Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[Jasperak]

Rather than level the "dick" accusation at the DM, let's look at it differently. I suspect that the DM here may be a highly creative type. They tend to be rather sensitive to things and have a strong vision. (I know. I was this way for years.) The bit about him trying to change your cleric background idea - I can see that as trying to make everything fit into his world concept instead of picking on you.

What is really going on here is a minor clash in playstyle. If you have the guts (realizing that it could lead to conflict) how about pointing your DM to this thread? He can read it while hopefully not getting to high blood pressure, and learn from it. Perhaps he'll understand your perspective better.

The word here is compromise. The creation of the world belongs to the DM. Yes, we invest tons of time into it. However, when you incorporate player ideas (that aren't radically out there), the world grows. It increases the ownership because now the player feels part of it too.

Or that creative DM can go write a book. I started writing as a hobby for this exact reason. Forcing players to jump through hoops at my own whim was ultimately unrewarding and made my players resentful the more I tried to dictate the game style. Once I matured and realized that D&D goes both ways, my game naturally progressed to a point where everyone was generally satisfied. We told a common story.

Specifically, if my wife (who is a gamer as well) showed me an email that had that kind of a response, I'd have my own little chat with this DM. Not that my wife cannot handle herself, but I would want to make clear that I don't appreciate his responses and that insults to my wife are insults to me.

I think the situation as described bothers me because I have had sexists treat my wife like that at the table. Concerning the DM aspects, I used to be a control freak like him so I see the lack of maturity. If he runs a great game otherwise, hopefully he will grow out of it, but I strongly believe that if he feels that he has to force people to play his style of game, he probably sucks the big donkey as a DM. BTW, my wife would have probably kicked him in the junk by now.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

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

I suspect that the DM here may be a highly creative type. They tend to be rather sensitive to things and have a strong vision.

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.

Mr OP, as yourself this: Can your DM be taught to be more zen about the whole thing? To, perhaps, metaphorically speaking, grow a pair? If yes, then you have a chance to teach them by being a little assertive, saying something like: "Dude, let me play my character my way, kthnx?" If no, either suck it up and play within the bounds of Princess's delicate sensibilities, or ask if you can DM a session or four for a while. Perhaps running games built from the ground up to be more "anything goes" than the DM's normal game. Show him how it's done.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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

No doubt this is a popular enough view/stance, I'm sure.

But surely, it's OK for some campaigns to be closed to 'wackiness', just as some should - it would seem pretty clear - be open to it.

I know that there was a rather wide reactionary movement away from [perceived] 'high drama', 'storytelling games' and such, after certain events unfolded in the 90s. Seems maybe that reaction is still being clung to, here and there. Or voiced on the arpatubes, at any rate.

Again, surely, there's room in the world for both views, and everything in between.

Or, put another way, apart from some of that guy's behaviour - which, I agree, sounds to be bordering on intolerable - isn't this simply yet another case of conflicting playstyles?

Well, it certainly looks that way to me. *shrug*

 

[I'm A Banana]

But surely, it's OK for some campaigns to be closed to 'wackiness', just as some should - it would seem pretty clear - be open to it.

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.

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).

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."

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.

I know that there was a rather wide reactionary movement away from [perceived] 'high drama', 'storytelling games' and such, after certain events unfolded in the 90s. Seems maybe that reaction is still being clung to, here and there. Or voiced on the arpatubes, at any rate.

This isn't a reaction against melodrama-style "storytelling" per se. My campaigns, for instance, tend to have very deep literary themes to them -- little mantras like "Hope in the Face of Hopelessness" or "Survival by Any Means," or "Your Family will Make You and Break You." My own pet system uses a pretty nice structure for telling these stories. I've got no problem with campaigns with a strong theme or a cohesive structure.

This is a reaction against inflexibility, ego, and total control, however, all of which are pretty bad to have in any collaborative effort. It's basic group dynamics.

Again, surely, there's room in the world for both views, and everything in between.

Or, put another way, apart from some of that guy's behaviour - which, I agree, sounds to be bordering on intolerable - isn't this simply yet another case of conflicting playstyles?

There is a bit of false dichotomy going on here. This isn't about "serious" vs. "casual" playstyles. This is about flexibility vs. inflexibility. Even a very serious play style needs flexibility to be...welll...playable.

 

[architectofsleep]

This is a reaction against inflexibility, ego, and total control, however, all of which are pretty bad to have in any collaborative effort. It's basic group dynamics.

There is a bit of false dichotomy going on here. This isn't about "serious" vs. "casual" playstyles. This is about flexibility vs. inflexibility. Even a very serious play style needs flexibility to be...welll...playable.

This is exactly so. In subsequent conversation with my GM, he has stated that he is stubborn and inflexible, and hopes I can be flexible enough to work with him.

Honestly, I can be; I'm a very flexible person in general, and as a player or a GM. But I do have a hard time working with people who aren't flexible, or who decide to not even try to be flexible. I can work with a reasonable amount of control -- he is the GM, after all -- but he has wandered into the realm of the ridiculous, imo.

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.

Well, I plan on staying in his game until my one-off is over, and then re-evaluating. If I still feel constrained to the point where it's not that fun, then I'm leaving.

I wanted to thank everyone for their input, on both sides of the equation. You all really helped me gain some perspective on this, and your advice is highly valued. Thank you for taking the time to read all of this and help a fellow gamer out.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, I plan on staying in his game until my one-off is over, and then re-evaluating. If I still feel constrained to the point where it's not that fun, then I'm leaving.

Good luck. If you end up having to go, take some of his other players with you.

Mostly kidding.

Sadly, DMing can attract control freaks. But, as any half-decent book about management techniques or parenting techniques or even political science on your local Border's bookshelf will tell you, getting along requires embracing a lack of control. IMO, DMing is like that mantra of an ideal police officer: "to serve and protect."

I feel a little bad for your Princess of a DM, so easily offended. She should lighten up.

 

[Aus_Snow]

There is a bit of false dichotomy going on here. This isn't about "serious" vs. "casual" playstyles. This is about flexibility vs. inflexibility. Even a very serious play style needs flexibility to be...welll...playable.

Hm. I think it probably is about serious vs. casual, as well as about [other] DM (and player) attitudes and expectations.

Some campaigns, some settings, are - I believe - designed for certain kinds of play. Now, each and every kind of implied playstyle is not going to appeal to all and sundry. So, on the flipside, in another way of looking at things, perhaps some players need to be more flexible in the ways they're willing to approach any particular setting or campaign. Or, perhaps, to know that there are some that are just not for them (e.g., they can't be 'serious' enough to stop themselves ruining the immersion others might seek).

Again, there are a whole bunch of viewpoints out there. I tend to err on the side of the DM in these matters (as is probably quite evident, though please keep in mind I am a player as well as DM, myself), in the sense that they do far more work (e.g., prep), often particularly when it comes to initial decision-making, and setting creation & detailing.

I know that there is a (more modern?) paradigm that opposes mine, the one of increased (or even, *gasp*, equal! ) player contribution [to the setting] and so on. I can't help thinking that's all this is down to. Paradigms/beliefs/expectations, I mean. Er, other than the DM-in-question's way of handling things (or not, as the case might be), natch.

 

[jdrakeh]

You could run a totally grim-n-gritty, survivalist horror game where things are named "fluffy," no problem.

You've basically just described Shaun of the Dead. In Shaun of the Dead, zombies are plentiful and deadly, lots of main characters die horribly, and. . . I still don't know anybody who would call Shaun of the Dead a "grim-n-gritty survivalist horror" anything. Silly names, jokes, and slapstick antics are — for better or worse — recognized as elements of comedy by most people, not as an indicators of 'seriousness' in any way.

 

[S'mon]

You should have told him the hobgoblin was a polymorphed red dragon.

Thanks, I guess the hobgoblin likely had ginger hair and his nickname must have been 'Red' Dragon...

 

[S'mon]

Specifically, if my wife (who is a gamer as well) showed me an email that had that kind of a response, I'd have my own little chat with this DM. Not that my wife cannot handle herself, but I would want to make clear that I don't appreciate his responses and that insults to my wife are insults to me.

While I think that GM behaved poorly, as a husband and GM I'd say there was absolutely no call for this and it would be a very bad idea. Save the 'little chats' for the guy who propositions your wife or actually uses insulting obscenities at her. For the behaviour described your spouse should deal with it herself, without your input. You shouldn't be looking over your wife's shoulder all the time.