Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[Engilbrand]

I have two main groups. We understand the game. The DM will usually give a few little ideas on what we're doing, and he'll let us know what's not allowed. The default assumption in all of our games, though, is that everything in the books is allowed, and the players can change the ideas of the world.
Though I've played in games where the DM controlled things and the players played, my groups now co-construct everything. I recently made a character for a Forgotten Realms game. I made a Dhampyr Genasi from the Shadowfell. I told the DM how things were. He agreed. Unless there was some extreme reason why things don't work out the way that players tell the DM, the DM agrees. It's how I am when I DM, and it's how the others are, too.
The idea of the DM having complete control just seems strange to me.

 

[haakon1]

Why power struggles?

This discussion seems very elaborate.

My views are pretty simple:
- As a DM, I'm the referee and I choose the rules. For example, in 3e, I allowed only a limited rule set (basically Core Books), to keep the cost playing low and the game simple. I've add other stuff only on case-by-case basis, when someone requested it or I thought it was a good rule, and I decided the rule "wasn't broken" in terms of relative power and "fit" the campaign style. I've never had anyone argue the legitimacy of this approach.
-- For example, reviewing the Spear and Shield feat from the Net Book of Feats, I decided "yes" based on the Power Rating it had been given and on its historical accuracy (I spotted an illustration of the tactic in a book about ancient Greek warfare).

- As a DM, I tell people if I don't like a character idea. Sometimes, we compromise. I would put my foot down and just say no if something really didn't fit.
-- For example, a player wanted to bring in a strange reptilian race I'd never even heard of, with powers I didn't like/didn't find appropriate for a starting charater. So I told him he could play a Lizard Man instead -- which fit my world and was something I wanted to see tried.
-- I'd say no to a half-dragon or dragonborn. Part dragon, part human just doesn't make sense to me and doesn't fit my vision of the old school D&D I like to run -- threatening MY suspension of disbelief makes it a rules violation, essentially. I'd be OK with a tielfing (lots of traditional stuff with part demons).

- As a DM, I theoretically allow PC's to do anything they want, but I enforce logical in-world consequences for doing "bad stuff", which in any case tends to be distasteful to me and to other players too.
-- For example, a player once wanted her character to eat dead orcs to save on rations. I told her that her PC might get in trouble with local law enforcement, who would consider if cannibalism. She decided her character wasn't going to do that.

Usually, this sort of thing seems to only come up in the first outing for a player, as they learning the group's style or just plain how the game works, since I'm usually an evangelist asking non-D&Ders to give it a try.

As a player, I don't get the DM-player power struggle stuff. I view myself as a guest of DM -- which is literally true 99% of time, since I've almost been in campaigns that were played at the DM's house. I think it's rude for a guest to argue with the host, not to mention disruptive to be a rules lawyer, but it's also incumbent on the host to try to hospitable to his guests. That doesn't mean the DM needs to be push over, but it does mean the DM must treat the players as, well, guests and/or friends. Probably 90% of time, I've gamed with long-standing friends . . .

 

[Mournblade94]

Yep, you're right. But when I'm running a game that isn't wacky, they can go find a game that fits their needs. I'm not currently interested in running a wacky game. If I was running that game, I'd welcome silliness.

We didn't start this campaign with everyone saying, "what kind of game should we play, ok, I'll run something that fits those requirements". I started this campaign with a set style in mind. Players came into the group knowing what kind of game I was trying to run. They have free will, if they don't like it, they can find another game. In the OPs case, she didn't come in with this knowledge. So she has been learning it as she goes. Apparently it isn't what she wants and I understand that. But I'm not going to change what I've worked so hard to construct just to fit her preference. I will do what I can to please her, but in the end, I have the last say on the style of this campaign.




I have played with many players that did not enjoy my style of DMing the same way I didn't enjoy their style of being a player. The relationship always ended bad because they kept playing in a game that annoyed them. I was the first to suggest to the OP that she leave the group if I make her unhappy. The last thing I want to do is make a player unhappy. I have no hard feelings if a player doesn't enjoy my DMing. I would rather them leave sooner and still think well of me than them leave later and tell their new group (or Enworlders) how crappy of a DM I am. It looks like I'm going to be that "bad DM" that she complains about anyway...oh well.



Exactly. A lot of players are incompatible. My long time friends back on the east coast have no problem with my DMing style but a lot of strangers will have a problem. I told her this when she began complaining via email. I tried to be open and honest about how I DM so she could determine if we're compatible or not. It's not a big deal if she figures out we're not. I just wish it didn't get to the point where I'm being blasted online about it.

Thank you for posting Oryan. I had a feeling your story would be something like this. It sounds like you have a style very similar to my own.

You handled it well and reasonable. It is important that you set the tone for your campaign. I have found the most difficulty arises from friends of players that get brought into the game without familiarity of how the campaign is run.

I usually spend time talking to the friend of the player first to avoid those situations, but I have no problem letting a player sit in for one session to see how they work out.

 

[Mallus]

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.

Oryan, I'm pretty sure I know where you're coming from since I DM'ed in a similar style for many years. I'm not trying to paint you as a bad DM, I'm sharing my experiences. My campaigns have only gotten better the more open I've been to to player input/concepts, even when they're not exactly to my tastes.

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.

Great!

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.

I think most of us did. But that understanding is neither right nor wrong, and I can tell you from personal experience I've had great results in recent campaigns by making the players 'partners in the creation'; giving them narrative authority beyond control of their PC's actions.

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?

No. The DM controls most aspects of the campaign setting, all a player has is their actions and their background (and whatever additional narrative control the DM doles out --which is a good idea, BTW).

A player that is calling me controlling for simply trying to "control" my campaign world sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

That's silly. In a traditional D&D campaign, the players don't 'control' enough to be controlling.

If a player wants to run my world, then why don't they just DM their own world?

Why not share yours? You did invite other people to play in it.

They can name their pets whatever they want as long as it fits the tone of our campaign.

So players are free to name their PC's something you like. Doesn't the DM get to name enough? All the people, places, and things that aren't the PC's (and their pets). Practically speaking, doesn't the DM have enough tools at his disposal to maintain campaign tone without needing to control PC naming?

Heck, I thought I was actually being a good DM by not saying anything about how the first pet name bothered me.

You were!

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.

It's not lenient, it's being respectful and accommodating to people w/different interests. Those are good things.

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.

It is a hard question, but one a DM should keep asking themselves. "How can I balance my likes with those of my players?" All I can say is that I've come to see player input that I don't immediately like --be it a character concept, name, potential story arc--as a DM'ing challenge, simply acting as arbiter of campaign taste/tone/flavor seems boring to me. Besides, like I keep saying, the DM has control of the most of the 'engines of tone production', I have trouble seeing how some incongruous tonal elements attached to the PC's can seriously challenge that.

And I've found the best way to respond is to simply 'say yes' to players --unless they're only after gross mechanical advantages-- and then spin things from there. Acknowledge their concept, then create challenges from it. No one likes being edited, especially during their leisure time.

 

[DonTadow]

Oryan, you're a better person than me. I don't even allow pets, cohorts, rodents are any other thing in my game. Too often I find that its either a player's want to dominate the game by having another character or they are living some long time fantasy of owning a pet.

I don't mine DMs being controling, I thikn they should be. The DM has the responablity of producing an immersive world and for that he needs control over that world.

 

[Roman]

I strongly sympathize with the DM that the original post is referring to.

I am strict about what I allow or don't allow too. As far as names go, for example, in one of my current campaigns. I don't accept silly/goofy names, names of famous fictional characters or real-world people (unless, of course, they are generic names - Mary, Charles, etc.). Characters are also required to be good (meaning not villains), heroic and non-disruptive. In the same campaign, I also don't accept any non-core base classes or races and have even removed some core ones, specifically, bards, gnomes and halflings. On top of that, I have introduced a large number of house rules that also serve to tailor the tone of the campaign world and the game itself.

Being particular in terms of what I allow works great for me. Not only does it enable me to better shape the campaign world and tone of the game, but when I need to recruit new players, it acts as a great filter that screens out the types of players I wouldn't want in my campaign. It's a win-win! Other DMs may have very different approaches to this and that's great, but this has worked very well for me.

Once they are in the game, characters can act as they please with the understanding that actions have consequences. Of course, if I stipulated in my initial conditions that characters should not be evil and mid-way through the game a player suddenly decides that his character is going to kill elven babies and sell their livers as pate for profit, well there would not only be in-game consequences, but I would probably be very reluctant to game with that player again unless there were some extenuating circumstances that don't come to mind right now.

As a player, I am very accomodating to the DM. If the game were in a style that I would dislike, than obviously I wouldn't join the game, but if it is advertised to be in a style I enjoy, pretty much any constraints the DM imposes would be fine. Campaign worlds are to a great extent defined by restrictions. A campaign that is an amalgation of everything would be less interesting for me as a player than one that has a theme and disallows certain things as not being in the spirit of the campaign world.

 

[Mallus]

The DM has the responablity of producing an immersive world and for that he needs control over that world.

Doesn't everyone at the table share the responsibility for producing an immersive world?

 

[Maggan]

Doesn't everyone at the table share the responsibility for producing an immersive world?

I don't know. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. We as a group want a fun game, but that doesn't mean that everyone wants an immersive world. Some do, some don't.

So for my group the responsibility falls mostly on the DM to set the boundaries, and then we as players play within those boundaries as best we can, and to the extent of our wishes for gamism or immersion.

But, let's say that everyone does share the responsibility for producing an immersive world.

The immersive world in this case being a grim and dark and perilous world of adventure and despair. The fate of the world is at stake. The tone is serious and no-nonsense.

A player then naming his fierce pet "Fluffybunnies" would be an example of not living up to the aforementioned responsibility, given the overall tone set by the DM and the rest of the group.

IMO and all that.

/M

 

[FentonGib]

As a player, I am very accomodating to the DM. If the game were in a style that I would dislike, than obviously I wouldn't join the game, but if it is advertised to be in a style I enjoy, pretty much any constraints the DM imposes would be fine.

That pretty much sums up how I feel too. As a DM whenever I'm going to do a game I will normally sit with my troupe and discuss what the next game will be, and we set some initial boundaries. Atm for example we're playing Ravenloft - so I will put some limitations on players to keep within the feel of the game, but I try to be flexible. If a player wants to play a Dward, they either have to come from certain domains or be an outlander - there are no native Barovian Dwarves for example. Then they'd need a backstory to why they're in Barovia (where the campaign is set). Again, this is working with the players. I wouldn't allow a player to play a vampire troll - because that simply wouldn't work!

But there are times I have to set my foot down when players come up with ridiculous ideas. I had one player in Vampire: the Requiem want to use a Gangrel who's "herd" was a supply of bats caught by a pack of Hunters in Darkness that he has run with for ages. Since Werewolves really don't like vampires, and Hunters in Darkness would kill a vampire encroaching on their turf without a second thought (and he'd never see them coming) - it's extremely unfeasible (and definately so for my campaign setting at the time).

Even in serious/dark games, I find there is still room for humour - as long as it doesn't break the tone too much. Some levity is necessary to stop a game becoming too bleak. I often have some "light" characters, like the halfling rogue that's constantly coming up with wisecracks, or the npc that names her horse "horsie" or "fluffy." But players know in my Ravenloft game it's serious, as are the consequences. If they walk up to the town guards and try pulling jokes on them they're likely to end up arrested rather than making them laugh.

 

[DonTadow]

Doesn't everyone at the table share the responsibility for producing an immersion world?

No, a player's job is to immerse themselves in the world and stay there, not facilitate the immersion.

The difference is that the dm creates a world that works and fits together. The players come in and interact with the world as it exists. They are only responsible for their characters in the world. The world itself is going on around the pcs. The pcs can interact with it, and change functions of it, but its up to the dm to insure those changed functions fit in with the rest of the world.