Do you think that it's alright for a DM to do this?
- Thread starter blackshirt5
- Start date
Isnt all the work a dm does really for the players anyway?
If my players arent having fun then I dont either.
On another note however, if one player is having fun at the expense of the others than thats different.
I hardly see how a goofy name stops anyone from having fun, in fact it seems to me that it would only add to the game.
I would personally make a big deal of every one calling him Theodore.
Ex: Hi im Ted Nugent, pleased to make your aquaintance.
Town welcomer: Good day Mr. Theodore, welcome to Brisbane Castle. Please check you weapons with Master of Arms Satriani, and when you done Quartermaster Vai will show you to your room. Before you can wander about exploring the castle, we ask that you are seen by our local physician Dr Simmons. We have seen several cases of a new disease called cat scratch fever, and will need to check you for any claw marks.
The only problem with the above example is that it would cause my players to shoot soft drinks from thier noses all over my battlemats and mini's.
Otherwise great fun.
If my players arent having fun then I dont either.
On another note however, if one player is having fun at the expense of the others than thats different.
I hardly see how a goofy name stops anyone from having fun, in fact it seems to me that it would only add to the game.
I would personally make a big deal of every one calling him Theodore.
Ex: Hi im Ted Nugent, pleased to make your aquaintance.
Town welcomer: Good day Mr. Theodore, welcome to Brisbane Castle. Please check you weapons with Master of Arms Satriani, and when you done Quartermaster Vai will show you to your room. Before you can wander about exploring the castle, we ask that you are seen by our local physician Dr Simmons. We have seen several cases of a new disease called cat scratch fever, and will need to check you for any claw marks.
The only problem with the above example is that it would cause my players to shoot soft drinks from thier noses all over my battlemats and mini's.
Otherwise great fun.
Maitre Du Donjon
First Post
a couple of remarks.
First of all, I think, regarding the names you came up with, i would have to agree that your DM was right to suggest that you didn't use those names.
Secondly, your character, if he's not good with "normal" names could simply use the name of the last NPC he met. Let your DM know that you're always on the look-out (or hear-out?) for names, and every time your character hears a new one, he notes it down for later. Once he has enough, he'll be able to forge a couple aliases and be set.
Lastly, every time that your character lies about his name, IMO, there should be a bluff vs sense motive check.
my 2 cents.
Maitre D
First of all, I think, regarding the names you came up with, i would have to agree that your DM was right to suggest that you didn't use those names.
Secondly, your character, if he's not good with "normal" names could simply use the name of the last NPC he met. Let your DM know that you're always on the look-out (or hear-out?) for names, and every time your character hears a new one, he notes it down for later. Once he has enough, he'll be able to forge a couple aliases and be set.
Lastly, every time that your character lies about his name, IMO, there should be a bluff vs sense motive check.
my 2 cents.
Maitre D
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Emiricol said:
It doesn't end with "too bad." If necessary, it ends with the player and the DM parting ways, in one form or another.
Although there's no perfect analogy for the DM-player relationship, some work better than others. The DM is neither the players' servant nor the players' boss. She's not the players' mother. Neither is she their equal.
My favorite analogy is that she's the host of a party, and the players are the guests at the party.
The host has a lot of responsibility for making sure everyone has fun. Everyone shares this responsibility, of course, but the DM has it more than everyone else.
And the DM also has a little more power than everyone else. If someone shows up to the party drunk and belligerent, the host has both right and responsibility to calm the person down or kick them out. Another guest normally doesn't have that responsibility, and usually doesn't have that right.
Similarly, if a player is being disruptive in a game, the DM has both right and responsibility to get the player to cooperate or kick the player out. Other players don't have that right or that responsibility.
Sometimes, the host might take action against a guest for lesser offenses. Perhaps the host is throwing a costume ball, and someone shows up sans costume. If the host really wants to keep the party's theme intact, he might offer the guest a temporary costume to wear, or he might even send the guest home.
Similarly, the DM might take action against a player for lesser offenses. Perhaps the DM is running a serious, highly political game, and someone shows up with an Int 6 barbarian named Ahnold Schwarzenegger. If the DM really wants to keep the game's theme intact, he might tell the player to modify the PC, or he might refuse to let the player join the game.
If the host is becoming a control-freak, then the guests' options are limited but effective. They can't take over the party, and they can't dictate the conditions of the party. But they can voice their displeasure to the host, and if the host doesn't pay attention, they can leave (and maybe throw their own party). A party without guests isn't a party: it's a sad sad host sitting alone in a room full of streamers, beer bottles, and inflatable sheep.
If the DM is becoming a control-freak, the players have similar options. They can't take over the game, and they can't force changes to the rules. But they can voice their displeasure to the DM, and if she doesn't play attention, the players can leave (and maybe start a different game). A game without players isn't a game: it's a sad sad DM sitting alone in a room full of dice, adventures, and inflatable sheep.
I think the analogy works pretty well. The DM is, in a sense, in absolute control and with absolute responsibility; this is balanced only by the willingness of the players to put up with the DM's quirks for the sake of the DM's good times.
Daniel
Ditto the Pie-guy. The DM chose a bad phrase to use when telling his player not to break the worldview, but the DM was nevertheless perfectly in-bounds to keep rock-band names out of his game.
This really isn't about "The DM controlling the PC". It's about "The DM telling the player not to pee in the DM's pool".
Examples of "controlling the PC" include telling the player that the PC can't get drunk and then run around like a chicken, attack the town guard, or moon the king and fart in his general direction. The DM SHOULD make sure that the player really wants to do that, but should let the PCs do that if they really want to.
In my campaign, the PCs are perfectly free to do that whenever they want -- and they are also perfectly aware that there will be real-world results for their actions.
Using "The DM is trying to control me!" in this context is not entirely unlike complaining of the DM's nerfing of your character because he won't let you walk around with a masterwork bazooka. It's not part of the world, and the attempt to be cute is breaking the fourth wall and messing up the game.
This really isn't about "The DM controlling the PC". It's about "The DM telling the player not to pee in the DM's pool".
Examples of "controlling the PC" include telling the player that the PC can't get drunk and then run around like a chicken, attack the town guard, or moon the king and fart in his general direction. The DM SHOULD make sure that the player really wants to do that, but should let the PCs do that if they really want to.
In my campaign, the PCs are perfectly free to do that whenever they want -- and they are also perfectly aware that there will be real-world results for their actions.
Using "The DM is trying to control me!" in this context is not entirely unlike complaining of the DM's nerfing of your character because he won't let you walk around with a masterwork bazooka. It's not part of the world, and the attempt to be cute is breaking the fourth wall and messing up the game.
I really like Pielorinho's guest/host analogy, and I agree that the DM is within his or her rights to disallow certain character actions, especially one's that radically alter the tone of the game. Just as a host must be concerned with maintaining the right mood of his or her party--be it a tea party or a kegger.
The DM probably has less of a problem with the humor than the way the out of game resonance of "Ted Nugent" points away from the game world to the real world. He or she probably just doesn't want you to get in the habit of that kind of pointing.
The DM probably has less of a problem with the humor than the way the out of game resonance of "Ted Nugent" points away from the game world to the real world. He or she probably just doesn't want you to get in the habit of that kind of pointing.
Emiricol
Registered User
The DM should talk to the player. If the DM won't be flexible about not telling the player what his PC does, and the player won't be flexible by working with the DM so as to not break mood, then they should part ways.
IMHO:
As a player I'd rather leave a group than deal with a DM who's best DMing attempt includes telling ME what MY pc does.
As a DM, I'd rather lose a player than to DM poorly by telling a player how to run his PC.
But then again if I can't find a way to talk to the player to get the results I'm looking for with the group, then I view it as my personal failure.
IMHO:
As a player I'd rather leave a group than deal with a DM who's best DMing attempt includes telling ME what MY pc does.
As a DM, I'd rather lose a player than to DM poorly by telling a player how to run his PC.
But then again if I can't find a way to talk to the player to get the results I'm looking for with the group, then I view it as my personal failure.
jmucchiello
Hero
What exactly did Angcuru say you cannot do? You cannot keep changing your name or you cannot use Ted Nugent or Helena Handbasket as names? If the latter, I agree with wholeheartedly and on two levels. One, if you are hiding your identity, you should not pick names that stick out like a sore thumb. If everyone around is name Torel and Jakk, so should the names you character picks. Two, saying you are Ted Nugent pulls everyone at the table out of the game and into the real world. It's not just a small joke, it's disrupting.blackshirt5 said:
If it is important to you that the names you pick are obviously aliases, I think you and the DM should determine what the FR equivalent of Smith, Jones, Doe, etc are and use those names. "You say your name is Tilverton, do you?"
