cannot be done. But if the GM doesn't want to have to put up with this sort of background, or the other players' object, the person requesting it should just drop it. Perhaps somewhere down the road, they can fit the background into another campaign. The GM needs to have some control over backgrounds, especially if they that outrageous. As a player I would be glad my GM didn't let the new guy be possessed by a God.

 

[mmu1]

Even without specific mechanical benefits, having that kind of 'relationship' with a divine entity, will create balance issues. Again, I am just going on what has been said, but when a player asks for this sort of thing, it usually isn't just a fluff thing. There are expecting some benefits, even if they are stricly in terms of story (religious or political power, having the knowledge that the god possesses etc). It is also unfair to the players who are not possessed. It really gives that player a shine the others are going to have trouble to compete with; it all but forces the GM to center the story on that player. I am not saying it cannot be done. But if the GM doesn't want to have to put up with this sort of background, or the other players' object, the person requesting it should just drop it. Perhaps somewhere down the road, they can fit the background into another campaign. The GM needs to have some control over backgrounds, especially if they that outrageous. As a player I would be glad my GM didn't let the new guy be possessed by a God.

Exactly... Presumably, the backstory is there for the DM to work with.

If that's the case, the player who comes up with a character who used to be the avatar of a god, or is a dispossessed royal, or that once wielded epic power but is now a low level character is bringing a ton of baggage into the campaign. If the DM doesn't give that character the spotlight, he opens himself up to accusations of ignoring all the "hard work" the player did coming up with the character background - and if he does, he's letting one person dictate the tone of the campaign.

I don't know what other people's experiences are, but I have yet to play in a good campaign in which every PC had a complex and heroic background, they all got equal time center stage, and all those adventures were seamlessly woven into the overall plot in a way that didn't overshadow it. Few people manage that sort of thing when writing a novel, with complete control of the story... Which is why I think it's actually a good idea for a DM to make the players be realistic (meaning, account for the fact they're just one out of five or six people who all deserve equal time) with their character backgrounds.

 

[S'mon]

Even without specific mechanical benefits, having that kind of 'relationship' with a divine entity, will create balance issues.

There are plenty of religions, like voodoo, where divine possession is a normal part of worship. Maybe you're right that the player is a munchkin looking to blindside the GM and dominate the game, but as GM I prefer not to think that until I get strong evidence to the contrary.

 

[S'mon]

If that's the case, the player who comes up with a character who used to be the avatar of a god, or is a dispossessed royal, or that once wielded epic power but is now a low level character is bringing a ton of baggage into the campaign. If the DM doesn't give that character the spotlight, he opens himself up to accusations of ignoring all the "hard work" the player did coming up with the character background.

That wouldn't fly with me. Having the GM make use of your background is a privilege, not a right. IMC your PC might buy the farm tomorrow, all that hard work (which I didn't require) is wasted anyway.