Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[Holy Bovine]

Someone else suggested I GM and show him how it's done. Ironically, our opposite gaming weekends are going to be filled for a while with a one-off that I'm GMing and he's playing in. I was hoping to use it to demonstrate how rewarding it can be to have a flexible GM, but he's been using it to demonstrate to me how he thinks a player should act: no complaining or whining whatsoever, no disagreeing whatsoever with anything the GM says, and overall obsequious behavior. For some, he may be the ideal player, but to me, it's like he's being a Stepford wife or a bobblehead yes-man. It's kinda creepy.

Oooooo - this would be my opportunity to break him. Make the most outlandish rulings both in his favour and against him. See how far you can push his 'yes-man' attitude. But I am a petty and vindictive jerk!

 

[Mournblade94]

Your DM sounds like a friggin' princess, unable to sleep for the pea 'neath her matress. Buy her a tiara.



Any DM who can't learn to handle a little bit of wackiness should put down the dice and pick up a pen.

If they can learn, then perhaps this is an opportunity to teach them.

DM's do not need to learn how to handle silly characters. They can disallow them. In my experience a silly character can really ruin the dynaminic and versimilitude. If players want silly, I will run toon for them or play a night of munchkin. But there are plenty of DM's for which silliness is not a factour in their game.

The DM the OP speaks of definitely has issues. However I understand well not wanting silly characters in the game that can ruin the mood.

 

[Mournblade94]

Keep in mind that threatening monsters with adorable names is very low on the "wackiness" scale, first. You could run a totally grim-n-gritty, survivalist horror game where things are named "fluffy," no problem.

You COULD run it yes, but it would most likely break the mood.

Second, it's not OK for a campaign to be totally closed to what people have fun doing. If a player WANTS a little bit of wackiness, why shouldn't they get it? Every campaign is a balance of conflicting playstyles, because no two people are really looking for the same thing. A campaign should be flexible enough to accommodate everything the group is looking for (including the DM, but not exclusively the DM).

Flexibility yes, but that does not mean one has to allow silly characters.
A DM should be flexible within the realm of the campaign.

A little bit of wackiness is a common source of fun. Putting the lid on it puts the lid on FUN. Even a serious "dark world where dark stuff happens to dark characters and everyone is very dark and also darkness is very serious business" kind of world should be able to find a home for a brutal wolf named "fido."

It is a common source of fun for some people, certainly not all. If I am running a D&D game like a KNIGHT's TALE then silliness is fine (Though I would hate a campaign based on such a BAD movie). IF I am running CONAN THE BARBARIAN or EXCALIBUR... silliness will be policed.

Honestly, in the end, it boils down to flexibility. Campaign settings are often better as blades of grass or stalks of wheat rather than as tall trees and intricate buildings, because player characters are hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes all at once. Artsy sensitivity doesn't survive nature red in tooth and claw, and an inflexible vision that can't adapt will die. It is not you Will to impose on others. It is a system, a coexistence, and if the DM can't learn to co-exist (while still having his own brand of fun), if the Princess can't learn to sleep on the pea, then sooner or later entropy takes over from order and the whole thing falls apart no matter how hard that DM tries.

Agreed, but flexibility does not mean breaking versimilitude. Simply if silliness was allowed it would have to be withn context of the campaign. Aything anachronistic to the campaign could and should be disallowed.

 

[Mallus]

You COULD run it yes, but it would most likely break the mood.

Who plays this grim, humorless kind of D&D? In over 20 years I've honestly never seen it.

A DM should be flexible within the realm of the campaign.

A campaign should be flexible enough to account for the tastes of the people playing.

If I am running a D&D game like a KNIGHT's TALE then silliness is fine (Though I would hate a campaign based on such a BAD movie).

The Knight's Tale??!! Bad???!! Surely you jest. Wait, did you mistake it for a serious historical film?

...or EXCALIBUR... silliness will be policed.

Much as I loved Excalibur, you have to admit that Nicol Williamson's strange conflation of Merlin and Katherine Hepburn was a tad, well, silly. Actually Boorman's Excalibur is a wonderful example of a successful work that veers from epic to silly -- and several stops in between.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

We're mid-level characters (about 8-10th level), and I was asking about playing a character who had been struck mad by a god (insanity is allowed as a character trait in this game).

Dude(tte)! I totally wish my players would throw me bones like that more often. That one line triggered about 3 story ideas in my head.

 

[Mournblade94]

Who plays this grim, humorless kind of D&D? In over 20 years I've honestly never seen it.

I have not either, it was the example given by the person I quoted. That said, if I am playing DEAD SPACE, and the developers put a comedy scene in there, it is going to annoy me.

A campaign should be flexible enough to account for the tastes of the people playing.

within reason I would agree. The players do not however have the ultimate say. I will state I am not a control freak, and allow for lots of freedom within the framework. It is OK to have a silly characte within reason, like the IRISHMAN from Braveheart. Even dialogue common in SPIDERMAN or DEADPOOL is fine. it all has to fit the context of the campaign.

I have always been of the philosophy the DM has the veto power. He is the executive. The players are the legislature.

The Knight's Tale??!! Bad???!! Surely you jest. Wait, did you mistake it for a serious historical film?

Not bad... HORRIBLE. I did not mistake it for an historical film, but instead of making a good movie about the middle ages, they created a 20th century modern world that has jousting. I'll grant the story had merit, but everything brought it down to the level of a movie like DUMB AND DUMBER. There was very little to redeem the movie. A movie like this was done before by monty python, and it was done much better. Fortunately my fiance let me sell her copy back to GAME STOP when she moved in.

Much as I loved Excalibur, you have to admit that Nicol Williamson's strange conflation of Merlin and Katherine Hepburn was a tad, well, silly. Actually Boorman's Excalibur is a wonderful example of a successful work that veers from epic to silly -- and several stops in between.

sigh yes I have to admit that.

 

[maddman75]

Not bad... HORRIBLE. I did not mistake it for an historical film, but instead of making a good movie about the middle ages, they created a 20th century modern world that has jousting. I'll grant the story had merit, but everything brought it down to the level of a movie like DUMB AND DUMBER. There was very little to redeem the movie. A movie like this was done before by monty python, and it was done much better. Fortunately my fiance let me sell her copy back to GAME STOP when she moved in.

Um, its called anachronism. Putting modern concepts into an ancient setting so that the audience can better relate to it. The dancing wasn't supposed to be literal, nor the pro-wrestling style talking them up, nor the queen songs. It was supposed to communicate that to these people, the Tournament was like Superbowl Sunday.

Not that its a great movie, but I got what they were trying to do. Its a decent enough literary device. I mean, Shakespeare used it.

 

[Arnwyn]

Who plays this grim, humorless kind of D&D? In over 20 years I've honestly never seen it.

We haven't seen goofy names in more than 10 years, because we all agree that they really do break the mood... and we have lots of laughs. Based on your posts, I suspect you haven't seen a lot of things.

A campaign should be flexible enough to account for the tastes of the people playing.

Account for the tastes of the majority of people? Yeah, sure.

How much do we know of the other players the OP is with?

 

[Caliban]

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.

Because it's all about you. The DM must cater to your whims and desires, you're the star!

You have no obligation to cooperate with the DM on anything!

 

[S'mon]

sigh yes I have to admit that.

Or the first three Star Wars movies, IMO good examples of humour and silliness used without breaking the atmosphere. It didn't seem to work in the prequels though.

I don't think A Knight's Tale worked; presumably it was supposed to be a comedy but for me it wasn't funny. And it certainly wasn't dramatic. The modern equivalent of the Tourney is professional boxing and racing (NASCAR, Formula One) not Professional Wrestling, which is more like a pantomime. People die.

As far as the animal names go, I've never run a D&D campaign where I'd object to a PC giving her animals silly names. If I were running a serious Tolkien game I suppose I'd be disappointed in the player, but I doubt I'd attempt such a thing.