Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[Hussar]

Well, I've ranted on this issue more than a few times in the past as well. I find it funny that most people are taking the player's side in this, when a few months ago, when I suggested that a DM place his personal preferences aside in favor of the player's preferences, I was resoundly booed.

What changed?

Here we have exactly the point I was making back then. The DM doesn't like something. He has no reason to say no, other than his personal preference. The player wants it. Most people here are saying the DM should bend and allow the player what she wants. Yet, back then, I was told that a DM's right to veto anything and everything in the game was absolute, 100% rock solid. If the DM didn't like it, it was given the toss and you either sucked it up or left the group.

Funny how things go.

 

[FireLance]

What changed?

My take: who seems to be the aggressor.

In previous cases, it seemed to be the player muscling into DM territory, e.g. what mechanics or flavor to use.

In this case, it seems to be the DM trying to exert excessive control over the PC, e.g. names of pets and setting-appropriate backstory.

 

[The Ghost]

Once again, I don't think anyone's actually saying this.

If the players and DM are in agreement that they're going to play a Middle Earth game, then the question of an Illithid Psion shouldn't really even come up.

Likewise, if everyone's sitting down to play Call of Cthulhu, an orc who communicates in interpretive dance would be disruptive.

-O

The point I am trying to make is that we have no idea what is really transpiring at the OP's game table. We have the OP's perspective but not the perspective of any other players or the DM. And yet here we are arguing over whether this DM is being a dick or not. Whether his restrictions are valid or not. I cannot ascertain as to whether the DM is out of line or this particular player is - all I can do is offer points as to why he is doing what he is doing. And why the rest in the group may like that.

I am not willing to call this DM out of line anymore than I am willing to call the OP out of line. I am just trying to offer a perseptive as to why they are doing what they are doing.

 

[Hussar]

My take: who seems to be the aggressor.

In previous cases, it seemed to be the player muscling into DM territory, e.g. what mechanics or flavor to use.

In this case, it seems to be the DM trying to exert excessive control over the PC, e.g. names of pets and setting-appropriate backstory.

I suppose. Personally, I don't really see the difference. If, as was repeatedly stated in The DM entitlement thread I was talking about last post a DM's right to veto any and all things from his game, then, it is absolute. There should be no difference at all. His control of his game is 100% his, so, any quibbling by the player is wrong.

Note, I completely disagree with this and think that it should be very much a give and take proposition and that when the only issue at stake is the DM's personal preference, the Dm should step back, but, that's how I DM. I don't think my position as DM gives me the prerogative to squash any and all ideas that my players have.

But, I was repeatedly told I was completely wrong in that other thread.

Funny thing that.

 

[Greg K]

But, I was repeatedly told I was completely wrong in that other thread.

Funny thing that.

If it makes you feel any better, you were wrong then and are still wrong!

 

[chriton227]

I don't buy the argument that says you are somehow entitled to play whatever character you want in our game even if, especially if, that character breaks the tone, flavor, or mood of the campaign. There is a time and place for silly and wacky and a time and place for grim and serious. It's like I like Maker's Mark and I like Coca-Cola but Maker's Mark and Coca-Cola mixed together is disgusting.

I didn't get the impression that the OP was trying to introduce a silly character, nor having the animals do anything disruptive or over the top, just giving some light-hearted names to the character's pets. To me the names sounded like terms of endearment and affection, not an attempt at complete sillyness. Wouldn't you expect a character with such a close bond to its pets to come up with more personal names for them? In my opinion, the pets are supposed to be companions and allies, not soulless weapons to be wielded and discarded. I would find it just as jarring to hear a character talk of how their wolf Razorfang Blooddrinker saved them when they were stranded in a blizzard by keeping them warm with its body heat, as the name implies a vicious killer, not a compassionate friend. Just giving the animals names at all shows a deeper level of character development and investment in the shared story than I've seen from many players who play for several levels without bothering to name their animal companions.

On a different note, in all but the most grim and gritty works, there are usually some minor elements of humor or lightheartedness, if for no other reason than to provide contrast to emphasize the more solemn and serious aspects or to break the tension before it becomes unbearable for the reader/watcher. You'll find this in works from Shakespeare's tragedies for example Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet) through Tolkien (no one can tell me that the hobbit names aren't light hearted, and a fire breathing dragon sharing a name with air pollution). You'll likewise find light-hearted moments in otherwise serious movies, be they dramas like Saving Private Ryan or suspense films like Alien. I just can't buy that minor light-hearted elements can ruin a serious game, unless the players would prefer to not play in a serious game and are just waiting for an excuse to drop the seriousness, or the seriousness is so thin and contrived that instead of serving as a point of contrast, lighter elements serve to point out the absurdity of the seriousness.

 

[S'mon]

My take: who seems to be the aggressor.

In previous cases, it seemed to be the player muscling into DM territory, e.g. what mechanics or flavor to use.

In this case, it seems to be the DM trying to exert excessive control over the PC, e.g. names of pets and setting-appropriate backstory.

Sounds about right. I don't remember exactly what Hussar said last time, but I remember it annoyed me enough I incurred a three-day ban, whereas architect is coming across a lot more reasonable.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I didn't get the impression that the OP was trying to introduce a silly character

The OP actually used the word "silly" to describe the names she was giving the animals.

there are usually some minor elements of humor or lightheartedness

The reason you changed the phrasing from "silly" to "minor elements of humor and lightheartedness" is because there's a difference between "silly" and "minor elements of humor and lightheartedness."

Tone is important.

If I'm craving Black Company, I'm going to be disappointed by one of the Myth, Inc. books. There is humor in serious fantasy -- and in RPG campaigns with a serious tone -- but (again) humor is not the same thing as silliness or frivolousness. Attempts to conflate the two are puzzling to me.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm pretty sure that last time the undercurrent was dragonborn and tieflings. I think that colored a LOT of the discussion.

 

[Cadfan]

Oh, and the point where I accused a substantial number of forum regulars of being psychologically damaged, that probably didn't help either.