Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[Voadam]

Actually, I've been thinking about it a lot, and... yeah, I'm going there again.

Let me analogize to a judge.

Sure.

A judge, when acting as a judge, has a LOT of power. She can order you locked in jail, she can decide who does or does not own property, she can even terminate your legal rights to see your own children or order you executed. We give judges this power for a reason, and choose them and position them in ways to encourage them to use this power as wisely and as ethically as possible. To put things roughly, a judge has incredible power when acting in the interests of the lw and of justice

A judge, when not acting as a judge, doesn't have any particular power. A judge on her day off, say, at her kid's Little League game, cannot order you imprisoned. A judge, even while seated on her bench at the height of her power, cannot properly make dictates that the law does not authorize, and will be reversed or censured if she tries. In those contexts, the judge cannot do these things because she's not acting as a judge. She's acting as just another person in the room, and she has only the rights and privileges of any other person in the room.

I think that DMs are the same way..

Some significant differences. The judge is paid and obligated to be the judge. The judge does not have discretion over who or what they deal with. The judge cannot decide what system of laws to apply or have unfettered discretion in applying laws and making adjudications. There are appeal processes.

A DM has incredible power. We give the DM that power for a reason, though, and that power exists in the context of that reason. The DM has all kinds of power because we expect the DM to have a larger vision of the campaign and the game than the players. We give the DM this power because we expect the DM to use that broader vision to make wiser long term decisions than a player might make from the player's limited perspective.

Eh, I'd disagree here. I've played in games where I've been more into it and taken if more seriously and put more thought into it than the DM and I'd expect I'd make "wiser long term decisions" even given my limited player perspective.

The DM runs the game and provides the world and environment the players interact with. This includes things allowed in and excluded. The DM's power is derived from that position, not a superior wisdom position.

But a DM who isn't acting as a DM, like our judge on her day off, is just another person in the room. A DM not acting as a DM has only the rights and privileges of just another person in the room. Its why being the Dungeon Master doesn't entitle you to demand that your friends wash your car or clean your kitchen. That doesn't have to do with your role as a DM.

Agree.

The trickier questions are things that have to do with the game, but in my opinion, have nothing to do with your role as a Dungeon Master. That's why I'm always so interested in a DM's motives rather than his decision itself. A DM who, say, bans dragonborn, because he has an established 3e game in an established setting and he does want to switch to 4e but doesn't want to change the setting, is probably acting as a DM. He is probably concerning himself continuity and setting coherence, and is probably making the decision that he reasonably believes to be in the long term interests of the game.

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.

I think its because of your opinion of what a DM's role is. I disagree with that role so its not surprising I disagree with your conclusion here.

I also find this judge analogy off the mark. If the DM were banning X from playing a dragonborn because he doesn't like X that would be closer. I'm having trouble coming up with something analogous to banning dragonborn from a campaign a judge can do based solely on an openly stated personal preference.

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.

Neither of them has to. There is no obligation as either a player or a DM to play a D&D game you don't want to.

That's not the immediate response though.

The immediate response is that choosing things like whether the world has dragonborn is a DM role. Whether a player wants to play one is a player role choice.

The key here is that these sorts of decisions, made not as DM but rather as just some guy in a D&D game, have less legitimacy than decisions made as a DM. They're being made from a position that is on par with everyone else in the room. And as such, compromise or adjudication of issues that affect the DM not as a DM but rather as a player in the game need to be made from the perspective of a group of equals. Not from the perspective of one person dictating his will to his subordinates.

The only "power" a DM has to resolve "guy in the room" issues unrelated to his role as a DM is the power of the superior ultimatum- its generally harder to get a new DM than to get a new player, so the DM can make better threats to take his stuff and go home. But lets be clear, in the "ban X because I hate it" context, that's all that's happening- the DM isn't trying to bring an unruly player into line, two friends are sitting in a basement arguing and threatening to take their toys and go home if the other won't play the game the way they demand. One might own more of the toys, and therefore have superior leverage, but there's nothing going on other than a power play between moral equals.

I don't see your distinction between rulings based on campaign theme versus personal preference power. That power is still there when the DM makes rulings based on wise decisions for the good of the campaign. Ultimately both DM and player can walk away if they don't like how things are going for whatever reason. As opposed to a judge and someone engaged before the court.

 

[Voadam]

If its possible for someone to hate something like a player race so much that he can't contribute to the game effectively if its present, then there's no reason that's limited to only DMs. Its an open question for those who think that this sort of thing happens- what should players do in those circumstances? I honestly don't know.

Three options, suck it up and play despite it, ask that it not be included or that some compromise be made, or don't play.

 

[Voadam]

LOL. Well, let's keep the gloves on then.

Look, I'm not trying to push buttons here. I really do believe what I'm saying. I see this sort of thing as really abusing the position of DM.

I believe you honestly believe that. I just disagree.

 

[Voadam]

But it would be even more mature not to be the sort of person who has such a hate-on for a part of a roleplaying game that he can't do a good job running a game if its present.

I mean, I hate half races. I think they're the dumbest thing ever. I hate the implications about biology, and I hate the way that only certain half races ever show up. I particularly hate the way all of the half races are popularly labeled by their percentage of human.

But I can't for the life of me imagine not being able to DM competently to a group with a half orc PC.

We can do things we don't like. So? That isn't a reason to do so.

Wouldn't it be better to run a game without elements you hate? Taken as given that both you and your players are flexible enough that you can deal with or without anything in the game why include things you know you hate? Is there nothing your players can enjoy playing except the things you hate? Don't you as DM want to take into consideration the likes and dislikes of the players and vice versa? Isn't a game that includes elements everyone likes and none that people dislike a better goal than having everybody accept things they don't like?

There are a ton of possibilities and options in D&D. More than people can use. I don't see a need to include things you don't like.

 

[Greg K]

1. Why is this concern unique to the DM? What if the DM hates dragonborn, but loves tieflings, and one of the players knows that his hatred of tieflings will ultimately have a negative effect on his contributions to the game?

Isn't the common wisdom that DMs are much harder to come by? If so, then yes, the DM is more important and players are a dime a dozen, because without DMs there are no games for the players. Not that I don't love my players to death (and, with all the player horror stories and entitlement threads, I always appreciate them more).

If your argument is that the DM is more important,so he has to be mollycoddled more than the players because his unhappiness will reverberate in a way that a player's will not, are you really happy with that reasoning? With the idea that the DM is essentially a giant baby, and everyone has to be extra nice to him and give him privileges that no one else gets not because he will use them more wisely, but simply because catering to him is the only way that everyone can get along?

Sorry, you are too blind to see the difference between being a baby and how an irritant can become something worse with time and lose interest and, furthermore, how the DM's interest is more important than one player- if one player leaves a group there is still a game. If the DM leaves, there is only a game if somebody is willing to step up.

And, players don't have some special right to play in a campaign being run by somebody. Players have the right to ask upfront the terms and style of the campaign and, if they don't like the terms, to walk (or, even, better, start a game with a style they prefer)- and I would encourage anyone to do so if they don't enjoy the game that they are in.

2.BUT I think it is very unlikely that most people actually hate something like a player character race quite that much.

In my experience, you are wrong. Most DMs I know happend to have races they don't like and that affects the content of the settings they build. Furthermore, among the gamers I know, it extends to a lot of WOTC's supplements . Therefore, they rely mostly on core houseruling some elements or use 3rd party with limits on WOTC material. I happen to be one of them. As such my, campaigns are shaped primarily by Unearthed Arcana and various third party supplements into the type of campaign I want to run.

Outside of the core books and UA, the only WOTC books heavily used are MM2 and Fiend Folio with Heroes of Horror, Fiendish Codex 1, Stormwrack, BOVD, Lords of Madness and Dragonomicon used depending upon the campaign. We use also use a few odds and ends from PHB2, Complete Arcane, Complete Warrior, Complete Mage, Complete Adventure, Arms and Equipment Guide, OA (Shaman class) and Sandstorm, but the amount is negligible.

You won't find any of the WOTC supplemental base classes (except the OA shaman), half dragons or other templated characters,,monsters as PCs (except for a lizardman race in my current campaign ). You also want find TOB, MoI, ToM, XPH, because I dislike them.

You will, however, find lots of UA style class variants that fit the roles and cultures I envision for the setting and third party supplements that help shape the game to reflect what I am interested

And, despite my refusal to use most WOTC supplemenal books, classes, prcs, etc, I must be doing something right, because

a) I have been the default DM in a group that has always had three to four dms at a time and, everytime I try to be a player, the other players and DMs want to know when I will be ready to run again;

b) I have only lost players to relocation for school (which I knew would happen before they joined) or work (2 that moved cross-country);

c) have players that make trips three or four times a year just to play in my game.

d) receive calls from previous players when they return asking if I have room in my current campaign or if I might reboot an older campaign so they can resume playing a character.

 

[Mark]

Isn't the common wisdom that DMs are much harder to come by?

Yes and no. DMs are harder to come by than players but wisdom is harder to come by than either.

 

[fanboy2000]

Talking about DM player relations more generally.

I take the approach that there are only two rules to dungeon mastering:
1. The DM rules with absolute authority. (Caesar has nothing on the power a DM wields.)
2. The DM rules with consent of the governed.

Generally speaking, it's best for a DM to keep rule number two a secret from his or her players. Mind you, it's an important rule all DMs should keep in mind. But it's better for everyone if the DM doesn't actually remind anyone of the fact; doing so could lead to dissension among the rabble.

Keenly aware of number two, I throw my players a few bones to keep them quite (or at least, ignorable):

1. The rules in the main rule book are binding on me.

In D&D only the PHB is binding on me. (PHB 1 in editions that have more than one.) The DMG is persuasive. The MM is also persuasive, but less so. If players try to tell me a monster I'm running must certain stats are be a certain way, they will quickly be set straight.

2. Players have full control over their characters backgrounds, names, and actions.

Real life examples include the Gnome who thought he was the Nome King from Ozma of Oz (and other Oz books), the guy who named his character Sir Sir Sir. (The first Sir was a title), the guy who wanted to be a half-orc in a Norse campaign where half-orc were giants (we did warn him), and the kid who said his tifeling was 1/4 demon (sure, whatever makes you happy.)

3. Some consistency in encounter design and make-up.

This creates a sense of stability that allows my players to come-up with interesting strategies and plan ahead, combat wise. This ties in with making the main rule book binding. This gives the players the ability to plan and plot using a stable ruleset that has online support.

The upshot for me, is that I can exploit this familiarity by lulling my players into a false sense of security.

The important thing to remember, though, is that rule number two means that if the DM abuses his or her authority the number of players in the group may drop to zero. However, I've found that keep that from happening by employing the above guidelines.

 

[Mournblade94]

I'll take kender or lizardmen over Dragonborn. Wait, my campaign actually has a lizardman race. I just don't want a race of fire breathing reptillian humanoids- especially pcs. It's not the style of game that interests me.

It probably doesn't help that between dragon heritage sorcerous feats, half-dragons with breath weapons, dragon shamans etc. the whole thing, imo, has become ridiculous (except if specifically chosen in a toolbox approach or for a dragon themed campaign).
Give me something different like dragons as divine creatures and half dragons, as their offspring, don't have breath weapons. Instead, they are more charismatic in presence, better physical specimens (better con and either str or dex), and have some kind of divine commanding voice with the dragon heritage as requirement for a PrC (or for Epic Destiny)- just not breath weapons.

Good Post. Dragonborn was one of the first things that turned me off to 4th edition. I even let a player play one, and I am known for eliminating races I don't like from being playable.

Still Dragonborn are commonly found at my dunkin donuts. They come in packages of 20, or 50.

 

[Mournblade94]

1. Why is this concern unique to the DM? What if the DM hates dragonborn, but loves tieflings, and one of the players knows that his hatred of tieflings will ultimately have a negative effect on his contributions to the game?

If your argument is that the DM is more important, so he has to be mollycoddled more than the players because his unhappiness will reverberate in a way that a player's will not, are you really happy with that reasoning? With the idea that the DM is essentially a giant baby, and everyone has to be extra nice to him and give him privileges that no one else gets not because he will use them more wisely, but simply because catering to him is the only way that everyone can get along?

2. I question whether this really happens to people. See my earlier post about actually hating something so bad it makes the game suffer, and just being dramatic. IF the DM hates something so bad the game will suffer from his primal revulsion, THEN that something should probably be banned (or the DM replaced with someone a little less emotionally fragile), BUT I think it is very unlikely that most people actually hate something like a player character race quite that much.

I'm amazed how much disagreement my views generate. I just think that the reason that we respect the DM's authority is because he is in a position to best decide whether adding dragonborn to the game will help or hurt the overall game experience. I think the respect that the DM is entitled to is tied to this superior perspective, and is therefore forfeit if the DM abandons that perspective and starts using the authority vested in him by the group to satisfy personal whims unrelated to the quality of the game.

So, I respect the decision of a DM who bans something for a game related reason, and I don't respect the decision of a DM who bans something because he thinks its stupid and he knows he can get away with banning it because the players will let him have what he wants rather than try to find a new DM.

I don't see why that's so controversial.

Not controversial at all. Just a point of view.

I see nothing wrong with a DM eliminating a race simply because they do not like it.

I have written races out of various campaign worlds simply because I did not like them. I have run games where I only wanted Players to play humans.

In no case did it stifle someones creativity. THey worked within the parameters.

Even a player that wanted to play Kender, conceded. I hate kender...

 

[Gentlegamer]

Still Dragonborn are commonly found at my dunkin donuts. They come in packages of 20, or 50.

I see what you did there.