Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[Imaro]

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

And that is why it is important for the DM to shape his world, if he finds this inconsistent... he can just ban elves... or gelantinous cubes

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.

Emphasis mine... and that's great for the type of game you want to run. Again individual tastes vary.

 

[Mallus]

And that is why it is important for the DM to shape his world, if he finds this inconsistent... he can just ban elves... or gelantinous cubes

If you're going to ban elves and gelatinous cubes you might as well be playing Harn!

Again individual tastes vary.

Of course they do. But what does that have to do with D&D's long history of silly names? Some of which can be found in the classic 1e modules and in EGG's original campaigns.

 

[Greg K]

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

Well, the giant amoeba predates DND and, even, the Blob. It goes at least as far back as the pulps and a 1923 issue of Wierd Tales.

As for elves fighting them, that is a campaign design decision. Nothing requires the DM to includes elves and or gelationous cubes.

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.

To you, perhaps. However, that is your decision on how you want to play and run

 

[Minicol]

What the heck? Now he's telling me what I can and can't *name* my characters? It's really frustrating, and it's totally lowering my morale. Ugh. I can't quit over a name, but dang, if it ain't fun to play, why go?

I usually am in the "DMs are Right, now Shut up ! " camp.

However, at this rate, yes, it is going too far.

Tell him bluntly this is too much, and change Dm if he does not get the message.

 

[Imaro]

If you're going to ban elves and gelatinous cubes you might as well be playing Harn!

Soo... unless I include everything, then I'm not playing D&D... well at least certain people from WotC agree with you...

This is also the year that we bring the Eberron campaign setting into 4th Edition. This summer is all about Eberron, with the release of the Eberron Campaign Guide, Eberron Player’s Guide, and the Seekers of the Ashen Crown adventure. As one of the co-creators of the original Eberron campaign setting, and as one of the key people behind selecting Eberron when we ran the campaign search a few years back, the world of pulp fantasy and adventure is very special to me. It’s an exciting place, full of amazing new ways to look at a D&D campaign. By bringing the setting into 4th Edition, we’re reinvesting in this world that’s caught between the Last War and an uncertain future. If you haven’t checked out Eberron, or if you’ve been away from Eberron for awhile, then this is the summer for you. And like every D&D setting, you can play it as is or you can borrow elements to add to whatever campaign you’re playing in. Warforged and artificers can and should show up in any D&D game.

Too bad I don't believe the hype.

Of course they do. But what does that have to do with D&D's long history of silly names? Some of which can be found in the classic 1e modules and in EGG's original campaigns.

Again...EGG doesn't run my campaign. I respect him for giving me the tools to play this wonderful game, but the minute I opened the books... it became mine.

 

[Greg K]

Cool, I get to give out XP to a second person in one day! Great post, S'mon

Is handing out pregen PCs abusing the GM's position?

Is running a railroady scenario like Rogue Mistress ( and other Chaosium efforts) abusing the GM's position?

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.

 

[Greg K]

Too bad I don't believe the hype.

Yep, hype done soley for marketing rather than making a better play experience and interesting campaign settings, imo. Then again, I think the in-house design team and their suits should worry less on cross-marketing and more on being better designers (the opinion of others opinions may vary).

 

[The Ghost]

...

It is a false dichotomy to say that things are either "silly" or "serious", there is a whole continuum in between. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "serious as a documentary on effects of small pox on Native American populations" and 10 being "a Looney Toons/Animaniacs marathon weekend", I would rank an otherwise serious character with a silly name about a 2 or 3. A name is just a name, it is the actions of the character that really set the tone.

I agree that it is a sliding scale and not just a black-or-white-silly-or-serious kind of thing. First, where on that scale does a silly name appear? Second, in what context does the name interact with the world? Finally, does using it multiple times diminish its endearing quality?

Let's take your Roosevelt "Rosey" Grier example - Does he have a silly nickname? Yes, but it is not overly silly. Does his name make him endearing? Yes. Does his name defeat the seriousness of the Fearsome Foursome of the L.A. Rams? No, in all likely hood it enhances it. But, I contend, it enhances it because of the existence of Lamar Lundy, Merlin Olsen, and Deacon Jones. Their names allow the name "Rosey" to stand out as enduring.

Compare that to a hypothetical line made up of Rosey Grier, Mashmellow Lundy, Tinkerbell Olsen, and Smiling Deacon Jones. I would have a hard time calling this second group the Fearsome Foursome.

With regards to the OPs original point - I would have no problem with her calling her bear "Marshmellow", however, if that bear was followed by Mittens who was followed by Ruff who was followed by Tinkerbell then I think the DM has a right to say no. Context is important. I would have a hard time calling a game serious if names are consistantly on the lighter side.

 

[S'mon]

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.

See, this is where responding as I'd like to would risk a ban again, *sigh*

 

[Mallus]

Well, the giant amoeba predates DND and, even, the Blob.

Ah, but neither giant amoebae or the Blob can hold a cubic shape. Hence the 'mold' part --that was D&D's innovation.

It goes at least as far back as the pulps and a 1923 issue of Wierd Tales.

Ah, but planetary romances didn't have elves.

Nothing requires the DM to includes elves and or gelationous cubes.

Which is irrelevant to the point I was making, which was: despite what's written in the 3e DMG, D&D has never been in the forefront of consistent, believable fantasy.