Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[DonTadow]

Of course players assist in creating the sense of immersion. Playing a single session with bored, unengaged and otherwise disinterested players should be enough to prove that.

By doing their job, immersing themselves, they are providing their part of the game. True if a player sits there disinterested talking about the last night's episode of smallville, then it will break the immersion of the game. However, it falls on the DM to keep that player on track or remove that player if he is going to be a constant deterence to the immersion.

The player's input is still required to bring the world to life. Therefore, they are necessary 'partners in Creation' (sorry to keep using that phrase, I really like it, I think it's from Judaism).

A player being disruptive is no more creating the world than a player being immersive is creating the world. The player's job, or function at the game is to play the game, and apart of that function is to role play or immerse themselves in the world. The end though, still relies on the DM to make sure that they are providing their end of the bargain. A DM can't make a player play, but can control who plays at the game and thus, keeps the world functioning as it is suppose to.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Therefore they should share in a bit of the power, no? The DM should grant them that much, at least with regard to nomenclature.

Since you seem to have completely overlooked my point, I'll repeat it:

Players typically exercise power over the game world only through their characters. To that degree, yes, they have a responsibility to use that power appropriately (and help produce an immersive world).

Or as Jeff Wilder more bluntly puts it:

Of course it's true that players share the responsibility of creating an immersive world.

That's exactly why they shouldn't do things that go against the tone the DM wants, like giving silly names to their characters and companions.

And to bring us full circle, I'll answer your question: why does the DM get to dictate the tone?

Because power and responsibility go hand in hand. The DM is responsible for everything in the world that isn't a PC, so he has power over everything in the world that isn't a PC--including its tone. The players (typically) have all the power over their PCs, and therefore they have the responsibility to use that power appropriately--which includes making sure that the PC's name (and the names of things the PC gives a name to) support rather than undermine the immersiveness of the DM's world.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

One can have control without being an iron fist dictator.

If the pet was called "Farty McButtcheese" I could understand not wanting it. Banning a bear named Marshmallow is a bit too much in my opinion.

 

[Mallus]

And to bring us full circle, I'll answer your question: why does the DM get to dictate the tone?

Because power and responsibility go hand in hand. The DM is responsible for everything in the world that isn't a PC, so he has power over everything in the world that isn't a PC--including its tone.

Isn't acknowledging and/or validating a player's input one of a DM's responsibilities?

...--which includes making sure that the PC's name (and the names of things the PC gives a name to) support rather than undermine the immersiveness of the DM's world.

And maybe this is core of our disagreement. It stops being the "DM's world" as soon as her or she lets the players into it. Look, I'm an inveterate homebrewer and I'll say with all lack-of-modesty I'm pretty damn good at it. I know firsthand what it feels like to be protective of a settings I've authored. But the minute I agree to run a campaign in one, that world becomes ours.

edit: perhaps the best way to put it is that, when I DM, I'm more concerned with my responsibilities toward my players --including accepting and incorporating input from them I don't particularly like-- than I am with their responsibilities toward me (at least w/r/t keeping everything in the game exactly to my taste).

I'm more interested in sharing my world than making other people conform to it. The viking hat just doesn't fit me anymore...

 

[Mallus]

One can have control without being an iron fist dictator.

If the pet was called "Farty McButtcheese" I could understand not wanting it. Banning a bear named Marshmallow is a bit too much in my opinion.

Exactly!

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Any DM worth his salt is going to either make recommendations for names, or work with the players to find a happy medium. I can fully understand the necessity for wishing to maintain a tone to the game; fantasy names irritate me just as much as stupid or silly names.

There is a middle ground to be found. Make a character name that is satisfactory and use a nickname amongst your comrades.

 

[Maggan]

Isn't acknowledging and/or validating a player's input one of a DM's responsibilities?

So your stance is that the DM should bend over for any wish a player makes?

IMO he should draw a line based on his planned game, and if the player doesn't agree with that he/she should examine whether that game is for him/her or not.

And if it's not, just walk out. A DM who is abusive ends up without players. It's a natural selection.

If my DM told me "no naming pets Marshmallow" I'd go "okay" and get on with playing the game, so I fail to see why it's being made out to be the poster child of abusive DM's.

/M

 

[Mallus]

I can fully understand the necessity for wishing to maintain a tone to the game; fantasy names irritate me just as much as stupid or silly names.

Wishing to maintain an overall tone is fine, and the DM has ample opportunity to do while still ceding pet and/or PC naming rights to the players. This is more about wanting to maintain absolute control over campaign tone, which seems, well, unnecessary to me.

I literally drown the players in names during the course a campaign. A few outlier names belonging to the PC's isn't especially disruptive to the overall tone.

 

[Mallus]

So your stance is that the DM should bend over for any wish a player makes?

I bet you already know that isn't what I wrote nor meant.

A DM who is abusive ends up without players. It's a natural selection.

I'm discussing techniques that can yield to a better game with more engaged players, not Darwin.

If my DM told me "no naming pets Marshmallow" I'd go "okay" and get on with playing the game...

So would I. Of course I've been talking about what a DM should do in that situation.

so I fail to see why it's being made out to be the poster child of abusive DM's.

I'm not labeling anyone anything. I'm questioning why, exactly, some DM's feel the need to exert that level of authorial control over their games. Specifically, is there any benefit to it, other than making the players conform to the DM's aesthetic? And if that's it, what are the drawbacks?

 

[Maggan]

I bet you already know that isn't what I wrote nor meant.

I wasn't really sure what you meant, actually.

You ask so many questions yourself that seem very rethorical and mostly aimed at establishing a position where the action of disallowing "Marshmallow" as a name for a pet is painted as a prime example of bad DMing.

That's how I read it. I might have misunderstood your questions, and the motivation for asking them though.

/M