Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[Mallus]

No, a player's job is to immerse themselves in the world and stay there, not facilitate the immersion.

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.

They are only responsible for their characters in the world. The world itself is going on around the pcs. The pcs can interact with it, and change functions of it, but its up to the dm to insure those changed functions fit in with the rest of the world.

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).

 

[Vegepygmy]

Doesn't everyone at the table share the responsibility for producing an immersive world?

Power and responsibility go hand in hand; you can't have one without the other.

Since the DM has much greater power over the world than the players, his responsibility is likewise much greater.

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). So one might say that they share the responsibility, but they certainly don't share equal responsibility, IMO.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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.

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

In my experience, the "silly" names aren't half as silly as the Authentic Fantasy Names.

When in doubt, spell your own name backwards. "Silly" is subjective, but you can't argue with precedent.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Marshmallow the bear is no sillier then Drizzt Do'Urden or Tordek or any other "fantasy" name. At least I can pronounce Marshmallow unlike every damn elven name in existance.

I never understood the need for long and complex names. What's so bad about Joe? Joe's a great name for any time period. So long as people have been able to pronounce "Joe," it's been a name.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Marshmallow the bear is no sillier then Drizzt Do'Urden or Tordek or any other "fantasy" name. At least I can pronounce Marshmallow unlike every damn elven name in existance.

I never understood the need for long and complex names. What's so bad about Joe? Joe's a great name for any time period. So long as people have been able to pronounce "Joe," it's been a name.

I like to pick names that are fairly consistent with the setting. If we are in an oriental adventure, I will pick something with an asian ring. And if some guy names his character Roy Jones, it will kind of bother me. That said, I agree with you there is nothing wrong with Joe. Simple existing names that fit the setting are always best. Though in the Joe case, I would probably write Joseph on my sheet. Just like Roy Jones in an oriental setting can kill suspension of disbelief, so can some strange name that sounds totally unfamiliar and is loaded with daring consonants. Familiar is usually better, so long as it fits the setting.

 

[Nightson]

I don't have any problem with DMs banning anachronistic references. So not allowing marshmallow is actually okay with me. Put if the character (rather then the player) could name it that then DMs need to butt out.

 

[Mallus]

Po one might say that they share the responsibility, but they certainly don't share equal responsibility, IMO.

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

 

[Mallus]

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.

Why should the DM set the tone exclusively (seeing as we've already established that the players share responsibility in creating a successful, immersive campaign)?

Is it because he wears the viking hat?

Note: I primarily DM. Personally, the viking hat looks silly on me.

 

[Henry]

Bob Salvatore named the ranger who taught Drizzt "Montolio de Brouchée", but that's not what he's known as -- in the stories, he's always called "Mooshie the Ranger."

Gary Gygax was King of accepted silly names in RPGs - lest we forget Mr. Gleep Wurp the Eyebiter, Fonkin Hoddypeak, or Shab Heanling (before anyone writes, YES, I know they mean things in Middle or Elizabethan English or whatnot, but let's see someone try to use one of those campaign long without jokes being thrown... )

I'm currently playing a Gran Sniper character in a Star Wars game. His name? Aat Aaq. Fits perfectly with Star Wars' Gran naming conventions, but I definitely get a reaction when my name's called in the init order.

"Aat Aaq?"
"Thanks! Don't mind if I do!"