Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[Cadfan]

Well, to me, deciding who gets to play in the game is part of the GM's role. YMMV. Even players with lots of leverage (host, GM's wife, etc) approach the GM about getting another player dropped, they don't just declare it to the group.

I dunno, do you think determining who plays is not normally part of the GM's role?

It usually is. I don't think its inherent to being a DM though. I think its inherent to being the social center of the group. Its the same as being the guy who's house everyone comes to when they watch the big game. If he decides someone isn't welcome, that's that.

Its not DM authority. It may be social authority that is typically ceded to the DM, but it isn't something that stems from being the DM.

As for the host, stop and think for a second. You're actually saying that the person who owns the home where everyone plays can be vetoed by the DM when he decides that he doesn't want a player to enter his house? Of course you're not. You're recognizing that the host might consult the DM as a social courtesy. But its his freaking house! Nothing in the DMG gives the DM the power to force entry. If the host says you go, attending is a crime.

And of course the DM might object and move the game to another location and the host would have to decide what to do with that, but at this point it should be obvious that we're dealing with social norms and leverage and ultimatums, not with anything that comes from the role of Dungeon Master.

To me, 'abusing the GM's position' would be "Sleep with me for more XP!" or at a milder level "Give me that beer" - using in-game authority to demand out-of-game favours. Blatant favouritism would also qualify - if I let a player play I'm going to treat them equally with the other players; if I can't do that because I don't like them, or because it's my wife and she doesn't like her PC dying*, then I should not GM for that player.

I agree with that, except that I think that in-game decisions that are made for sheer caprice are also abuse. There's not much difference between "its my wife so her character doesn't die" and "I'm the DM so everything I want happens and everything I don't want doesn't. Start roleplaying the way that I like, not the way that you like!"

 

[S'mon]

Its not consistent for you to say that a DM should be able to ban tieflings because he hates them and a player playing a tiefling will force the DM to deal with tieflings, while also saying that the player should have the power to name his animal companion whatever he wants without DM interference. The DM has to deal with the animal companion as well...

...And its legitimate under my rubric as well. Would you think his decision legitimate if he made it because he passionately hates German people?

pt 1 - Like I said, the Player Character can choose to name the animal however wished. My position is not inconsistent:

From my POV, a Player Character (not Player!) is at liberty to name her pet whatever she wishes. That falls entirely within the player's prerogative, along with stuff like loot division. In the absence of mind-control magic I believe in letting PCs do whatever the heck they want.

Playing a Dragonborn requires that Dragonborn exist in the campaign world, and is not something a Player Character can decide ("Hmm, I think I'll be a dragonborn!"), so it does not fall within the player's prerogative. The GM is free to allow it or disallow it.

NB: This is how I do it. I'm not trying to impose a Kantian Universal Imperative on you.

pt 2 - yes, if he (a Frenchman) created a world without Germans because he hated Germans, that's irrelevant. The decision is legitimately a GMing decision.

 

[S'mon]

It would have been illogical for him to say 'no'. It would imply people from one region never traveled to the other.

No it wouldn't. There might not have been a Germanic area in his world. Or Germans might have been abhuman fiends, unsuitable as PCs. Or any other reason.

Edit: You sound like the kind of guy who demands to deplay a Samurai in a game of Pendragon.

 

[S'mon]

Cadfan:
"As for the host, stop and think for a second. You're actually saying that the person who owns the home where everyone plays can be vetoed by the DM when he decides that he doesn't want a player to enter his house?"

No, I'm saying that the host typically recognises the GM's authority, approaches the GM and says: "I don't want that player coming any more". Then the GM either agrees, or ceases to game at that person's house. But the host does not typically just ring up the player and tell them they're dropped, without consulting the GM. As GM I'd certainly consider that odd behaviour. The GM is recognised as the executive authority, although in this case ultimate authority lies with the host because it's their house.

 

[Cadfan]

pt 2 - yes, if he (a Frenchman) created a world without Germans because he hated Germans, that's irrelevant. The decision is legitimately a GMing decision.

Well, congratulations, you've managed to create a definition of "GMing decision" that entitles GMing decisions to absolutely no presumption of respect whatsoever from the players.

 

[Greg K]

Cadfan,
What if the DM realizes that his dislike for dragonborn will ultimately have a negative effect on the quality of the game he runs? If the presence bothers him, every time the character comes into play, the character is a reminder of how much he dislikes that race. It's reoccurence and having to make accomodations for it when he designs adventures, when the PCs interact with NPCs, etc. results in DMing becoming unfun and a chore. When, DMing becomes unfun, the game as a whole suffers in quality and probably dies often resulting in no game for anyone (if we are to believe the disproportionate number of players to dms).

But what about a DM who bans dragonborn because he just hates them? I don't think that DM is acting as a DM. He's not using his higher vantage point to make a decision that's best for the group. He's like the judge who tries to lock you in jail because your kid beat her kid in a baseball game. He's using his power and the trust reposed in him to make a decision that's personal rather than related to the role which granted him power.

Now of course the immediate response to this is, "But if a DM hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?" Which is fair.

But here's the thing! That's not a DM concern! That's a "guy in the room" concern. Take out the word DM. Add in Player. "If a Player hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?" Obviously he shouldn't..

 

[Greg K]

Simm, have yourself an XP

The DM doesn't have these lesser options. If the DM is unhappy with elements of the campaign world and the players insist on using them, which you say they should be able to use. He can't avoid those elements. If he hates tieflings and a player insists on playing one he can't ignore them and has to deal with their imprecations on the game. If a DM leaves the game than, usually, that campaign is over.

My rule in general is that the DM being happy with a campaign is more important than any particular player being happy with it because an unengaged player is unfortunate and will damage the game but an unengaged DM will kill it.

 

[Mallus]

No it wouldn't. There might not have been a Germanic area in his world. Or Germans might have been abhuman fiends, unsuitable as PCs.

I did kinda assume the presence of a faux-French culture meant the existence of a faux-German culture next door. My mistake.

Edit: You sound like the kind of guy who demands to deplay a Samurai in a game of Pendragon.

I'm not that guy. He sounds like a bit of a prick. As DM I'm open to a great many things. That does not, however, imply that I make demands as a player.

 

[Greg K]

LOL. W
GregK simply claims that I was wrong then and I'm wrong now. But, he provides no reasons. "A DM's authority over the game is absolute" Where is that written in the rules? Where in the rules does it give me, the DM, the authority to reach over with an eraser and change the name the player gives her pet? That's HER pet. That is not mine.

Let's look at the 3.0 DMG
1. "Let's start with the biggest secret of all: the key to Dungeon Mastering (Don't tell anyone, okay?). The secret is that you are in charge. That is not telling-everyone what to do sort of in charge. Rather, you decide how the group is going to play the game and "you decide how the rules work, which rules to use and how strictily to adhere to them."(DMG p.6).

2. "the whole tenor of the game is in your hands".

3. Providing the World
" The dungeon master is the creator of his or her own campaign world" (DMG p.8).

4. "Other style considerations:
You should think about a few style considerations." (DMG p.8)

" Naming Conventions: Related to how serious or humorous the game is, character names should be fairly uniform in style throughout the group. Although any name is fine in and of itself, a group that includes Bob the fighter, Aldorious killraven of Thistledown and Runtboy as characters lacks consistency to be credible" (DMG p.9)

5. "Consistency is the key to a believable fictional world' (DMG p.8)

That the DMG tells the DM he or she is in charge of both the setting and the tone of the game, that consistency is important for a believeable world and naming conventions affect the tone and consistency, the DM has the right to limit charater names.

That all said, while I agree that the DM has every right to place the limits that they want, it doesn't mean that I am going to play with a DM if I dislike the tone of their game or the rules they set. As a player, it is my right to walk and either find another game or start one of my own.

 

[Mallus]

"Consistency is the key to a believable fictional world' (DMG p.8)

This from the game that introduced elves fighting Jello molds to fantasy.

Although any name is fine in and of itself, a group that includes Bob the fighter, Aldorious killraven of Thistledown and Runtboy...

Sounds like a D&D party to me. Also, a popular contemporary fantasy series sports characters named Whiskeyjack, Bugg, and Anomander Rake the Lord of Moon's Spawn.