Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[S'mon]

Thinking about it now, I think that's where our different approaches lie. I have a stable group that is all on the same channel as I am (more or less) and I know that they aren't going to pull red dragon crap on me. You're in a different situation, where you are constantly gaming with strangers. Makes "say yes" much, MUCH more problematic.

Yes, I agree. You're right. On the upside, it looks like I have got a stable base of 4 players developing, all of whom are good and trustworthy players. Since I booted red dragon guy in December the 2 January sessions were great (there was 1 guest player who didn't cause any problems). I'm very open to suggestions from those 4, because I know they won't pull a fast one on me or try to twist my campaign premise from 'heroic defenders of Willow Vale' to 'bloodthirty elf murdering psychos' the way a couple of former players tried to.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, I agree. You're right. On the upside, it looks like I have got a stable base of 4 players developing, all of whom are good and trustworthy players. Since I booted red dragon guy in December the 2 January sessions were great (there was 1 guest player who didn't cause any problems). I'm very open to suggestions from those 4, because I know they won't pull a fast one on me or try to twist my campaign premise from 'heroic defenders of Willow Vale' to 'bloodthirty elf murdering psychos' the way a couple of former players tried to.

Oh yeah. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. Started a hard SF game a few years back based on the Kim Stanley Robinson Mars novels. Really pushed the idea that these were hand picked scientists and leaders in their fields who went through months of psych testing to make sure they were suitable colonists.

Then one player suddenly, out of the blue decides that his character is a secret ninja in the pay of a Mega-Corp with suicide issues and tries to off himself and the entire mission at the same time.

He was asked to leave.

 

[Greg K]

I wonder what Gregk's situation is. If you're still reading this Gregk, do you have a fairly stable group or are you gaming with strangers often?

Hussar, I am off to the doctor. I 'll reply to the post when I get back home.

 

[Greg K]

A lot of this sort of thing can get nipped in the bud with sitting down with the players, before any character is created, and being extremely open about what your campaign is about and what you expect from it. Don't pussy foot around it and don't wait until you have problems to try to fix them.

Fear the Boot (a podcast I regularly listen to) calls it a Group Template. I think it's an absolutely fantastic idea. Instead of everyone going off to write up their characters, showing up on the first game day and trying to shoehorn things in, have a very detailed point form list of what your expectations are for the campaign and have everyone sit down and talk together about them.

Once you do this, and get everyone on the same wavelength, so many of these issues go away.

The above is pretty much what I do. However, at the character generation meeting, I come with a setting that includes the available PC races, the cultures and deities fleshed out. I also have a list of available classes and UA style class variants which are assigned to various cultures

For example, the upcoming campaign includes the following classes: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric (all are customized to the settings deities), Fighter, Knight (Hong's OA Samurai variant), Paladin, Psychic (Green Ronn), Ranger (spellcasting and non-spellcasting), Rogue, Shaman (Green Ronin), Sorcerer, Warrior Mage (AEG's Myrmidon), Witch (Green Ronin), Wizard (tentative), Wizard Specialist (using the UA specialist wizard variant abilities. It also includes the OA shaman with a few changes to make it a divine class.

Class variants include: Barbarian Hunter, Battle Sorcerer, Urban Barbarian, Wilderness Rogue, Martial Rogue, and several fighter variants (based off of the PHB section in customizing a character).

Now, not every race/class combo is normally available. Some combinations are only found in certain cultures, but I am willing to consider an unusual background that fits within the setting guidelines (e.g., a half elf Shaman growing up on the island of Maridian would be rare, but acceptable as a Maridian Shaman. However, any other non-Maridian would not be. Humans don't have blood ties to the spirits and any other race would be sacraficed.

We discuss the setting and cultures. People ask questions. They come up with possible ideas and we meet one on one or in small groups based on the cultures of interest to discuss the ideas. In the meetings, I give a little more info (e.g, some recent history, noteable NPCs and organizations, and cultural attributes), to help give the players more info some of which they might use as hooks.
Then they draw up backgrounds and we discuss them to make necesssary tweaks or fine tune the character.

I wonder what Gregk's situation is. If you're still reading this Gregk, do you have a fairly stable group or are you gaming with strangers often?

I am just finally having a stable group again after three years. The last stable group had been together for ten years or so.

The three replacements were only temporary. I knew up front that they were leaving for college within a year. However, all three moved several hours away. One ran off to live with her s.o in San Francisco and the other two moved with their parents. Two of the three still come to visit and game several times a year (so I figure that I am doing something right).

The current regulars include the two long term players and the five new players (four of whom have been gaming with us in my M&M campaign for the past year).

Now, does the stability instabilit of the group have anything to do with my GMing style? No.

The reason that the setting limitations are used are:
1) I prefer non-kitchen sink settings where the limitations help defind the setting. The one player, who initially had a problem with the idea of not playing his favorite class actually ended up with his favorite character of all time. The other players also found it to be their favorite campaign.


2. I like the players to know their choice upfront. The books used and what is and is not available gives everyone the same options to choose from upfront while keeping things manageable for me.

3. I keep the mechanics that reflect my mechanical preference or view of which mechanics better simulate how things work in the setting. For example, Malhavoc's Book of Iron Might over WOTC's Tome of Battle and Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook over WOTC's PsiHB or XPHB.

4. It stops players in mid-campaign from going "Wow, this new race, class or mechanic or other new shiny thing looks interesting". Ok, I kill or retire my character so I can try it out.

5. Sometimes it does come down to just a personal preference- no dragonborn, half dragons, templated characters or tieflings. Rare, but it happens.

My question to you is, what if the player is willing to change the flavour, so that it suits your campaign world ?

It depends. Pretty much the actual uses of nearly every supplemental WOTC class, PrC, race, and alternative mechanic (ToB, ToM, MoI) is not open for discussion. I am familiar with them and not interested in using them (or fighting though what I consider really bad fluff and/or application of an idea)

Plus, for some classes or PrCs, I already have alternative set up:

- Duskblade or any other Arcane Warrior class- AEG's Myrmidon.
- Knight- Hong's Knight variant of the OA Samurai
- Psi-HB and XPH- Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook (except no Psylocke energy blade characters)
- Scout: use the Martial Rogue (UA) w/ the wilderness rogue variant. I'll even let you upgrade hit die for 2 skill points/ level
- Spirit Shaman- Green Ronin's Shaman class

(heck, using the tried and true "fell down a rabbit hole and is trying to get home" trope works), would you still veto dragonborn

Yes, I would.
1). I don't like the planar trope. I like self contained worlds- perhaps, with some version of heaven and hell and, depending upon the campaign, a spirit world, dream world, and/or shadow world. So, no planar travel between various worlds- unless you are a shaman going into the spirit world or the character dies.

2) If I make one exception, it just opens a can of worms when somebody else wants some concept that doesn't fit.

3) Dragonborn will never be part of a world I run. I have no interest in a world with little mini-me breath weapon Godzillas.

Now, if they want to run a lizardman, I'm perfectly fine. I do have a lizardman race- the starting class choices are Barbarian (PHB or UA hunter variant), Fighter (ex-hunter variant), Shaman, Wilderness Rogue, Sorcerer, and Witch.

 

[Mallus]

I would never let players dictate what the gods do in a Planescape campaign, that's my job as the DM.

Is sharing that responsibility w/the player out of the question for you? I've had great success in sharing that level of narrative control w/my players, though I'm fortunate enough to play with people who are more interested in a good story than wringing material advantages out of the DM.

She also wanted to do The Shining "index finger talking" scenario all the time so other players will know her PC is crazy.

How did that work out in play?

She originally named her first lion animal companion "Mittens". I didn't like this, but I didn't think it was too bad so I let it slide.

I'm not trying to belittle you Oryan, but statements like this do make you seem petty and controlling, at least w/r/t this issue.

A DM has naming rights over the entire campaign universe; the countries, continents, mountain ranges and constellations in the sky, not to mention every NPC encountered. In light of that it doesn't seem unreasonable to concede to the players the right to name their pet.

(I say this as someone who primarily DM's.)

Some people might get a kick out of hearing that in a movie, but that's just not my taste.

How much of the game has to be to your taste?

I have a confession to make, I don't like the name of one of the PC's in my long-running 3.5e campaign (the player named his archer after a famous fictional character). I even, briefly, considered asking him to change it, and I sure he would have --no hard feelings-- if I did. However, I decided not to. People enjoy the game in different ways and I'd thought I'd try to respect that. Heck, I control enough of the game as DM, let him have his name.

Turned out to be a great character. And despite a name I didn't particularly like the campaign had my distinctive authorial stamp all over it.

Anytime a man says anything to a woman about gender, of course she is going to claim he's sexist.

Actually, it's hard to make the above statement and not sound sexist.

I am upset with what you've said about me and causing the public to think bad of me, but whatever.

Oryan, the OP was complaining about an anonymous DM. You outed yourself to the 'public' here on ENworld. You can't blame her for that.

 

[Greg K]

I want to elaborate on one thing.

I actually had began focusing more on setting with the long time group.
I was getting bored with the anything goes kitchen sink. Among the groups I was playing, the games felt pretty much the same and, within groups, certain players always insisted on playing the same class/race.

Furthermore, there was always that one player that always wanted to try the latest shiny thing and would get his character killed so he could jump in with his new character.

I was losing interest in the game.

What re-ignited my interest were Al Quadim, Dragonlance (initially), Dark Sun, Oriental Adventures, and Ravenloft. And, what interested me were the things that I liked most were where they tweaked or completely deviated from the standard rules and tropes.

The campaign that I started was limited in race to humans, half-elves, dwarves, and lizardmen. The classes were also limited by culture. Granted, the players were unsure (with one being almost reluctant), but they trusted me. It worked out so well, that for six years, the only time I ever got to play was if I specificallly requested a break to recharge- and, even then, everyone always wanted to know when I would be ready to resume the campaign.

 

[Oryan77]

You have been unfairly judged, and I call all charges to be dropped immediately .

It's good to see a few people that actually understand where I'm coming from, thanks! I just think it's funny that people will argue so passionately that you are a bad DM when all it comes down to is a difference in play styles or preferences. I've read/heard horror stories from players about DMs that are really doing some crappy things to their players. The type of things being ranted about me seem pretty darn petty. I could be a hell of a lot worse

Is sharing that responsibility w/the player out of the question for you?

If players have ideas for the campaign, I am not against listening to them and considering them. I have used lots of player feedback and implement ideas from it into the campaign. I grew up playing D&D with the understanding that my PC has no control over the world around him other than what he does in game. We compare it to the control we have over our real lives. Just because I'm alive, does not mean that Bill Gates should hire me at Microsoft just because I prayed to god that he does. That may be a stupid analogy, but it's all I got for ya

I listen to players, but if I say no about a backstory, then why do I have to keep defending my reasons? People are accusing me of being a controlling DM, but isn't it just as controlling for a player to insist that my gods in my world do what controlling players want them to do? A player that is calling me controlling for simply trying to "control" my campaign world sounds a bit hypocritical to me. If a player wants to run my world, then why don't they just DM their own world? I've never in my life thought about telling a DM how his world or NPCs should be run....I wish I could control people like that in real life...it would make driving much less stressful

How did that work out in play?

She never made the PC and this was something I was against anyway (I think I explained why in my first post). I did however give her ideas to help her make an insane PC that would fit the tone of the campaign and not annoy other players or myself. I told her I was not against the PC having crazy quirks, I just asked her to come up with something different. I have helped lots of player fine tune their backstories in this same way and have never had anyone throw a fit like the OP did. Everyone else was always completely understanding and we worked together to get a history that we were both happy with. They even welcomed my help & suggestions. Hearing people say that it's bad that I denied the slightest detail to a backstory is really news to me. I don't want a player thinking I'm trying to rewrite their history, but I need to make sure their ideas work with the campaign and won't be stepping over any boundaries.

it doesn't seem unreasonable to concede to the players the right to name their pet.

They can name their pets whatever they want as long as it fits the tone of our campaign. "Anything goes" is just not the theme for this particular campaign. I don't understand why people have a problem with this.

Heck, I thought I was actually being a good DM by not saying anything about how the first pet name bothered me. I let it slide. But because it was becoming a theme to have silly pet names (and the new name was even more silly to me than the last name), I had to ask her to stop because I didn't want the campaign to start going down that path of silliness. I've learned that I'll now have to stick to my guns even more in the future. She blasted me for allowing the 1st silly pet name to begin with because I "got her hopes up". So next time I won't be so lenient I guess.

How much of the game has to be to your taste?

That is a very hard question to answer. All I can say is that I have an idea for the tone I'm trying to set. The players don't really complain about the tone/style of the game & seem to be having fun. I let the OP have the 1st silly pet name, and other players have done things that weren't really to my liking. So I wouldn't say the game has to be 100% to my taste. I'm open to suggestions & requests from players, but in the end, I need to be happy running this campaign.

But as I've said before, I didn't start this campaign with the intention of making it fit every players tastes. I started the campaign and then asked people if they want to play it. Some people like to make it seem like I should be allowing players to dictate what NPCs do in this world as if they are co-DMs. That would be fine if that was the type of game I was running, but it's not. The OP seems to want a campaign where she gets to be a co-DM. If I was running that sort of campaign, then I wouldn't have a problem with her telling me what the gods did to her PC.

Actually, it's hard to make the above statement and not sound sexist.

Well, my wife wouldn't have married me if I was sexist. The sexist comment is what ticked her off the most which is why the OP is no longer welcome to my home. So her opinion is all that matters to me. Her & I know that I am not sexist.

I guess what I should have said was, "Anytime a man says anything to a woman like the OP about gender, of course she is going to claim he's sexist". I innocently made a comparison between men & women and it was not the slightest bit insulting. Rather than pay attention to what I was saying, she was ready to argue with me. She's a very defensive person.

Oryan, the OP was complaining about an anonymous DM. You outed yourself to the 'public' here on ENworld. You can't blame her for that.

Sheesh, you are really picking my words apart aren't ya

I was hurt that she bad mouthed me, at all. I don't care if anyone knows it was me she was talking about. If I did, I woulda just kept quiet and responded to this thread with, "Yeah, that DM sounds like a real loser! I hope I never run into that scumbag!" Yes, nobody knew it was me, but that doesn't make me feel any better knowing that what these people are saying is in regards to me. And the only reason they are talking about me is because of her badmouthing me....behind my back.

 

[S'mon]

Oryan, your posting here will get some people saying "Your player sucked!" and some people saying "Your GMing sucks!"; but I can't see how it's in any way constructive. You had a compatibility issue. You dropped the player. You need to move on.

 

[jdrakeh]

Thanks for chiming in Oryan.

After hearing your side of the story, things seem much less outrageous. FWIW, I wouldn't have any problems playing in the campaign that you describe and definitely see the issue from your perspective.

If a potential player knows ahead of time that all of the other players and the GM want, expect, and have agreed to play a kind of game that doesn't interest them (i.e., the potential player) the solution is to give the game a pass — not to sign up and then sabotage the game that everybody else wants, expects, and has agreed to play in order to mold it to your own expectations.

IMO, if a player knows that they prefer slapstick humor in actual play, for example, they shouldn't agree to play a "serious" campaign and then try to insert slapstick humor after the fact. In this particular instance, it sounds like the player knew exactly what was expected up front, agreed to it, and then tried to break that agreement whenever and however possible after the game started.
This shows a great deal of disrespect for the existing mutual agreement between players. It definitely reminds me of the "Mister Nuckinfutz" Shadowrun guy (albeit not nearly that extreme).

 

[Oryan77]

You need to move on.

I've posted, what, 4 times in this thread? Who says I haven't moved on? A few people have asked some questions and I wanted to take the time to answer them. I found this thread to be pretty interesting and I've learned a few things from this situation.

In this particular instance, it sounds like the player knew exactly what was expected up front, agreed to it, and then tried to break that agreement whenever and however possible after the game started.

I don't really think this was her intention. Like I said, she was learning the ways of the game as she was playing. I usually interview people before inviting them in the group and I give them the rundown of the game then. I didn't do this with her. I also made the mistake of not saying anything about the silly names the first time she used one. I was trying to be less controlling but that backfired on me I guess. We also have a lot of silly (out of game) discussions. So I can understand why she would be blindsided by the no silly name issue. I blame myself for this issue.

Things like that just aren't a big deal to me as a player though. What I learned from all of this; if you don't want to end up in my position, it's best to still have that "interview" with a person even if a player brought them in as a friend. It will be as good for that person as it will be for you.