Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[ProfessorPain]

For me as a player, I prefer a DM that has a vision of a campaign world, and enforces that vision for the purpose of consistency and flavor. Once the campaign gets started though, I do expect the DM to be open minded and fair. So if he doesn't want teiflings, no problem. Especially if it doesn't suit the world he has created. But if he starts telling me how to play the character I have created, that is when I would have a problem. Maybe I am a little old school, but I do think it is helpful to have a DM who makes editorial decisions at character creation time.

 

[Greg K]

For me as a player, I prefer a DM that has a vision of a campaign world, and enforces that vision for the purpose of consistency and flavor. Once the campaign gets started though, I do expect the DM to be open minded and fair. So if he doesn't want teiflings, no problem. .

Exactly, how I feel.

I might be strict on the elements found in the setting and enforcing the limits during character and background creation. However, once play starts, the focus is on the characters and the players direct in which direction the campaign heads- their mistakes can even blow up the world and I am fine. My only restriction is the characters must remain non-evil and be heroic (even if the reluctant hero).

 

[Cadfan]

Gregk- You're arguing something a little bit different than me.

You're arguing about power. I'm talking about legitimacy.

You begin with the assumption that DMs are harder to replace than players, and you then conclude that they have the power to ban things they don't like because, well, because they can, and the players can't do anything about it. You're dealing on the ultimatum level that I've discussed earlier in the thread, where matters like respect are irrelevant. The dungeon master can ban something, the players can't ignore him and play it anyways, so obviously he has the power to ban.

I'm not disagreeing with that directly. I just have two objections.

First, its not the way most people actually game. Yes, power structures are relevant and affect our interactions even at the gaming table. But no, they're not everything. I think that respect of the DM's role as a valued neutral arbiter possessed of greater knowledge about the campaign is better at explaining certain things. Not things like whether the DM can ban something, but things like whether the DM can ban something and then have everyone at the table accept that without complaint. That's far more interesting to me. And when someone asks a question about whether a GM is taking his control too far, well, its the issue, isn't it? Not whether the GM can do something, but whether his players have a reasonable comlaint if he does?

Second, power structures vary. If it was really all about who could best leverage a threat to take their ball and go home, then the guy who hosts the game or the guy who most often pays for pizza would be able to ban dragonborn even if he wasn't the DM. But that's not the case. When a group decides to essentially invest someone with the authority to ban material or make other similar decisions, they don't give it to whoever can most easily destroy the game if they don't get what they want, as in your line of reasoning.

I'm not trying to answer the question of whether the DM can do something in some abstract Machiavellian sense. That wouldn't even be answerable, if pure power relations were all that mattered, because the specifics would screw things up- maybe the DM has the power to blow up the game, but the person complaining is the one who gives the DM a ride to work every morning. I'm trying to answer the question of when, socially, we do or do not accept a DM's ruling as having been a "good" one. A legitimate one.

And I think that the motivations behind the ruling are the key to understanding how we think about these things in real life where we mostly aren't flinging ultimatums at one another to resolve what sort of elves we're allowed to pretend to be.

And for the record I still don't believe that any real person actually can't DM a game that includes a player character race he doesn't like. Just don't buy it. I believe people might say that, much like they might say that they're going to hold their breath forever and ever until they die unless they get what they want. I don't believe they actually can't.

 

[Mournblade94]

And for the record I still don't believe that any real person actually can't DM a game that includes a player character race he doesn't like. Just don't buy it. I believe people might say that, much like they might say that they're going to hold their breath forever and ever until they die unless they get what they want. I don't believe they actually can't.

THat argument was made earlier, but I certainly don't buy it either. I may not allow a race in any particular game, but that does not mean I could not handle it if it was somehow forced upon me.

I am not a fan of 4e, yet I run 4e games for the gamestore all of the time. Since it is advertisement for the gamestore, I just treat it as absolute core.

I do find it difficult to get inspired to CREATE adventures for those games however so I tend to use alot of the published adventures, or the game day adventures.

Fortunately I don't have to buy any 4th edition products, I just get to use them at the game store.

 

[Greg K]

Cadfan,

No, the players do have power. They have the power to choose not to play. That is their ultimate veto power. If all of the players walk, the DM has no game.
I also believe that the DM should hear out his players out. However, when push comes to shove, it is the DM, who ultimately makes the decision as to what gets included.

And, no, the guy buying the pizza or hosting the game does not hold power to make the decision unless the others give up their power to walk or he is holding a gun to their heads. Otherwise, if the DM disagrees, he takes the campaign with him. If the other players choose disagree they also leave him with no players.

 

[Greg K]

And for the record I still don't believe that any real person actually can't DM a game that includes a player character race he doesn't like. Just don't buy it. I believe people might say that, much like they might say that they're going to hold their breath forever and ever until they die unless they get what they want. I don't believe they actually can't.

Can't in an absolute sense? Yes, they probably can run a game . However, I can see them finding themselves lacking the inspiration to do a good job.

I don't use modules/adventure paths and tailor my actual sessions to the characters. I have absolutely no interest in coming up with anything for Tieflings or Dragonborn as they bring in elements that I have no interest in whatsoever.

 

[S'mon]

Exactly, how I feel.

I might be strict on the elements found in the setting and enforcing the limits during character and background creation. However, once play starts, the focus is on the characters and the players direct in which direction the campaign heads- their mistakes can even blow up the world and I am fine. My only restriction is the characters must remain non-evil and be heroic (even if the reluctant hero).

That's my approach also.

 

[Hussar]

For me as a player, I prefer a DM that has a vision of a campaign world, and enforces that vision for the purpose of consistency and flavor. Once the campaign gets started though, I do expect the DM to be open minded and fair. So if he doesn't want teiflings, no problem. Especially if it doesn't suit the world he has created. But if he starts telling me how to play the character I have created, that is when I would have a problem. Maybe I am a little old school, but I do think it is helpful to have a DM who makes editorial decisions at character creation time.

I can see what you're saying, and I've certainly seen this done successfully in practice.

However, the problem that I see far too often is that DM's go beyond having a vision of their campaign world and a "VISION" of their campaign world. I cannot be the only one to see DM's whose worlds are like these finely crafted ships in a bottle and absolutely freak out if you try to do anything outside of that bottle (to mangle a metaphor).

I really think there are a number of DM's out there who need to get over themselves. Their world is not a special place. It's not the next Middle Earth. It's yet another fantasy mishmash world inspired by whatever tickles their fancy.

That's not saying that the world is bad or uninteresting or uninspired or anything like that. I'm just saying that it's not as important as some people make it out to be.

I'm totally on board with the idea that the group has to buy into the campaign. If a player wants to play the Terminator in my Call of Cthulu campaign, we have a problem. But, it's a communication problem and hopefully we can sort it out.

But, there are all sorts of grey areas where the player and the DM butt heads. Dragonborn are a good example. It used to be psionics that was the poster boy for this. Psionics particularly because they required the DM to incorporate new mechanics into his game. That's just forcing work on the DM.

But a new race? That takes 30 seconds to bring into a campaign setting. Particularly in a fantasy setting. He got off a boat from far away. There. New race, and the DM has to do zero work. You could go a bit fantasy and bring in the idea of teleporting portals. Magical experiment gone awry. Heck, the dragonborn character could BE the result of a magical experiment. There's a million different ways to incorporate something like this into a campaign with a minimum of fuss.

The argument that it would be too much work to change your campaign rings pretty hollow to me. Unless you have every square inch of your campaign world intricately detailed, it's too easy to bring in a new race/class/whatever.

Aus Snow commented that I was pointing to the "superiority" of my point of view. Hey, I really do believe what I'm saying. Yes, I think its a grave mistake to force your personal preferences on the player. I think it's a serious mistake to hold the game hostage if you don't get your way. "Accept my terms or don't play" is a terrible way to run a table in my opinion. And that's what has repeatedly been stated here. The DM should either bounce the player who won't agree, or refuse to DM. Me, I'd rather simply back off a bit, let the player have his way and work with the player, rather than be so extreme.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Hussar, I do appreciate your point of view, and think DMs who get overly pedantic about their world can be annoying as well. However for me, it reduces my enjoyment as a player when DMs allow everything and anything; particularly races such as dragonborn and teiflings. Again, it might be because I am 'old school'; but for me they are the new dark elf and half dragon. It can be cool in some settings, but lots of times, I find them kind of out of place. Especially dragon borne, who are not really that human looking. Also, I like my DM to have a vision; and I like that vision to be somewhat restricted; for me, its about consistency and suspension of disbelief. No, they aren't making the next middle earth--and to be perfectly honest, there isn't a whole lot special about middle earth in my mind anyways-- but it is nice to have a cohesive theme and mood; and some races/classes/character concepts, can ruin some moods and themes.

 

[Greg K]

But, there are all sorts of grey areas where the player and the DM butt heads. Dragonborn are a good example. It used to be psionics that was the poster boy for this. Psionics particularly because they required the DM to incorporate new mechanics into his game. That's just forcing work on the DM.
.

See, I don't agree that they are grey areas. The inclusion of those things states something about the setting. Setting is a key element that gets me as a player to buy in to the campaign. If I don't like your setting, I am not playing (which means I don't play Planescape or Eberron).

Now, if I were a casual player, I would probably feel differently. However, I scored less than 10% as a casual gamer on the Law's quiz and the result is pretty accurate (which is why my friends cannot get me to LARP with them no matter how hard they try).

And, for settings where I would allow psionic abilities, the official mechanics and powers themselves were the problem- not having to learn new mechanics. In appropriate campaigns, I'll allow the Psychic from Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook, but not the Psi HB or XPH.