Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[S'mon]

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

I assume the backstory is there to inform the player's roleplaying of their character. Nothing to do with me, unless I choose to use an element of it in play. I run dungeons, not soap operas.

Eg I recently had a nameless bandit mook encountered in the dungeon turn out to be the brother of a PC - he could well have been killed before she recognised him; but luckily it worked out, there was a tearful reunion, and very happy player. Conversely I had a player who sent reams of backstory I barely glanced at after a while. When the PC died he informed me that in fact he could not die; his PC was cursed to be killed by a red dragon and therefore unkillable otherwise (!!!!!). I booted his arse right away.

 

[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...

I played one of those recently - an elderly Wizard who used to be high level but had retired after a terrible (& level-draining) battle with a demon. There were no problems that I could discern. The GM said I'd been in stasis a thousand years so I had no contacts or useful knowledge.

 

[Imaro]

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.

You do realize Oryan77 was cool with the above... right?

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.

 

[Oryan77]

Your response is a bit too much "I banish thee, heretic, for doubting my excellence!" for my taste.

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

I don't know if you guys are trying to be helpful by pointing out my flaws, or if you're just trying to belittle me. Either way, I'm well aware of what people might think are my "flaws".

Expecting a DM to run a game your way is as much of being a control freak as you say I am being.

I can understand why you'd think this about me. When I meet strangers interested in joining, I tell them up front what limitations there will be. But I have many more options than I have limitations. The OP didn't have the opportunity to interview me because she came in as a friend of a player. If we did interview each other, I probably wouldn't have even invited her to the group because I'd realize she would have a problem with my DMing style. Also, she may have realized beforehand that she wouldn't want to play in our campaign because of my "flaws" (I don't find them as flaws but I understand others might).

Look, people can criticize a DM for wanting to run a campaign the way he wants to run it. You have every right not to like his way of DMing. But at the same time, I don't like DMing for players that need to be catered too and pampered as if they are doing me a favor by playing in our campaign. I don't like to DM high maintenance players. And believe me, there are plenty of them out there.

I don't claim to be a perfect DM for everyone, but I try my best to be a good DM (DMing is a difficult thing to do well). It's not like I don't try to make the players happy. But if I'm not happy DMing, then I can't run a good game and then nobody will be happy playing D&D. I would rather not DM than be forced to DM in a way I don't like. I would never tell a DM that he should be running his campaign a certain way or he should give me whatever I want. I would be grateful that he's DMing me and doing that extra work for my entertainment. If I didn't want to play in a game like his, I simply wouldn't play. I'm not going to post a thread on Enworld and badmouth him cause I didn't get my way.

I like my style, I like my players, I think the rest of them like me, and I know our game isn't for everyone.

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.

I'm confused. What makes you think that I wasn't trying to help her make her history work and keep the same basic story she was trying to convey? Wanting to change an NPC from a god to something less divine is considered a complete rewrite of a background?

My gut tells me, he was making this call on behalf of everyone else in the group.

Yes that's exactly the reason. I don't mind contact with a powerful NPC or even a proxy of a deity. But none of the other players have as epic of a history as having direct contact with a deity. It just seemed too extreme for the campaign & their level.

It isn't very gracious to immediately get in an argument with the GM when you are new to a group. You kind of have to adapt to the groups style in those situations.

She was very argumentative even the first day I met her and we played together. We let her know that we try not to argue at the table and she did a great job adapting to that. It seemed like she had to do a lot of adapting though; which frustrated her & led to the downfall

Maybe you're right that the player is a munchkin looking to blindside the GM and dominate the game

Naw, I don't think that was her intention. She was simply just trying to create an interesting history and probably thought it would be unique.

Oh and thanks for the XP everyone. I've been out of the Enworld loop for months, so I'm not really sure what it means though

 

[DonTadow]

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

Funny thing is, while reading this thread these lastfew days, I got the feeling tht it was just the whining of a player and not your fault. No DM is that evil, else they would not have able to dm that long. And honestly, if you read between the line in her posts, you get the incompatability issue. Kudos on ocming on and clearing up the matter.

You have been unfairly judged, and I call all charges to be dropped immediately .

She came into an established campaign with outlandish ideas, so it should be understood that she will need to adjust to the group. I have had a couple of these types of situations come up in my years of dming. For some reason, there are players that move into a campaign and attempt to "test" the dm, try to get away with something that their previous dm(s) did not allow. It's up to the DM to stick with the rules of his world and campaign and, if a player asks, try to work with hte players to take their character concept into your world. Sounds like she is one of those players who needs to make her character "special" and seperate. Call it the batman syndrome. This is when a player, in a need to make their character the most important or most standout, needs to create additional rules for a player to make them stand out.

I have a player at my game that started out just like this, and we didn't get off on the right foot, but after about a year we learned how to work with one another and now she's one of the best players at the table. What you have to do is make sure that thye don't introduce any thing extra that compromises 1. the integrity of the game is not compromised and no rules are broken, 2. that requires additional dm effort or wastes other players time and 3. will not break the immersion of the game. Also, when you have a player like this, you need to make sure that you develop moments in every few games where the player has the opportunity to shine. (Though i think this should be a rule for all characters, when u have a player like this u need to make sure).

In my experience I've had players want to play children, want to train specific breeds of dogs and develop statistics for them all and players that wanted to start off with the inert ability to fly because she's been possessed by a demon her whole life. Yet, once given guidelines and stuck firm with them, I've seen all of these players create normal characters that they enjoyed and loose the feel to make eccentric characters to be noticed in the party.

Eg I recently had a nameless bandit mook encountered in the dungeon turn out to be the brother of a PC - he could well have been killed before she recognised him; but luckily it worked out, there was a tearful reunion, and very happy player. Conversely I had a player who sent reams of backstory I barely glanced at after a while. When the PC died he informed me that in fact he could not die; his PC was cursed to be killed by a red dragon and therefore unkillable otherwise (!!!!!). I booted his arse right away.

That is sad. YOu should be so lucky to have players that care enough about a game to dedicate their personal time to a character. The fact that you ignore backgrounds shows a lack of expanding your imagination of the game and a clear sign of taking advantage of players. Backgrounds are a players way of saying. I"d like for this to come up inthe campaign and a great resource for DMs to structure adventures. If you're idea of dming is creating a maze and plopping down some creatures, you're robbing your players of not just the rest of the game, but the kind of story they obviously want to experience.

 

[S'mon]

I'm confused. What makes you think that I wasn't trying to help her make her history work and keep the same basic story she was trying to convey? Wanting to change an NPC from a god to something less divine is considered a complete rewrite of a background?

Yes, absolutely. I would have been furious if I were in her place. Can't you see how "Touched by the Divine" is different from "Touched by a Demon/Devil/Lich/High Level Wizard"? A blanket 'no' would have been better. To me it destroys the integrity of the concept.

 

[S'mon]

That is sad. YOu should be so lucky to have players that care enough about a game to dedicate their personal time to a character. The fact that you ignore backgrounds shows a lack of expanding your imagination of the game and a clear sign of taking advantage of players. Backgrounds are a players way of saying. I"d like for this to come up inthe campaign and a great resource for DMs to structure adventures. If you're idea of dming is creating a maze and plopping down some creatures, you're robbing your players of not just the rest of the game, but the kind of story they obviously want to experience.

OK, time to put the viking hat back on...

I'm really more interested in what I want to experience. If the players are interested in it too, great, I run (and am running) my game. If they weren't, I wouldn't be running it. I'm not interested in drama-queen players (so who knows, if aos is the way Obryn describes I might have taken the same view of her he did; but on what's been said I didn't see her demanding anything off the GM like special powers or extra spotlight time).

For my current campaign I mostly run old site-based published modules (eg the classics Rahasia, Horror on the Hill, and the recent C&C Palace of Shadows) that the PCs interact with. It's an approach that I think works well for a twice-monthly, open access, low prep campaign in a games club. There is a very loose campaign arc in my head, based on sequential modules. Plot and story emerge in play, not foreordained by character background. I absolutely reject that I am obliged to use any element of a PC's background. I use it if I choose to, if it appeals to me and it fits with what's happening in the game. Eg a player had her PC's brother be a bandit, it made sense for the nameless NPC bandit in the dungeon to be her brother. I certainly don't require PC backgrounds; not all players supply them beyond maybe a single line - "I'm a Cleric of the Unconquered Sun". We've had 8 deaths in 11 sessions, and if your PC dies the work on a background is wasted. That doesn't bother me.

I will mine PC backgrounds for tidbits that enhance the fun of the game, but I see them very much as resource for the player to aid in playing their PC, not an obligation or burden imposed on the GM.

 

[DonTadow]

Yes, absolutely. I would have been furious if I were in her place. Can't you see how "Touched by the Divine" is different from "Touched by a Demon/Devil/Lich/High Level Wizard"? A blanket 'no' would have been better. To me it destroys the integrity of the concept.

When a player writes a background, they write it from the perspective of the PC, not the omnipresent view, such s the one the dm has. Breaking that barrier underminds the DM.

What diffrence is it to the pc what the true nature of the "touched" is. The pc does not know, she believes what she believes and it has influenced that personality. However, once that background enters the dms world its fare game. I have a character who told me he was a member of the resistance against the kingdom the pc is in at 1st level. What he dosnt know is that he's so far on the bottom wrong of the resistance, that he doesn't know their real motives are to bring back a great evil.

As a player, she should excpet this and look forward to seeing how this really should unravel from a character development point of view. What the DM has done is give her a plot in the world, a reason to adventure and care outside of whatever other things come up for the party.

OK, time to put the viking hat back on...

I'm really more interested in what I want to experience. If the players are interested in it too, great, I run (and am running) my game. If they weren't, I wouldn't be running it. I'm not interested in drama-queen players (so who knows, if aos is the way Obryn describes I might have taken the same view of her he did; but on what's been said I didn't see her demanding anything off the GM like special powers or extra spotlight time).

For my current campaign I mostly run old site-based published modules (eg the classics Rahasia, Horror on the Hill, and the recent C&C Palace of Shadows) that the PCs interact with. It's an approach that I think works well for a twice-monthly, open access, low prep campaign in a games club. There is a very loose campaign arc in my head, based on sequential modules. Plot and story emerge in play, not foreordained by character background. I absolutely reject that I am obliged to use any element of a PC's background. I use it if I choose to, if it appeals to me and it fits with what's happening in the game. Eg a player had her PC's brother be a bandit, it made sense for the nameless NPC bandit in the dungeon to be her brother. I certainly don't require PC backgrounds; not all players supply them beyond maybe a single line - "I'm a Cleric of the Unconquered Sun". We've had 8 deaths in 11 sessions, and if your PC dies the work on a background is wasted. That doesn't bother me.

I will mine PC backgrounds for tidbits that enhance the fun of the game, but I see them very much as resource for the player to aid in playing their PC, not an obligation or burden imposed on the GM.

What the DM in this posting and what you do are two different things. YOur game sounds like Decent with Dungeons and DRagons (I think they call that 4e now ) . How can there be any character development when there's a new character coming into the party every week. Not saying that its not fun (because its your game, your players, it works for you guys) , but this DM seems to have more of a story focused campaign world that relies on PCs who contribute to the world via engrossing backgrounds and their in game storytelling. It is important for those backgrounds to make sense with the world. Backgrounds should not provide as many facts as they should to help the DM develop mysteries and tie the player to the campaign world .

 

[S'mon]

When a player writes a background, they write it from the perspective of the PC, not the omnipresent view, such s the one the dm has. Breaking that barrier underminds the DM.

If you're saying that the GM has the right to make a private note to himself "Thinks she was god-possessed... actually a lich." - sure, that's fine. I agree 100%.

What's important is that the player can use the concept to inform the roleplaying of the character. So don't tell her it was a lich, not IC nor OOC. If the truth ever is revealed, it should be for good reason. Until then it's a Schrodinger's cat - who knows, the GM might change his mind and decide it really was a god after all!

Edit: Although I'd not do this myself, 'possessed by a god' is just so much cooler, and has far more mythic resonance.

 

[S'mon]

What the DM in this posting and what you do are two different things. YOur game sounds like Decent with Dungeons and DRagons (I think they call that 4e now ) .

I don't think classic Red Box Basic modules like B5 Horror on the Hill and B7 Rahasia, or a Dungeon Crawl Classic like Palace of Shadows, bear much resemblance to 'Decent' (I think you mean 'Descent'), nor even much to 4e. There's plenty of roleplaying and in-character interaction as well as fighting and killing. But it's old school; character and story emerge in play, they're not pre-written.