Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[Maggan]

Specifically, is there any benefit to it, other than making the players conform to the DM's aesthetic?

Consistency of tone being one, for example, and one which has been mentioned several times during this thread.

For us, it's the differences between the game worlds we play in that make them interesting. So the DM sets the tone for one game, and another for another game.

A freewheeling whimsical game feels and plays differently than a serious and tragic game, for exampel. And that's the benefit right there; by letting the DM set the tone, we get to explore different types of styles and assumptions, which we don't get if a player is free to carry the freewheeling whimsical attitude into the serious and tragic game.

It's like design, really. It's the limitations that make a game interesting to play in. And those limits are, in our group, primarily set by the DM.

That way we can experience many different ways of creating fun for the players. Although our group might be a bit atypical, being made up of six DMs/GMs. We play six sessions under one DM and then switch to another, with a new set of assumptions that he presents.

/M

 

[Arnwyn]

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.

This pretty much covers it, along with Jeff Wilder's comments. Done and done.

 

[Mallus]

A freewheeling whimsical game feels and plays differently than a serious and tragic game, for example.

Agreed. I suppose our difference is that I don't feel as dash of whimsy spoils a good tragedy. I've played in campaign with varying tones before , but I have to admit I've never played in one with a completely uniform tone. My experiences with D&D have been quite the opposite. While a campaign might have an overall tone, they're also usually a bit of a hodgepodge --this, I think is endemic to D&D and a large part of 'D&D-style' fantasy-- w/r/t genre influences and tone.

And that's the benefit right there; by letting the DM set the tone, we get to explore different types of styles and assumptions...

This is exactly how I feel about allowing PC input I don't like into one of my homebrews... I get to explore my creation from a fresh perspective as I'm forced to incorporate material that I wouldn't have included otherwise.

Although our group might be a bit atypical, being made up of six DMs/GMs. We play six sessions under one DM and then switch to another, with a new set of assumptions that he presents.

Our current campaign will have 4 DM's by the time it ends, running in a setting created primarily by two of them.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think the disconnect for me is that I've never seen D&D - in any edition - as a game that ever could be 100% serious. If they were playing, say, Promethean, then I suppose it could be vaguely possible, but even then, a campaign that never gets silly? That isn't going to happen. Forget characters for a minute, there's no way players are going to somehow disconnect the idea of humor from the game. And good grief, that's a good thing. Imagine a world without black humor, or without little bits of silliness at even the worst of times. What a horrible, horrible concept.

Taking control away from the players doesn't help the game. It just pisses them off. You can suggest that a character changes the name, but you never force it, because then all you have is an angry player. And if they choose not to change it, so long as it's nothing obscene, play with it and see how it goes. If Marshmallow is a problem with other players and yourself, then yeah, pull the offender aside and talk to them. But if the only one getting their face red is you, then maybe the pet isn't the problem.

The bad DM says "No," the good DM says "Maybe," the really good DM says "Roll and we'll find out." The issue here is that, quite frankly, I still don't see the issue with "Marshmallow," and I don't think the player did either. And the DM hasn't really offered a reason for it as well, other then "It didn't fit the tone." We don't know what the tone is. We don't know what the other characters or NPCs were named. All we know is that the DM said "No, screw you, that's banned."

 

[Oryan77]

but you never force it, because then all you have is an angry player.

At the same time, I can say, "because then all you have is an angry DM." It's one thing if a DM like Mallus wants to allow players to help dictate the game world, but when a DM doesn't want to run that type of campaign and the player demands to use a silly name, that's just being a selfish & controlling player in my eyes.

If Marshmallow is a problem with other players and yourself, then yeah, pull the offender aside and talk to them.

I was not the only one in the group that thought the name Marshmallow was silly. We don't want this campaign to be a "silly" campaign. Yes, we have comedy relief in this campaign. No, Roger Rabbit antics are not our form of comedy relief in this campaign.

The bad DM says "No,"

So any time a player doesn't get his way, the DM is being a bad DM? I don't agree with that at all.

I still don't see the issue with "Marshmallow," and I don't think the player did either.

Everyone will have their own opinion on what is silly and what isn't. I shouldn't have to defend my opinion to the player beyond saying that I just don't want to hear a stupid name that fits more in a Loony Tunes episode rather than a Star Wars movie. But I tried to explain why I thought it was silly (which is very hard to do). When I innocently tried to explain it, she called me sexist in return.

And the DM hasn't really offered a reason for it as well, other then "It didn't fit the tone." All we know is that the DM said "No, screw you, that's banned."

Nope, I always try to be nice when I have to say "no". Just because a player didn't get their way doesn't mean I'm a jerk that said "screw you". I hate telling a player no. One of the best pieces of advice I got on Enworld years ago was, "Always try to say yes."

See, I've dealt with a lot of players with bad gaming habits. One player type that doesn't fit in with our group is the "selfish" type. I actually do give players a lot of things they ask for during character creation. I even offer them things they didn't ask for. I put together a list of about 35 PC races to choose from and I have never turned down a PrC or class request. I use magic items from the DMG & MIC. Sometimes, that's not even enough for selfish players. They'll still beg me to give them magic items from a different book or allow a race not on my list. I would even run a particular adventure if they asked me to. I would even stop running certain types of encounters if they didn't like them. The thing is, selfish players never acknowledge all the times I've said "yes". But boy, they are sure quick to criticize me when I say "no".

I think "it doesn't fit the tone because it is too silly" is the best reason I can give. That should be good enough for you. The only thing I feel obligated doing after that is explaining why I think it's silly...which I did for the OP. When she still complained at the table about it, I also told her that it sounded too modern to me. So she immediately got on her cellphone to check on the internet when the marshmallow was invented. I understand plenty of players have no problem pulling this crap, but I would never do this to a DM. Once he said "no", that's cool with me. I'm not going to be fussy and try to prove him wrong in hopes that I'll get my way.

Anyway, the whole debate on the name Marshmallow is ridiculous. Some people are trying to play ignorant like it's not a silly name and it's odd that I'd ban the name. The OP even played that game and then admitted right in this thread that it was a silly name. She knew what she was doing; she wanted to have a theme going where each of her animal companions had a "quirky" name. She found it amusing and I found it over the top. We all know what her intent was, so questioning me on why I wouldn't allow it is pointless.

 

[Vegepygmy]

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

Your question is too vague. What does "acknowledge" mean in this context? What does "validate" mean? If it means the DM must accept the player's input, then no, that is not one of a DM's responsibilities. If it simply means the DM is obliged to hear out the player and give his input fair consideration, I'd agree that it is one of the DM's responsibilities.

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...the minute I agree to run a campaign in one, that world becomes ours.

This is indeed the core of our disagreement. I do not agree that it ceases to be the "DM's world" as soon as he allows players into it. And while I, personally, do refer to campaigns I run as "ours," I certainly don't mean "equally ours." I mean "ours" in the same sense that the house my kids and I live in is "ours" -- that is, it's mine, but I let them live in it and want them to feel like they belong there.

 

[haakon1]

Banning a bear named Marshmallow is a bit too much in my opinion.

Depends on the campaign, the tone of play, and the PC.

For example, Marshmallow might be OK as the name of a bear owned by a flighty gnome jokester in many campaigns.

But as the name of a bear owned by a grim half-orc marauder of some sort, it probably doesn't fit the character.

As the DM in that situation, I'd ask: "Why does Thordar the Barbarian want to give his bear a silly name?"

I'd hope for an answer like, "It's not a silly name to Thordar . . . it's to honor the human nun who gave him a marshmallow in his hot chocolate at the orphanage" or "It's not after the candy, which of course doesn't exist in this world, it's after the marsh plant. Thordar likes marshes."

Either way would be fine with me -- the first is actually kinda awesome, combining real role playing for the PC with silliness from a player perspective is fine to me. I probably wouldn't even point out that IMC chocolate is a high valuable trade good, only from volcanic islands in the Dramidj Ocean . . . it does exist, and marshmallows (from the plant) are possible, so OK. Heck, I could even build around that -- how the heck did the nun get some chocolate? Hmmm, a gate in the orphanage basement? Hmm . . .

 

[Engilbrand]

haakon1, that's some awesome stuff right there. I find myself wanting to do something like that in one of our more serious games. It's awesome.

Oryan77, you said that you shouldn't have to defend yourself to someone when they ask you why you won't allow something. I disagree heavily with that. While I disagree quite a bit with your method of DMing that you've mentioned, this is where I have the biggest problem. I hate being told to do something without a reason. When I ask, it's so that I can understand. I have ADD. In me, it means that anything I don't get starts to confuse and anger me. I'm a teacher. I've been given conflicting instructions by the principal before and got in trouble later because they didn't jibe in my mind and I screwed up both of them. When I sit down to role-play for fun, I like to have a lot of creative control. I'll throw out a few ideas, see if the DM has any problems, and go from there. If there's something that I really want to do, and he doesn't want it, I will ask for a reason. If he refuses to give one beyond, "No me gusta." then we have a problem and I have no problem arguing. It's a good gaming group of friends, so this sort of thing isn't a game killer.
If there's an established world, plot, and tone, then I'll agree with you that someone purposely being goofy is an annoyance. But, I think that there's a problem with your statement "I just don't want to hear a stupid name that fits more in a Loony Tunes episode rather than a Star Wars movie." After all, one of the main characters in Star Wars is named Chewy.

 

[Maggan]

When I sit down to role-play for fun, I like to have a lot of creative control. I'll throw out a few ideas, see if the DM has any problems, and go from there. If there's something that I really want to do, and he doesn't want it, I will ask for a reason. If he refuses to give one beyond, "No me gusta." then we have a problem and I have no problem arguing.

Now, I'm not Oryan, but I can easily see a situation where a DM just don't want to do something without having a reason other than gut feeling. At least when I DM/GM, some of the calls I make are off the cuff, based on experience and my skill in creating a good game for my players.

Sometimes I can't give a reason for my decision, and would have problems with a player who has a need for every decision to have a clear reason that can be examined and either accepted and rejected.

I'm not that logical and reasoned when I play or design, and to me, that's what makes it interesting. And I believe that my players feel the same thing.

/M

 

[Engilbrand]

I've lucked out in the fact that I'm finally with an awesome group where we've all become friends and know how the others play and run. I'll never play another game run by one of the guys because I've been in them before and he's too focused on what I view as the "wrong things". He's a great player, though, so I don't usually have a problem with him in a game unless he's got his laptop and WoW going.
For the rest, we're very open to things and rarely get turned down. I'm in an FR game one guy is running. I decided that I would play a Dhampyr Genasi from the Shadowfell, called him a Shadowsoul Genasi, and told him how some of that worked. He loved it incorporated some of the stuff into the Forgotten Realms.
That's how most of our stuff happens now. Everyone comes up with ideas, and the DM finds ways to mix things in.
For a different game, we're doinga Buffy/Angel thing using Unisystem. I through out an idea with some stuff that wasn't in the books. We spent about 10 minutes hashing things out. There was even a part before we started playing where he asked a random question that tied into the module he was running. "Who has a connection to an Irish Pub in the city?" Just like that, my Contact dots became the Pub owner and I created the background for it, turning it into a "human-form demon" bar and a secondary base.

My group obviously looks at things differently. Some of you guys seem to tell the players how everything is. The different DMs for my group throw out the idea, and the players start to do a lot of creating. When you set limits, it's easier to say no. When you open it up to people you trust, there's no reason.
You also have to keep in mind that none of us will go out of their way to purposely go against everything that's established without good reason. For the Buffy/Angel game, I have 3 backup characters in mind. A guy recently chosen to be an Earth Elemental, an immortal with an obsession to find out how to kill himself, and a character based off of Hyde.