Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[ProfessorPain]

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...

If the DM is using his own campaign world, no reason why he can't remove races. I have played in all human settings before. This sort of move doesn't usually make many waves in most groups. One of the things that makes different settings unique is how they treat the various races. I do not think the DM is being unreasonable because he removed one race from his game world.

 

[mmu1]

Here's my favorite thing about giving the DM a large amount of control:

Committees suck. If everyone gets an equal vote, then I'm at the mercy of five or six other people - who will sometimes make decisions about the world on a whim, when bored or tired, or based on ideas that I might find outright silly.

On the other hand, if the DM is the one strongly in charge, I only need to find that one person running a game whose ideas about what makes for a fun rpg closely match mine - everyone else who comes to play at the table agrees to compromise and abide by his rules, same as the ones I signed on for, and I'm much less likely to have to constantly deal with things not to my taste.

Naturally, that's no guarantee the game will be perfect, or even good, but I'll always take it over a committee...

 

[Fallen Seraph]

When it comes to me DMing, I generally set-up a brief World/Campaign Description. This gives the players the basic idea of what the world is about, the feel of it, etc.

Then we sit down and each talk about what they would like to bring into this campaign, ie; races, etc. Then figure out how to fit it into the feeling of the game, refluffing of things is basically a normal thing, almost everything is refluffed in the end.

 

[Mournblade94]

When it comes to me DMing, I generally set-up a brief World/Campaign Description. This gives the players the basic idea of what the world is about, the feel of it, etc.

Then we sit down and each talk about what they would like to bring into this campaign, ie; races, etc. Then figure out how to fit it into the feeling of the game, refluffing of things is basically a normal thing, almost everything is refluffed in the end.

Agreed. Strongly.

Whenever someone asks if they can join my game, I engage in a dialogue about what they would like to bring. I either accept their idea or tell them to work out a new one for whatever reason their original idea may have conflicted.

Since I am a DM that is in control, I make sure any player that asks to play in my game knows the parameters. Then they can make a decision whether or not they wish to join.

It is unfair to bring players expecting core rules to a campaign that is not core (in any system). The DM must make sure to let prospective players know what is disallowed ahead of time, so as not to waste anyone's time.

 

[Hussar]

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.

*I killed her anyway.

I think there are two different issues being conflated here.

One, people are talking about how they banned this or that, or use this or that book and their players are good with the decision. That's called buy in to the campaign. If the players agree with your decisions, then great, by all means, you have no problems.

If you want to use pre-gens in your campaign, and your players say "sure, that sounds cool" then everything is fine. They bought into what you are selling.

OTOH, if the player says, "Hey, I've got a really cool concept that fits with how I understand your campaign to work, but it's not a pregen" what do you do?

For me, if the player is making an honest effort to meet the DM and create an enjoyable campaign together, then I think the DM should back off. I think that any DM so inflexible to new ideas is probably not a DM I want to play with. If the DM is so laser fixated on having precisely one sort of campaign with no other outside influences, then I'm not particularly going to enjoy that game.

That your players do enjoy your game simply shows that tastes differ.

GregK, you point to the opening pages of the 3e DMG. I'd point to the opening pages of the 4e DMG and the whole "say yes" movement that has infected game design in the years after the release of 3e. That's the whole point of "say yes". When the player is making the honest effort to create an enjoyable game, I come down on the side of trusting my players.

Again, this is 100% my view. It is not an I'm right and you're wrong sort of thing. I don't like forcing my personal preferences on others. Apparently some people have no problems with it. I do. I think telling new DM's that they have absolute authority over the game leads to poor DM's. I think telling DM's to trust their players and try consensus building is a better bit of advice.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I think there are two different issues being conflated here.

Oh, more than two, most likely.

That your players do enjoy your game simply shows that tastes differ.

Yep, pretty much that. Like I was saying earlier in the thread, in fact.

When the player is making the honest effort to create an enjoyable game, I come down on the side of trusting my players.

Again, this is 100% my view. It is not an I'm right and you're wrong sort of thing. I don't like forcing my personal preferences on others. Apparently some people have no problems with it. I do. I think telling new DM's that they have absolute authority over the game leads to poor DM's. I think telling DM's to trust their players and try consensus building is a better bit of advice.

Or, alternatively, it's not about anyone forcing anything on anyone else, at all, but rather a traditional social contract* of a quite particular kind, that - when no-one has issues with it - can work perfectly well. . . as can assorted other arrangements, I'm sure.

But as for the following: 'It is not an I'm right and you're wrong sort of thing.'. . . yes, precisely so. Really sums it up neatly. Even despite the fact that, immediately after that quoted bit, you go on to explain exactly how it is that you possess the superior perspective. But never mind.

* And, by golly, there are a lot of these in life. 'Uneven'/'unequal'/whatever ones are hardly unique to 'traditional' tabletop RPG situations, for want of a better term. Not by a frickin' mile.

 

[S'mon]

When the player is making the honest effort to create an enjoyable game, I come down on the side of trusting my players.

I dunno - some players are trying to make an enjoyable game for the whole group, I trust them. Some focus on their own enjoyment, but their enjoyment closely parrallels mine - they can be the most fun of all to GM for. And some focus on their own enjoyment, and want something different - eg I want a heroic good-guys game, they want to play evil PCs. Them I say No to.

 

[Mallus]

I dunno - some players are trying to make an enjoyable game for the whole group, I trust them.

I think I forget sometimes that I'm fortunate enough to game exclusively with people I trust. I suppose I'm lucky in that regard.

I wouldn't say 'no' to players I didn't trust. I wouldn't invite them into my home in the first place.

 

[S'mon]

I think I forget sometimes that I'm fortunate enough to game exclusively with people I trust. I suppose I'm lucky in that regard.

I wouldn't say 'no' to players I didn't trust. I wouldn't invite them into my home in the first place.

In practice I have indeed chucked out or persuaded to leave all the players I don't trust. However I run a game at a club, it's supposed to be open access, and I'm skating on pretty thin ice already I think; I have to give us much effort as possible to accommodating the widest possible range of players.

 

[Similkameen]

The difficulty I have with this statement is that a player who is unhappy with elements within a campaign has the opportunity to avoid them or, if all else fails, to leave the game. I may not like tieflings. I may really hate there fluff and implementation within the game but if another player insists on playing one I might find it irritating but it isn't that much of a problem. I can even turn it into an advantage by creating dynamic tension between our characters. This will be disruptive but probably not fatal to the game.

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.

One presumes a good DM who is only happy by taking into account the desires of their party members, and sets clear reasonable limits that they live within. You set very clear lines. Your rule as quoted makes a lot of sense. Most of what is being discussed here seems to be the unusual cases. Your tiefling example wouldn't be a problem just for the DM, but for the rest of the party who agreed to live within your limitations.

The OP has since learned that there was a decision about naming that they somehow hadn't known of. So they are agreeing to abide by the DM's limits, it sounds like. There is no way to know whether the situation is reasonable or not.

Based on "He then said that he thought the difference between his idea of light-hearted and mine was because I am a woman. *rolling my eyes*

Lastly, he said he would not compromise, and, the part that really stuck in my throat, was when he said, "if I'm going to spend hours upon hours preparing a game so I can DM it for other people, my enjoyment needs to come before theirs." This, I don't get. I'm not just some pawn in his world, there to play for his pleasure. We are all in this together. Doesn't it need to be fun for everyone?"

So perhaps this DM as presented isn't so good.
1. Not particularly open
2. Lacking in some flexibility
3. Not clear about the limitations (since Architectofsleep didn't know of the naming limitation), which seems obscure since you need to choose names the DM finds acceptable.
4. I personally find it offensive that the DM (based on #3), insults the OP by basing the difference in taste on gender. Perhaps this DM has not caught on to the idea that since AD&D there aren't many in game rules that are gender based (drow excepted), and all the rather significant implications of those changes. Since I usually game with guys I find there are gender differences in how we play- seems quite reasonable (although I never heard of being a female gamer as an asset?) So this DM would drop in my estimation (especially considering he is DM to a mixed party.)

And most importantly to me, it isn't clear what makes the game enjoyable for this DM, lots of control perhaps, but that is too general a statement - micromanagement perhaps is better. The problem with the statement is that the DM needs to enjoy the game, and the only person who can really affect that is the DM. The players can only do so by staying within the limits of the game.
To me what is most enjoyable is in succeeeding in making the game fun for the players. Different goals for different DMs I guess. It sounds all very subjective, which makes your quoted rule very difficult.

So then the question becomes what makes the DM happy? (Generally by polling your players and watching their style of play, a DM can figure out what makes them happy.)

(your (ex) tiefling)