Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[architectofsleep]

I have a GM who is, apparently, a control freak. For example, I come up with a really great concept for a character background that I'm really looking forward to playing, and he comes back with a watered down, much more boring version of the same, telling me I can't play it the way I want to. Ok, fine, I'll come up with something else, because I don't want to play a background he writes up for me, you know? But that's not what I'm kvetching about.

Currently I'm playing a druid, and I've been coming up with slightly silly names for my animal companions, just for a little fun. Think "Fido" for a wolf, or "Rex" for a dinosaur, or "Tweety" for an eagle. Kind of undercutting their ferociousness or their skill, for irony's sake. Nothing game-stopping, and just mildly amusing the first time you hear it. Now he goes and tells me I can't name my animals (or my characters) anything silly. Because he can't take characters with silly names seriously.

What the heck? Now he's telling me what I can and can't *name* my characters? It's really frustrating, and it's totally lowering my morale. Ugh. I can't quit over a name, but dang, if it ain't fun to play, why go?

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

naming issues

I have been on both sides of this issue. As a DM, I have been unhappy with goofy names -- in my opinion, names are a big part of immersion, and it destroys immersion for the other players when you send 'tweety' off to do something while they have a more serious/fantastic mental image of the game in their head.

As a player, though, I must admit I had great fun playing a city-based ghostbuster baboon shaman in RuneQuest back in the 80s, who drove a chariot with a ghoul spirit bound in a glass jar (his 'siren'). His fatal flaw? A baboon, he always hoped to score with the human ladies. His name? Simon Wagstaff.

I think that whether this is appropriate depends on the tone of the game, and this is something you have to negotiate with the DM and the other players.

Ken

 

[Greg K]

What the heck? Now he's telling me what I can and can't *name* my characters? It's really frustrating, and it's totally lowering my morale. Ugh. I can't quit over a name, but dang, if it ain't fun to play, why go?

No, I don't think he is taking it too far. He's simply telling you that silly names are inappropriate for the campaign that he wants to run.
I would do the same as would the players and DMs with whom I have gamed.
There are others out there that like silly names and, if not being able to use silly names bothers you, you should seek them out.

 

[Corathon]

Architectofsleep, don't you think that you might be overreacting?

The DM's responsibility is to maintain a fun, gameable, and coherent world. That may cause him to restrict certain backgrounds or classes because they don't fit.

As for the names, I found your examples to be amusing, and would've had no with them problem as the DM. OTOH, if you had named your character "Batman" or "Jennifer Love Hewitt" (i.e. something that jarred me out of the game every time I heard it) I would have a problem with it, were I your DM. There's a line here, and its different for different people.

If your DM is good in other ways, I'd encourage you to put up with his flaws. Nobody's perfect.

 

[Engilbrand]

If he doesn't like your backstory, ask him for clarification. If he gives you one, refuse. If you want to name yourself something silly, do it. If he demands that you do things his way or else, take the else and leave. You're right. If he's ruining your fun, he's doing something wrong.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Its hard to say exactly without knowing what your suggested background was, but one of the big missteps I see in PC backgrounds is the PC being 1st level, but their background indicates practically an epic level story already. That's what game play is for. I've given suggestions to players that toned their background down a touch from time to time. Its all about creating a character that fits in the world.

And I'm sometimes fine with silly names. Just so long as their amusing silly names. And so long as the player doesn't ALWAYS do that.

 

[Kzach]

Obviously your version of fun and his version of fun are different.

Personally, I'm on his side. I hate players who give silly names to things. And I'm guessing that the attitude you have towards his game of silliness carries into all aspects of how you approach it at the table and that I will be willing to lay money on, pisses him off to no end.

I'd recommend you leave. Neither of you will win in this situation by continuing.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

If he doesn't like your backstory, ask him for clarification. If he gives you one, refuse. If you want to name yourself something silly, do it. If he demands that you do things his way or else, take the else and leave. You're right. If he's ruining your fun, he's doing something wrong.

As a DM, if a player is unwilling to work with me, they're gone. I've got more players than I know what to do with, and I do try to maintain a consistent tone in the game. If they're not interested in the kind of game that I run (and I'm upfront on that, and ask for suggestions and feedback ona regular basis), then they should find another DM.

 

[OnlytheStrong]

My point of view is a simple one: It is his game, but it is your character.

You live in his world, but you create your own viewpoint of it. I'd suggest simply talking to your DM. I'm sure you can work something out if you both are willing to try.

That said, when it stops becoming fun, then why play?

 

[Mallus]

What the heck? Now he's telling me what I can and can't *name* my characters? It's really frustrating, and it's totally lowering my morale. Ugh. I can't quit over a name, but dang, if it ain't fun to play, why go?

I've been that DM --a long time ago, mind you-- and all I can say is I'm glad I'm no longer. The game works better when it belongs to everyone participating. So I sympathize.

The DM shouldn't try to legislate the tone of the player characters. You can't legislate gravitas, or, more accurately, attempts to do so end up being sillier than campaigns that embrace lightheartedness. Many DM's aspire to Tolkien's heights. Do I need to discuss how many succeed?

My experience is that a campaign worth taking seriously will be taken seriously by the players, despite the presence of animal companions w/pun names.

My experience also shows me that the silly and serious can co-exist peacefully in D&D --hell, in the entire fantasy genre. A campaign can contain jokes without being a joke campaign. Our long-running 3.5e game is a testimony to that, as is our new 4e game, come to think...