Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

[Mallus]

It's one thing if a DM like Mallus wants to allow players to help dictate the game world...

"Help dictate the game world" is such an odd, awkward phrase... I prefer to say that I share some creative rights with my players.

...but when a DM doesn't want to run that type of campaign...

All I'm saying is 'that type' of campaign has a number of benefits, chief of which is the increased engagement you get from players who are given more ownership of the game, and creative control (in this case, over their own characters). Maybe you'll try this approach sometime? You might like the results.

...that's just being a selfish & controlling player in my eyes.

So a player is being controlling if they want a tiny bit of say with regard to the campaign's tone? (over which the DM has a great deal of say) I'll give you this, it's a novel definition of 'controlling'.

Anyway, the whole debate on the name Marshmallow is ridiculous. Some people are trying to play ignorant like it's not a silly name and it's odd that I'd ban the name.

No one's being ignorant Oryan, and you shouldn't feel like you need to defend yourself here. This thread's no longer just about you and Marshmallow. We're discussing more general questions about the uses of DM authority.

 

[Maggan]

Some of you guys seem to tell the players how everything is.

I haven't read any comments in this thread claiming that the DM should dictate everything that goes on in a campaign.

Instead, what I have read is some guys saying "it's ok for DM to say no" being misconstrued as them saying "players have no input into my campaigns ever".

DMs have a right to say no to player input if he so choose (at least that's what I think), but from that it does not follow that I think DMs should hate all player input and steamroll their own vision over the hapless PCs.

To me it seems as if there's a lot of middle ground excluded here.

Saying that a DM can say "no" does not mean saying that the same DM should never accept input from the players.

/M

 

[Maggan]

So a player is being controlling if they want a tiny bit of say with regard to the campaign's tone? (over which the DM has a great deal of say) I'll give you this, it's a novel definition of 'controlling'.

Is that really what you think Oryan77's position is? Even after he's said that he accepts lots of input from players into the campaign?

If so, then I think that you have misunderstood his position. My impression is that he feels comfortable accepting input, but that he also is prepared to ignore or even veto input that goes against the fun he wants the game to give to him and his players.

A very reasonable position, IMO.

/M

 

[Oryan77]

then we have a problem and I have no problem arguing.

From my experience, it seems like the majority of people that play D&D have no problem arguing; that's the problem. My players and I have learned that it's so much funner playing our campaign when we don't have players in the group that like to argue. We have no patience for players that argue and I no longer hesitate to ask a player to leave if he/she is that type of player.

I don't mind if a player questions me about a ruling or about my reasons for not allowing a name. When I give my answer during a game, then that should be the end of the discussion unless the player still doesn't understand (I do want to help them understand & I don't claim to be the best at explaining things). But, the moment they begin arguing with me about it, we have a big problem and you're being a problem player. I like discussing issues about the game, but I cannot stand arguing with someone about the game. People might not agree with me, but I don't think a DM needs to defend himself to the point where he's arguing with a problem player.

I think that there's a problem with your statement "I just don't want to hear a stupid name that fits more in a Loony Tunes episode rather than a Star Wars movie." After all, one of the main characters in Star Wars is named Chewy.

Actually, his name was Chewbacca. Chewy is his nickname. Chewy is also not a disruptive name for the movie. Early in this thread someone suggested to the OP that she give the animal a real name and then it can have a silly nickname. I said I would not have a problem with that as long as the nickname made sense with the setting & the character.

Are you a Jar Jar Binks fan? His silly Roger Rabbit antics seemed to have a huge impact on the failure of Star Wars Episode 1. Jar Jar Binks did not fit in with the original feel of the Star Wars movies. His comedy relief was not the same as R2D2 & C3PO. They were light-hearted comedy, he was slapstick comedy. Slapstick comedy doesn't fit well with a movie like Star Wars. The name Marshmallow is more slapstick to me & that is not the road I want our campaign to go down.

Sometimes I can't give a reason for my decision, and would have problems with a player who has a need for every decision to have a clear reason that can be examined and either accepted and rejected.

I'm the same way as you are. I don't always have the answer for my decisions right away. I go by gut feeling because one of the lessons I learned early on is that when you don't listen to your gut feeling, it almost always ends up biting you in the butt later on. Players are tricky & clever creatures, they can single handedly ruin a campaign for an entire group if you are not careful.

So a player is being controlling if they want a tiny bit of say with regard to the campaign's tone?

Yes, he's being controlling if he's trying to control the NPCs and how the world works around him. You can't seem to grasp the fact that we're not playing an open campaign as you are. You keep replying to everyone as if they are supposed to be running your type of game. The type of game I am trying to run is not a slapstick comedy type of game. So if a player is trying to turn it into a slapstick game, then he is being a controlling player.

All I'm saying is 'that type' of campaign has a number of benefits

I understand that. I have not even criticized your campaign because I'm sure it is a good way to DM a campaign. You seem to keep saying this to everyone as if they should run a game like you are because "it's better". I don't think it is better; I don't think it's worse; I think it's just different. My friends have no problem at all playing the way we play and they probably wouldn't think our game would be any better playing the way you play.

Who knows, maybe one day I might run a campaign like yours...I'm certainly not against that. But I'm not going to change our current campaign just because a new player wants to control parts of it.

 

[Oryan77]

Is that really what you think Oryan77's position is? Even after he's said that he accepts lots of input from players into the campaign?

If so, then I think that you have misunderstood his position. My impression is that he feels comfortable accepting input, but that he also is prepared to ignore or even veto input that goes against the fun he wants the game to give to him and his players.

Perfect! I think I can now let Maggan reply for me from here on out

 

[Mallus]

Is that really what you think Oryan77's position is?

No. I was just trying to illustrate that his use of the phrase 'controlling player' is a tad silly.

 

[Mallus]

You can't seem to grasp the fact that we're not playing an open campaign as you are. You keep replying to everyone as if they are supposed to be running your type of game.

I'm not advocating that people radically change the kind of games they run, quite the opposite. I'm saying --in part, at leeast-- giving the players things like naming rights, or other minor uses of creative control, doesn't have to be threat to the DM's overall intended campaign tone.

The campaigns I run have strong, distinctive tone, and naming is, of course, an important part of that. Here are a few names (and titles!) from my 3.5e World of CITY campaign:

Dr. Mephisophocles, head of the Department of Ineffable Inquiry and Un-Natural History at the University of Narayan - a scholar and black magician.

Donatello Pazzi son Gallina, aka "The Right Reverend Don Magic Wand" - a brothel-owning priest and possessor of a magic wand containing the bound succubus Salomalle.

The Self-Winding, Size-Malleable Phlogistonic Gryphon Prototype Alpha by Magnus Gyrefalcon the Magnanimous - a sentient magic item (essentially a souped-up Figurine of Wondrous Power).

See? Tone galore! But instead of restricting the player's naming choices I simply name more stuff in the setting when I feel the need to assert more control over the tone/language of the campaign. Put uncharitably, a player of mine who wants to name their PC 'Pikachu' and pet 'Crackejack' is just pissing into the vast sea of verbiage I --as DM-- am the master of. So I let them. It's of no consequence (except making them happier).

 

[Greg K]

I've lucked out in the fact that I'm finally with an awesome group where we've all become friends and know how the others play and run.

Glad to hear that.

a Dhampyr Genasi from the Shadowfell, called him a Shadowsoul Genasi, and told him how some of that worked. He loved it incorporated some of the stuff into the Forgotten Realms.

For a different game, we're doinga Buffy/Angel thing using Unisystem.
(snip)
I have 3 backup characters in mind. A guy recently chosen to be an Earth Elemental, an immortal with an obsession to find out how to kill himself, and a character based off of Hyde.

And, if this are the style/characters that you like to play, more power to you. However, you also would not get along with my group or other groups that I know except for one (and among that group several of the players and, to some degree, the DM are were recently complaining about it becoming unfun), because we those aren't the kinds of characters we are interested in. There's nothing wrong with that we are just after different things.

 

[Maggan]

See? Tone galore!

Sure, tone galore. But that's not the point, is it? DMs who say no also probably has tone galore, just a different tone than yours.

Put uncharitably, a player of mine who wants to name their PC 'Pikachu' and pet 'Crackejack' is just pissing into the vast sea of verbiage I --as DM-- am the master of. So I let them. It's of no consequence (except making them happier).

But a PC has about a thousand times more screen time than your black magician Dr. Mephisophocles. And the thousandth time my new halfling PC Buttcheek Fartmaster introduces himself to your NPCs, I'd be surprised if you as a DM didn't strangle me, a second before the rest of the group throw me off a high cliff.

But I'll provide an example which I find illustrates my point, and since Oryan77 have given me carte blanche to speak for him, maybe a bit about his position as well.

We have never said "we never accept silly names".

I primarily GM a WFRP campaign. As you might or might not know, one of the features of the game is the outrageously silly faux German names.

These names, in the official setting, are so groaningly bad that German players have been known to change them to less silly German names, because it totally ruined their fun, or even to totally drop the game because the silliness is so off-putting for some German speakers.

At my web site you'll find some NPCs I've made for the game. They have, in some cases, silly faux German names. A doctor named Hilfer ("Helper"), an inn keeper named Uriah Hepp (after the musical entourage), an inventor named Krangelschaft (a nonsense word made up of technobabble), a watch commander named Fengsel ("Prison"), A general named Waffenkammer ("Arsenal"), and so on so forth.

Yes, I use silly names, who would have thought it?

And so do my players. One of the groups of PCs are named Wilhelm, Wilhelm, Wilhelm and Wilhelm. Just for silly sake.

It's immense fun.

Yet, I would veto someone calling their PC's dog "Marshmallow".

Because it doesn't fit the tone, IMO. And my players wouldn't pull a stunt like that, because they know the boundaries and enjoy playing within those boundaries.

I would allow a faux German variant of "Marshmallow", such as Zuckerwurfel ("Sugarcube"), or Sumpfsüßigkeiten ("Swampsweets"), because that's within the boundaries set by the game and by me. It matches the tone.

In another game, I might allow "Marshmallow" or I might disallow it, depending on the tone of the campaign. In a Discworld game, almost anything goes, in a Dark Heresy game as well, mostly. Not in an Ars Magica or Harn game though, because those games have different assumptions and different tones that don't, IMO, lend themselves to silly names.

So, to sum up, there are games and by extension campaigns that I think would suffer from letting players have the freedom to name their PCs silly names, and a DM is well within his rights to say no if the actions of a player will disrupt his game to a large extent.

And the DM is the final judge as to how large that extent is.

/M

 

[haakon1]

Early in this thread someone suggested to the OP that she give the animal a real name and then it can have a silly nickname. I said I would not have a problem with that as long as the nickname made sense with the setting & the character.

Right. The name for the animal ought to be name given IN CHARACTER by the PC to the animal. It shouldn't be the PLAYER looking for laughs, but CHARACTER doing whatever the character is doing. Sometimes, those can aligned; sometimes they aren't.

It defaults to the basic rule that in character stuff should be done in character.

That said, I've seen some pretty silly PC names, like "Hubee Illin" and so forth. But if IN CHARACTER, it's just a normal name of a guy from the famous Illin family of bards, OK, I don't care. Others mileage may vary.