# Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?



## architectofsleep (Jan 27, 2009)

I have a GM who is, apparently, a control freak.  For example, I come up with a really great concept for a character background that I'm really looking forward to playing, and he comes back with a watered down, much more boring version of the same, telling me I can't play it the way I want to.  Ok, fine, I'll come up with something else, because I don't want to play a background he writes up for me, you know?  But that's not what I'm kvetching about.

Currently I'm playing a druid, and I've been coming up with slightly silly names for my animal companions, just for a little fun.  Think "Fido" for a wolf, or "Rex" for a dinosaur, or "Tweety" for an eagle.  Kind of undercutting their ferociousness or their skill, for irony's sake.  Nothing game-stopping, and just mildly amusing the first time you hear it.  Now he goes and tells me I can't name my animals (or my characters) anything silly.  Because he can't take characters with silly names seriously. 

What the heck?  Now he's telling me what I can and can't *name* my characters?  It's really frustrating, and it's totally lowering my morale.  Ugh.  I can't quit over a name, but dang, if it ain't fun to play, why go?


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jan 27, 2009)

*naming issues*

I have been on both sides of this issue.  As a DM, I have been unhappy with goofy names -- in my opinion, names are a big part of immersion, and it destroys immersion for the other players when you send 'tweety' off to do something while they have a more serious/fantastic mental image of the game in their head.

As a player, though, I must admit I had great fun playing a city-based  ghostbuster baboon shaman in RuneQuest back in the 80s, who drove a chariot with a ghoul spirit bound in a glass jar (his 'siren').  His fatal flaw?  A baboon, he always hoped to score with the human ladies.  His name?  Simon Wagstaff.

I think that whether this is appropriate depends on the tone of the game, and this is something you have to negotiate with the DM and the other players.   

Ken


----------



## Greg K (Jan 27, 2009)

> What the heck?  Now he's telling me what I can and can't *name* my characters?  It's really frustrating, and it's totally lowering my morale.  Ugh.  I can't quit over a name, but dang, if it ain't fun to play, why go?




No, I don't think he is taking it too far.  He's simply telling you that silly names are inappropriate for the campaign that he wants to run.
I would do the same as would the players and DMs with whom I have gamed.
There are others out there that like silly names and, if not being able to use silly names bothers you, you should seek them out.


----------



## Corathon (Jan 27, 2009)

Architectofsleep, don't you think that you might be overreacting?

 The DM's responsibility is to maintain a fun, gameable, and coherent world. That may cause him to restrict certain backgrounds or classes because they don't fit.

 As for the names, I found your examples to be amusing, and would've had no with them problem as the DM. OTOH, if you had named your character "Batman" or "Jennifer Love Hewitt" (i.e. something that jarred me out of the game every time I heard it) I would have a problem with it, were I your DM. There's a line here, and its different for different people.

 If your DM is good in other ways, I'd encourage you to put up with his flaws. Nobody's perfect.


----------



## Engilbrand (Jan 27, 2009)

If he doesn't like your backstory, ask him for clarification. If he gives you one, refuse. If you want to name yourself something silly, do it. If he demands that you do things his way or else, take the else and leave. You're right. If he's ruining your fun, he's doing something wrong.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 27, 2009)

Its hard to say exactly without knowing what your suggested background was, but one of the big missteps I see in PC backgrounds is the PC being 1st level, but their background indicates practically an epic level story already.  That's what game play is for.  I've given suggestions to players that toned their background down a touch from time to time.  Its all about creating a character that fits in the world.

And I'm sometimes fine with silly names.  Just so long as their amusing silly names.  And so long as the player doesn't ALWAYS do that.


----------



## Kzach (Jan 27, 2009)

Obviously your version of fun and his version of fun are different.

Personally, I'm on his side. I hate players who give silly names to things. And I'm guessing that the attitude you have towards his game of silliness carries into all aspects of how you approach it at the table and that I will be willing to lay money on, pisses him off to no end.

I'd recommend you leave. Neither of you will win in this situation by continuing.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 27, 2009)

Engilbrand said:


> If he doesn't like your backstory, ask him for clarification. If he gives you one, refuse. If you want to name yourself something silly, do it. If he demands that you do things his way or else, take the else and leave. You're right. If he's ruining your fun, he's doing something wrong.




As a DM, if a player is unwilling to work with me, they're gone.  I've got more players than I know what to do with, and I do try to maintain a consistent tone in the game.  If they're not interested in the kind of game that I run (and I'm upfront on that, and ask for suggestions and feedback ona regular basis), then they should find another DM.


----------



## OnlytheStrong (Jan 27, 2009)

My point of view is a simple one:  It _is_ his game, but it _is_ your character.  

You live in his world, but you create your own viewpoint of it.  I'd suggest simply talking to your DM.  I'm sure you can work something out if you both are willing to try.  

That said, when it stops becoming fun, then why play?


----------



## Mallus (Jan 27, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> What the heck?  Now he's telling me what I can and can't *name* my characters?  It's really frustrating, and it's totally lowering my morale.  Ugh.  I can't quit over a name, but dang, if it ain't fun to play, why go?



I've been that DM --a long time ago, mind you-- and all I can say is I'm glad I'm no longer. The game works better when it belongs to everyone participating. So I sympathize.

The DM shouldn't try to legislate the tone of the player characters. You can't legislate _gravitas_, or, more accurately, attempts to do so end up being sillier than campaigns that embrace lightheartedness. Many DM's aspire to Tolkien's heights. Do I need to discuss how many succeed?

My experience is that a campaign worth taking seriously will be taken seriously by the players, despite the presence of animal companions w/pun names.  

My experience also shows me that the silly and serious can co-exist peacefully in D&D --hell, in the entire fantasy genre. A campaign can contain jokes without being a joke campaign. Our long-running 3.5e game is a testimony to that, as is our new 4e game, come to think...


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jan 27, 2009)

Engilbrand said:


> If he doesn't like your backstory, ask him for clarification. If he gives you one, refuse. If you want to name yourself something silly, do it. If he demands that you do things his way or else, take the else and leave. You're right. If he's ruining your fun, he's doing something wrong.




It doesn't sound like the DM is doing anything wrong, it just may not be the style of game your looking for.  I have turned players away from my game because of characters they wanted to play, simply because it would not fit with the story.  BAsically I gave him options he said no... I said bye.  There was thouroughly no loss to me.

Because a player is not having fun in a game does not mean it is the DM's fault.  If everyone else is having fun, the group may just not be the proper fit for a player.

If someone wants to play a silly character in my campaign, I tell them the level I can accept.  If they insist on playing silly, I tell them to go find another game.  Plenty of DM's like silly, I don't.  Unless I am playing TOON, or paranoia.

Your animal names would be fine for many groups, but I quite honestly would have problems with them.  Its the DM's campaign, and he needs to make sure there is no one that will disrupt the versimilitude.  

If your DM is running a good campaign, and you like it, find out how YOU can fit in the story, not how the story can fit around YOU.  If the campaign is bad... then who cares, it won't last long.


----------



## Rackhir (Jan 27, 2009)

There's always the old trick of just using the same "names" only translated into the equivalent in a foreign language like Chinese or Russian.

Might take a bit of googling, but shouldn't be too hard.

That said, this isn't the sort of thing where it's just about either you or the DM, being correct. While him insisting you change the names is hurting your fun, your insisting on silly names is hurting his fun.

Try and split the difference in other words. There's plenty of room for both of you to give up something to achieve a compromise.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 27, 2009)

Kzach said:


> Personally, I'm on his side. I hate players who give silly names to things. And I'm guessing that the attitude you have towards his game of silliness carries into all aspects of how you approach it at the table and that I will be willing to lay money on, pisses him off to no end.



As DM, do you ask for ownership of all aspects of a PC? Objecting to giving a wolf a cliche dog's name seems like an egregious example of control-freakishness to me. 



> I'd recommend you leave. Neither of you will win in this situation by continuing.



In the end that might be best, but people have been known to compromise on occasion.


----------



## Mark (Jan 27, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> (snip)





How difficult would it be to find a new game?  How many other games and with others DMs have you played in the past?  Have you DMed for this DM or with this group previously to now?  Do you sometimes DM and would you be willing to start up your own campaign or group?


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 27, 2009)

These names aren't even that silly. If it was Poopers the Dire Wolf, that's one thing. But this is DM over-reaching.

Plus, many heroic tales have plucky comic relief characters. It's not like this is unheard of. As a DM, I say he needs to unclench a little bit.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 27, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I have been on both sides of this issue.  As a DM, I have been unhappy with goofy names -- in my opinion, names are a big part of immersion, and it destroys immersion for the other players when you send 'tweety' off to do something while they have a more serious/fantastic mental image of the game in their head.




I agree.  If it destroys immersion for the other players, I wouldn't do it.  Our group (the players, anyway) is really laid back, though.  We spend 8-10 hours a week at the gaming table, and only about 4 of that is spent actually gaming, and maybe 30 min. of that is spent actually role-playing (the rest is mostly battle, and then either buying things or saying "we rest," or making plans about where we're going next).  The rest of the time is spent joking around, shooting the bull, etc.  Sometimes, when something extraordinary happens in game, like someone failing a necessary roll, we stop and joke about it and everything gets really silly.  So, I was pretty sure that naming my oft-dying-or-running-away animal companions something silly wouldn't really be a game-breaker.



Haffrung Helleyes said:


> As a player, though, I must admit I had great fun playing a city-based  ghostbuster baboon shaman in RuneQuest back in the 80s, who drove a chariot with a ghoul spirit bound in a glass jar (his 'siren').  His fatal flaw?  A baboon, he always hoped to score with the human ladies.  His name?  Simon Wagstaff.




That sounds like a blast.    I love playing fun, creative ideas.  This campaign is more in the epic style, so I made my character to suit it (druid with an appropriate non-silly name, and a fairly basic background that I'm not excited about playing, but it will do).  I really didn't think giving a cutesy name to my animal companion would get my GM's dander up.  Maybe he had a bad experience in the past...



Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I think that whether this is appropriate depends on the tone of the game, and this is something you have to negotiate with the DM and the other players.




I'm pretty sure two of the players have absolutely no problem with it.  The third player is the GM's wife and would probably side with the GM (go figure).  I haven't actually asked them, though, not wanting to make a big deal out of names, of all things.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 27, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> These names aren't even that silly. If it was Poopers the Dire Wolf, that's one thing. But this is DM over-reaching.



Also, the vast majority of 'fantasy names' are unintentionally hilarious. I rediscover this fact any time I describe the books I'm reading to my wife...


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 27, 2009)

Corathon said:


> Architectofsleep, don't you think that you might be overreacting?




Quite possibly.  That's part of why I posted here: to get some perspective.



Corathon said:


> The DM's responsibility is to maintain a fun, gameable, and coherent world. That may cause him to restrict certain backgrounds or classes because they don't fit.




I agree.  I have no problems picking a class or a race or whatever the GM limits us to.  It's hard enough to find a character concept that I haven't done, hasn't been overdone, and that I like, though, that it really feels stifling when it comes back to me completely edited.  For example, I sent him an idea for a cleric who was really, really good (not necessarily lawful), and that was her fatal flaw.  It caused her all kinds of anguish, seeing the suffering and not having the power to help with it.  This also gave me an angle into an overarching goal of seeking power, or seeking the power to be a force of change in the world.  He sent it back to me saying, how about I make her have done all kinds of evil acts in her past and is now full of anguish and trying to atone for her deeds?  Ok, that's another idea for a cleric background, but completely not what I had in mind.  But I guess it fit his world better.  I didn't want to play it, so I went with my current character that I built in conjunction with him.  I'm not excited about this character, either, but since I didn't start out with what I thought was a great idea that got squashed, it wasn't as hard to swallow.



Corathon said:


> As for the names, I found your examples to be amusing, and would've had no with them problem as the DM. OTOH, if you had named your character "Batman" or "Jennifer Love Hewitt" (i.e. something that jarred me out of the game every time I heard it) I would have a problem with it, were I your DM. There's a line here, and its different for different people.




Yeah, I wasn't trying to go overboard or anything.  All of my character names have always had serious, "appropriate" names.  I was just trying to have a little fun.  I've never played a druid before, and alas, my animal companions seem to die a little more frequently than I'd like, so I thought I'd give them cutesy names to show my affection for them and help them stand out in my memory.  Like real people do.



Corathon said:


> If your DM is good in other ways, I'd encourage you to put up with his flaws. Nobody's perfect.




Good advice.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 27, 2009)

Engilbrand said:


> If he doesn't like your backstory, ask him for clarification. If he gives you one, refuse. If you want to name yourself something silly, do it. If he demands that you do things his way or else, take the else and leave. You're right. If he's ruining your fun, he's doing something wrong.




I may not take it that far, yet, but if I continue to be creatively stifled, well, it's definitely in the back of my head.  Sometimes I wish there were more gaming options in my area.  But I definitely agree that the number one thing is that all the players (and the GM) have fun.  I wouldn't want to ruin anyone else's fun, but I should get to have some, too, and I think the whole names thing is harmless fun.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 27, 2009)

Kid Charlemagne said:


> Its hard to say exactly without knowing what your suggested background was, but one of the big missteps I see in PC backgrounds is the PC being 1st level, but their background indicates practically an epic level story already.  That's what game play is for.  I've given suggestions to players that toned their background down a touch from time to time.  Its all about creating a character that fits in the world.




I know.  I hate to put specifics down since I don't know if my fellow gamers read this, and I don't want to make anyone angry when I'm just venting.  So, without too many specifics, here is one example.

We're mid-level characters (about 8-10th level), and I was asking about playing a character who had been struck mad by a god (insanity is allowed as a character trait in this game).  This fact was just a reason for how my character was going to behave, and not an ever-present you're-always-connected-to/talking-to-this-god kind of thing.  Now, even though our characters are currently dealing with gods, or at the least their avatars, he said no, I couldn't be that, because our characters shouldn't have gods in our background.  Ok...a little bit contradictory with how the campaign is currently playing out, but I can accept that.   He then said I should have been driven mad by my past actions (this is kind of a theme with him), instead.  To me, that's a bit more boring and watered down.  It could work, sure, but it wouldn't make me love my character.  Like I said in my o.p., it wasn't that big of a deal.  I said no, and we came up with something else, and I'm saving my other character ideas for another campaign.  But I still felt creatively stifled.  I am at my best as a roleplayer when the stakes are high, and when I don't feel like I'm playing just another cookie-cutter role.



Kid Charlemagne said:


> And I'm sometimes fine with silly names.  Just so long as their amusing silly names.  And so long as the player doesn't ALWAYS do that.




I agree.  I never name my characters silly names (unless it's a silly campaign), but I wanted to do something to make my animal companions a little bit more memorable.  Ah well.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 27, 2009)

Kid Charlemagne said:


> As a DM, if a player is unwilling to work with me, they're gone.  I've got more players than I know what to do with, and I do try to maintain a consistent tone in the game.  If they're not interested in the kind of game that I run (and I'm upfront on that, and ask for suggestions and feedback ona regular basis), then they should find another DM.




There aren't too many players and GMs out by me.  I understand that a GM has certain rules, and if they're upfront about it, it's a lot easier.  I was taken completely by surprise with the whole "silly names" thing because it never came up until recently.  And honestly, with the tone of our sessions, where we spend more time b.s.ing than we do playing, I never thought it would be a problem, especially with such mild goofiness as I was offering.

I do think it's not necessarily the right tactic to say "it's my way or the highway."  I'm sure it works for you, but I personally prefer to work with other people to find compromises, to make sure everyone is having fun, and to not burn bridges.  To that end, I tend to pick my battles, and it always surprises me when other people don't, and when they take stands on things that are really, in the grand scheme of things, not that important.

Which is why I'm not walking on the game over this.  It's going to take quite a bit more.  But my frustration was building up enough for me to rant about it (and hopefully get it out of my system).


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 27, 2009)

OnlytheStrong said:


> My point of view is a simple one:  It _is_ his game, but it _is_ your character.
> 
> You live in his world, but you create your own viewpoint of it.  I'd suggest simply talking to your DM.  I'm sure you can work something out if you both are willing to try.
> 
> That said, when it stops becoming fun, then why play?




I completely agree.  Once I stop being annoyed about it, I'll talk to him.  And if the not-fun starts to outweigh the fun, then I'm definitely walking, because it would be better for everyone.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 27, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I've been that DM --a long time ago, mind you-- and all I can say is I'm glad I'm no longer. The game works better when it belongs to everyone participating. So I sympathize.
> 
> The DM shouldn't try to legislate the tone of the player characters. You can't legislate _gravitas_, or, more accurately, attempts to do so end up being sillier than campaigns that embrace lightheartedness. Many DM's aspire to Tolkien's heights. Do I need to discuss how many succeed?
> 
> ...




Thank you!  You put how I feel more eloquently and precisely than I did.  You get exactly what I was trying to say.  

Do you mind if I use some of what you said if I talk about the name issue again with my GM?


----------



## The Ghost (Jan 27, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> So, I was pretty sure that naming *my oft-dying-or-running-away animal companions* something silly wouldn't really be a game-breaker.




This may be where the DM is having a problem - I would be too. Often times the silly names and puns are fun the first time you do it. After it has happened a number of times, then silly can, and often times does, move into just being annoying. Just a thought.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 27, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> This may be where the DM is having a problem - I would be too. Often times the silly names and puns are fun the first time you do it. After it has happened a number of times, then silly can, and often times does, move into just being annoying. Just a thought.




You may be right.  He let me have the first silly name with no objection, but as soon as that animal died and I named my second one a silly name, he objected.  So, yes, I've only actually had two animal companions, but it was going to be a theme, if they kept dying.  I found out after the second name that the whole "no silly names" thing was actually a house rule that everyone but me knew about, and we still don't know why he let me get away with the first one.  Alas, he got my hopes up, and then dashed them!  

And for the record, the silly names I put here were not the silly names I used in game.  The ones I used were much less silly, imo.  But to protect the innocent, the names shall remain changed.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 27, 2009)

Mark said:


> How difficult would it be to find a new game?  How many other games and with others DMs have you played in the past?  Have you DMed for this DM or with this group previously to now?  Do you sometimes DM and would you be willing to start up your own campaign or group?




It's pretty hard around here.  Everyone is really spread out.  You can either drive forever for a good game, or have your choice of a few crappy local games, or luck out and find and excellent local game, or GM yourself.

I would GM, but finding quality players who are as dedicated to gaming is just as hard.  So many groups I've been in have failed because of other commitments of the players.  A couple of great things about this group is that we all get along really well out of game, and we all put gaming as our number one recreational priority, so people rarely miss, and we get to have marathon sessions.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 27, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> Do you mind if I use some of what you said if I talk about the name issue again with my GM?



Please do. 

If you could use an, ahem, example of a successful campaign that contain jokes without being one, the 1st link in my sig is the Story Hour based on our 3.5e campaign. The writing --most of it by one of the players-- is quite good.


----------



## Jack7 (Jan 27, 2009)

AOS, there are a couple of easy compromises here if the DM and you will agree to them. (I takes two to tango.)

Name your animal companions something solid but also have nicknames. In important situations (as far as game play) you can call them their "real names" and in silly moments, moments of comic relief, and relaxed times, call them by their nicknames. As a matter of fact as DM I usually have players come up with appropriate names but I also give them in-game nicknames, the players themselves do, or sometimes my NPCs do, and often times those nicknames stick. If they are on an important mission, or in a  formal setting, they are called by their real names. If out in the field, working, adventuring, or just hanging around they often call each other by their nicknames. Just like happens in real life. Some characters get multiple nicknames. I've got a player who has a soldier named Marsippius Nicea (he's from the city of Nicea). His original nickname was Nice Mars, cause when not in a  fight, he acted like a gentleman. Later that got shortened to NM. Then later to Nicee, or Nickee. Now he's called Nike cause he's so good in a fight. But people also call him Cap'in M, cause that's his military rank. Point is things and people change over time, and a good character does, and a good character has multiple traits that can serve to describe him. Formal names aren't the only option, and neither are nicknames. It could easily be both. And as time goes along nicknames by habit, action, or trait will pop-up. And so nicknames will change.

As for your "character design" it might be inappropriate at first, but later on, as the game develops, it might become more logical and even appropriate to the setting, story, plot, and campaign.

I personally, as a DM, feel that classes (professions), races, societies, cultures, and individuals ought to change over time. Just like in real life. The USA of today is not the USA of the Revolution or the Civil War or the Indian Wars. A soldier of today is not the same as a soldier of 100 years ago, or even of thirty, twenty, or ten years ago. As things change in the world this puts pressure on everything else to change. So, maybe your DM will change and the Druid will change as time goes along.

So, just see if the DM is up for compromises on both sides, without it having to be either/or for either one of you. 

So give it some time, and see if you can reach an accommodation. Compromise is a natural part of real life, and is helpful in games as well.


----------



## Simm (Jan 27, 2009)

Reading what you have posted about your ideas for character backstory and your DM's proposed changes I think he may be being overly cautious but with good reason. It may be that he has encountered players of the "uses backstory to make the game unnecessarily difficult for other players" school of character creation. If that is the case try to find some way for your character to include pragmatism in his personallity.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 27, 2009)

I think it's legitimately within the DM's purview to nix names and back stories that s/he feels are not appropriate.  It is not, however, within the DM's purview to unilaterally edit the PC's back story. The PC's back story is for the player to write.  The DM should specify which elements are not okay and why, then let the player come up with the alternative.

That said, I also think a good DM ought to think carefully before putting the kibosh on a concept. The main reasons I'd nix a concept would be if I felt it was disruptive to the tone of the game - to the extent that it would bother me every time it came up - or if it required the existence of elements in my game world that I don't want my game world to contain.

So I'm not going to allow a character named Tweedles the Dumb in an epic high-fantasy campaign, and I'm not going to allow a samurai in a Bronze Age Middle Eastern setting. On the other hand, if you can translate your samurai into a samurai-like concept suitable for ancient Babylon, go for it.

To this specific case, in a campaign with active involvement of gods, it seems weird to refuse to let a character have been driven mad by one.  I'd be leery of allowing a character who'd been driven mad, period, since I've had bad experiences with players who want to play CRAZY! characters; but if I'm allowing that, driven mad by a god doesn't seem unreasonable.

On the other hand, I'd be pretty reluctant to tolerate Fido or Rex.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 27, 2009)

Jack7 said:


> AOS, there are a couple of easy compromises here if the DM and you will agree to them. (I takes two to tango.)
> 
> Name your animal companions something solid but also have nicknames. In important situations (as far as game play) you can call them their "real names" and in silly moments, moments of comic relief, and relaxed times, call them by their nicknames. As a matter of fact as DM I usually have players come up with appropriate names but I also give them in-game nicknames, the players themselves do, or sometimes my NPCs do, and often times those nicknames stick. If they are on an important mission, or in a  formal setting, they are called by their real names. If out in the field, working, adventuring, or just hanging around they often call each other by their nicknames. Just like happens in real life. Some characters get multiple nicknames. I've got a player who has a soldier named Marsippius Nicea (he's from the city of Nicea). His original nickname was Nice Mars, cause when not in a  fight, he acted like a gentleman. Later that got shortened to NM. Then later to Nicee, or Nickee. Now he's called Nike cause he's so good in a fight. But people also call him Cap'in M, cause that's his military rank. Point is things and people change over time, and a good character does, and a good character has multiple traits that can serve to describe him. Formal names aren't the only option, and neither are nicknames. It could easily be both. And as time goes along nicknames by habit, action, or trait will pop-up. And so nicknames will change.




THAT is a great idea!  Thank you!


----------



## Jack7 (Jan 27, 2009)

> Thank you!




Glad to help, and good luck.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 27, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> ...Our group (the players, anyway) is really laid back, though.  We spend 8-10 hours a week at the gaming table, and only about 4 of that is spent actually gaming, and maybe 30 min. of that is spent actually role-playing (the rest is mostly battle, and then either buying things or saying "we rest," or making plans about where we're going next).  The rest of the time is spent joking around, shooting the bull, etc.  Sometimes, when something extraordinary happens in game, like someone failing a necessary roll, we stop and joke about it and everything gets really silly.  So, I was pretty sure that naming my oft-dying-or-running-away animal companions something silly wouldn't really be a game-breaker.



Well, this might be the problem right here.  It sounds like the DM is taking this a lot more seriously than the players are.  It's possible the DM would love to be running a more serious game, and so tries to nudge you in that direction once in a while.  Maybe not; this is just complete armchair speculation.  But it would certainly fit in with the rest of the stuff you're saying, where he encourages you to have angsty, serious characters.

It may just be that the players want to play a different kind of game than the DM.  You can either find new games, or compromise.



architectofsleep said:


> For example, I sent him an idea for a cleric who was really, really good (not necessarily lawful), and that was her fatal flaw.  It caused her all kinds of anguish, seeing the suffering and not having the power to help with it.  This also gave me an angle into an overarching goal of seeking power, or seeking the power to be a force of change in the world.  He sent it back to me saying, how about I make her have done all kinds of evil acts in her past and is now full of anguish and trying to atone for her deeds?  Ok, that's another idea for a cleric background, but completely not what I had in mind.  But I guess it fit his world better.



Now, this is a bit too much IMHO.  It sounds like you started with a very interesting, non-insane character background with a lot of room for character development.  I can't see why this would be problematic.

-O


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 27, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> We're mid-level characters (about 8-10th level), and I was asking about playing a character who had been struck mad by a god (insanity is allowed as a character trait in this game).  This fact was just a reason for how my character was going to behave, and not an ever-present you're-always-connected-to/talking-to-this-god kind of thing.  Now, even though our characters are currently dealing with gods, or at the least their avatars, he said no, I couldn't be that, because our characters shouldn't have gods in our background.  Ok...a little bit contradictory with how the campaign is currently playing out, but I can accept that.   He then said I should have been driven mad by my past actions (this is kind of a theme with him), instead.  To me, that's a bit more boring and watered down.  It could work, sure, but it wouldn't make me love my character.  Like I said in my o.p., it wasn't that big of a deal.  I said no, and we came up with something else, and I'm saving my other character ideas for another campaign.  But I still felt creatively stifled.  I am at my best as a roleplayer when the stakes are high, and when I don't feel like I'm playing just another cookie-cutter role.




Well, honestly, with that little bit of perspective, i see why you're upset architect.  What you were suggesting doesn't sound game-breaking, unbalanced, ridiculous, or blatantly against the "world" your DM has created.  I thought it was going to be something much more drastic.  

So you wanted the "divine intervention madness" and your DM said no, it has to "bad past actions madness."   In a case like this, i would almost always go with something that inspired the player.  Now, there may be more to the case than what i see, but i would let you do that no problem.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jan 27, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> Quite possibly. That's part of why I posted here: to get some perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I have no problems picking a class or a race or whatever the GM limits us to. It's hard enough to find a character concept that I haven't done, hasn't been overdone, and that I like, though, that it really feels stifling when it comes back to me completely edited. For example, I sent him an idea for a cleric who was really, really good (not necessarily lawful), and that was her fatal flaw. It caused her all kinds of anguish, seeing the suffering and not having the power to help with it. This also gave me an angle into an overarching goal of seeking power, or seeking the power to be a force of change in the world. He sent it back to me saying, how about I make her have done all kinds of evil acts in her past and is now full of anguish and trying to atone for her deeds? Ok, that's another idea for a cleric background, but completely not what I had in mind. But I guess it fit his world better. I didn't want to play it, so I went with my current character that I built in conjunction with him. I'm not excited about this character, either, but since I didn't start out with what I thought was a great idea that got squashed, it wasn't as hard to swallow.




Now see that is a perfectly appropriate background you constructed.  I do not think a DM should rewrite a background, only make sure that it fits within his world.  If I read a background, and I think something might be better, I will suggest it to the player, but ultimately it is up to the player.  If there is something in the background that conflicts with the world, then I let the player know, and ask him to change it.  Sometimes players are not accepting of their background changing for any reason and there you will have a problem.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jan 27, 2009)

*Counterintuitive*

Apparently, your DM hasn't learned the trick to dealing with silly names: repetition. It's a bit counterintuitive, but saying a PC's name (or an animal companion's name) a lot in the course of a game takes the silliness off and it just becomes a part of that game.

In my games, I write down initiative order using PC names exclusively and call out turns using PC names. After calling out the name a few dozen time (in just one combat or encounter) the name stops being silly/annoying/irritating and just a part of the game.

Of course, I like the names Fido and Tweety because their easy to remember and pronounce. To many serious names suck because they are hard to pronounce and remember. (How come no one discusses _that_ aspect of fantasy names?)


----------



## Mark (Jan 27, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> It's pretty hard around here.  Everyone is really spread out.  You can either drive forever for a good game, or have your choice of a few crappy local games, or luck out and find and excellent local game, or GM yourself.
> 
> I would GM, but finding quality players who are as dedicated to gaming is just as hard.  So many groups I've been in have failed because of other commitments of the players.  A couple of great things about this group is that we all get along really well out of game, and we all put gaming as our number one recreational priority, so people rarely miss, and we get to have marathon sessions.





Well, given your responses I think I need to suggest that you make every effort to compromise with your DM and, failing that, give in on more points than not if it means the game can go forward without continued strife.  The fact that you are willing to post/talk about it leaves me thinking that you will have better luck being the one to give in on more points than hoping that the DM will change to your ideal of gaming.  It can be a hard pill to swallow but the sooner the medicine is taken the sooner the health of the relationship can improve.

To that end, I would suggest that you allow for anything on paper to be serious, and feel free to make your table jokes as you would otherwise.  A pet wolf name Thunderfang on your character sheet but referred to in game as Loopy is less likely to put off the serious-minded DM than what you currently seem to do now, even though the result for you would essentially be unchanged.

As to the background issues, the DM knows his world better than any and also the type of campaign he is trying to run.  As said above by others, it might be that your background idea does not track with the DM's vision of his setting, the campaign or the growth of the party that he wishes the campaign scope to cover.  He obviously listens to you and works with your suggestions, so you might want to leave it at that and see how the campiagn plays out.  There are many DMs with much less interest in allowing any player input or even in having any background or RP points at all.  Unless this DM has shown a pattern in the past of constantly disallowing any of your input at all, I'd say let that one go and let time prove you right or wrong.  Your gaming options seem to steer you toward being patient and standing pat.

Good luck and good gaming!


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jan 27, 2009)

Well I think it depends a lot on what type of game the GM is trying to run. For me it would depend. Sometimes i let in very silly stuff and sometimes I am very strict about what I am letting in. Just depends the type of game i am running.

I agree your cleric concept sounded fine, but i do think in most games i would have a problem with the animal companion names. Unless i was running a light hearted somewhat silly game which I rarely do.


----------



## Carpe DM (Jan 27, 2009)

Why not quit over a name?

On the one hand, as a DM I think I'd dislike it if players named themselves something frivolous.  (Naming pets something frivolous is just par for the course, IMO.)

But you feel controlled and micromanaged.  Whether it's because the GM has a hard-line take on the rules, or because she is actually micromanaging you, you feel like you can't play what you want to play.

So walk.  Not every marriage works out.  Not everyone likes strawberry ice cream.  I've done this a lot of times -- walked on games where I had every sense that the GM was a good and competent person, but we clearly didn't see eye-to-eye on where the GM / Player dividing line was.   I have no tolerance for GM meddling, and so I don't play with GMs who meddle.  It's not that they are engaged in wrongbadfun.  It's that I don't like it.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 27, 2009)

Carpe DM said:


> Why not quit over a name?
> 
> On the one hand, as a DM I think I'd dislike it if players named themselves something frivolous.  (Naming pets something frivolous is just par for the course, IMO.)
> 
> ...




Interesting.  You hit the nail on the head:  I'm feeling micromanaged.  I'm _being _micromanaged.  And that is the real crux of it.  I can handle a certain amount of it, but when it comes to something as meaningless as an animal companion's name, it just seems like I've stepped into the realm of the ridiculous.  I'm going to try to work it out, first, but if the micromanaging continues, in all likelihood I will walk.  Maintain the friendships, but leave the game.  :-/


----------



## S'mon (Jan 27, 2009)

Kzach said:


> I'd recommend you leave. Neither of you will win in this situation by continuing.




I agree.  If you don't like his GMing, seek a GM more to your tastes, or try running a game.

edit: BTW from your subsequent description of your GM, he sounds really annoying.  If I wanted to play Nice Too-Good Lady PC and the GM told me to play ex Evil Lady Tortured by Her Terrible Deeds PC I'd be really really annoyed too.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 28, 2009)

UPDATE:  I sent an e-mail to him about the naming thing.  I tried to be as reasonable as I could, and to argue each of his points rationally, using words suggested by many of you.

He just responded to me with this tirade, starting off with insinuating that if I don't like his GM style (which, apparently is completely represented by the naming issues), I should probably leave the group.  (I never suggested that I would leave the group if I didn't get my way -- in fact, I suggested that we compromise, or if not, I would accept his final ruling, but I wouldn't like it.)  

Then he gave me some long-winded reason of why he liked things the way they were, and how his idea of light-hearted was different than mine.  He cited all kinds of extreme character names that he saw once he started gaming with people other than his core group of friends.  (My animal names were nowhere near as funny or weird.)

THEN he proceeded to tell me what kinds of weird animal names he would accept.  I may as well say now what names I had used thus far:  Mittens the lioness (from the Simpsons, "my cats name is Mittens"), and Marshmallow the bear (from having fed bears marshmallows at the zoo when I was a toddler -- yes, I'm _that _old).  Here are the names he would accept:  "Patches, Rex, One-Eye, T-Bone, Blue, Caspar, Dusty, Lefty, Scratches, or Oddball are all good examples of fine pet names. It's when I imagine the name belonging to a little old ladies sweater wearing dog or cat that I have a problem with."  Oddly, Rex, one of the examples I cited earlier in this post, would be acceptable.  And Mittens is acceptable.  So, to me, his idea of silly is a bit incomprehensible.  I just don't see the distinction between "Patches" and "Marshmallow."

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?

His response seemed to me to be overly hostile and selfish.  He always said to bring up rules problems out of game so that it doesn't slow down the game.  So I did.  And now I'm treated with obstinance, sexism, irrationality, and selfishness.  Maybe I do need to walk over a name.


----------



## coyote6 (Jan 28, 2009)

That response seems a bit much. OTOH, some people communicate poorly via the written word, and (especially with email) can come off as more irritated or hostile than they mean to. He could be stressed out about other things, too, and taking it out inappropriately.

However, possible reasons for his response aside, it's still overly obnoxious to me.

And I'm with you on not getting the names thing; I think he just hates marshmallows, little old ladies, and/or small animals.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 28, 2009)

I don't quite get the issue with the backstory ... if you truly mean for the backstory to have no mechanical effects, can't your character _claim_ whatever he wants, anent "being touched by a god"?  Who's gonna prove different?  (And whether they can or not, it's good RP.)

So, for me, "Can I have a god directly meddle in my background?" is a no, but, "Can my PC _claim_ that a god meddled in his background?" is a "great idea!"

As for silly names, I don't like 'em, and I don't allow 'em.  Luckily I don't have players very inclined to do stuff like that, so it's been a non-issue.


----------



## Jasperak (Jan 28, 2009)

AOS, that guy sounds like a dick. 

Sorry Morrus' G'Ma. I'm too much of a boor to dance around my opinon.

If I were in your position AOS, I would say the same to his face and actively recruit the rest of the players away from such a self-righteous obnoxious tard. D&D above all else is game where a bunch of people get together and have fun, not some tin-pot dictator's soap box. Now I normally side with DMs on most issues but not in cases were they stoop to such ignorant condescension. Let the little ck take his football and play his way. On second thought, stay in the group and silently and slowly work against him. No be better person and quit the group and offer to run a game for the others. Take a chance. Kick him in the junk.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jan 28, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> UPDATE:  I sent an e-mail to him about the naming thing.  I tried to be as reasonable as I could, and to argue each of his points rationally, using words suggested by many of you.
> 
> He just responded to me with this tirade, starting off with insinuating that if I don't like his GM style (which, apparently is completely represented by the naming issues), I should probably leave the group.  (I never suggested that I would leave the group if I didn't get my way -- in fact, I suggested that we compromise, or if not, I would accept his final ruling, but I wouldn't like it.)
> 
> ...




You don't need that crap. Have you considered gaming over the internet?


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 28, 2009)

I dunno. I think the GM has ever right to disallow silly names, especially if they're run contrary to the established theme/tone of the game. Frex, I gamed with a guy who came up with _outrageously_ stupid character names like "Mister Nuckinfutz" during Shadowrun games. 

This did not amuse me (as the GM) or any of the other players, as we had all agreed beforehand that these games were to be serious in tone. We all explained to the player in question what the issue was, and he refused to hear it, explainig that acting like a moron was how he had fun. *Sigh*

In retrospect, at that point, I should have told him to pack his stuff and leave. He was breaking the agreements that he had made prior to play, refused to compromise (even a bit), and then cried to high heaven when NPCs reacted accordingly to his outrageously stupid names. 

As for backgrounds, I think that sword cuts both ways, too. I've seen players abuse the hell out of a background to give their character all kinds of neat-o stuff that the rules otherwise forbid. So, in instances like that, I think the GM should be able to full-on veto a background if necessary. 

As for your particular situation, as we've really only heard your side of it, I don't think I can fairly weigh in on the matter.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 28, 2009)

There are players I've kicked out of my games who would probably say worse about me than architect has about her GM, so I'm reluctant to make a judgement on who's right & who's wrong, but it seems to me there is major incompatibility and lack of respect here.  I think this is definitely a "no gaming is better than bad gaming" situation.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 28, 2009)

Brennin Magalus said:


> You don't need that crap. Have you considered gaming over the internet?




I thought about it, but honestly I don't know how to do it or where to find a game, etc.  It's a good idea.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 28, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I don't quite get the issue with the backstory ... if you truly mean for the backstory to have no mechanical effects, can't your character _claim_ whatever he wants, anent "being touched by a god"?  Who's gonna prove different?  (And whether they can or not, it's good RP.)
> 
> So, for me, "Can I have a god directly meddle in my background?" is a no, but, "Can my PC _claim_ that a god meddled in his background?" is a "great idea!




Oh!  What a great idea.  I didn't think of that.  If I stay with the game, I'll bring it up.  Thanks!


----------



## S'mon (Jan 28, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> I
> As for backgrounds, I think that sword cuts both ways, too. I've seen players abuse the hell out of a background to give their character all kinds of neat-o stuff that the rules otherwise forbid. So, in instances like that, I think the GM should be able to full-on veto a background if necessary.




I had a player recently who subsequent to the death of his PC, informed me that his PC was unkillable, because his background "which I had approved" said he was cursed to be killed by a red dragon, ergo he could not be killed by anything _except _a red dragon.  I kicked him out right away.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 28, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> I dunno. I think the GM has ever right to disallow silly names, especially if they're run contrary to the established theme/tone of the game. Frex, I gamed with a guy who came up with _outrageously_ stupid character names like "Mister Nuckinfutz" during Shadowrun games.
> 
> This did not amuse me (as the GM) or any of the other players, as we had all agreed beforehand that these games were to be serious in tone. We all explained to the player in question what the issue was, and he refused to hear it, explainig that acting like a moron was how he had fun. *Sigh*
> 
> ...



It's not a player/DM issue. It's a question of whether the person insists on having fun on his own terms even though he knows it's at the expense of other peoples' fun. In other words, whether he is a jerk or not. The solution is simply not to game with jerks, whether they are players or DMs.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 28, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> 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.



While it sounds like your DM is being inconsistent and unreasonable, _this_ much I certainly agree with him on.

The DM-to-player ratio of "work" done for a campaign varies from "pretty high" to "infinite."  If I'm doing the work, I'm running the game I want to run, the way I want to run it.  My responsibility is to be as transparent as possible about that attitude in general, and what it means specifically to the game.  Your responsibility as a player is to decide whether the kind of game I want to run will be fun for you, and if so, to adhere to the standards I want.



architectofsleep said:


> 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?



Yes, it does.  And he's telling you -- again, granted, with seeming inconsistency -- what it takes for the game to be "fun enough" for him to justify the work involved.

I have a player in my game with whom I have minor run-ins occasionally over things like this.  The most recent was that he believes that PCs should have script immunity ... he believes no PC should ever die unless the player actively wants the PC to die.  This is not the kind of game I run, nor is it the kind of game I'm interested in running, and I have been very, _very_ clear from the outset.  So he -- I assume -- weighed my flat rejection of script immunity against the fun of my game -- as he's done every time we've butted heads about game-style -- and decided to stay in the game.

I am _not_ a big believer (understatement alert) in the perfect ability of "market forces" to solve problems.  But in the case of DMs and players in an urban environment (and soon enough, anywhere with Internet access), the "market" works.  DMs that don't deserve players will lose players.  You (the OP) live in San Jose.  I live 50 miles north of you, and I know of three or four games in the SJ area.  If this DM doesn't work for you, you have a _lot_ of options.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 28, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> I dunno. I think the GM has ever right to disallow silly names, especially if they're run contrary to the established theme/tone of the game. Frex, I gamed with a guy who came up with _outrageously_ stupid character names like "Mister Nuckinfutz" during Shadowrun games.
> 
> This did not amuse me (as the GM) or any of the other players, as we had all agreed beforehand that these games were to be serious in tone. We all explained to the player in question what the issue was, and he refused to hear it, explainig that acting like a moron was how he had fun. *Sigh*
> 
> ...




Quite true.  I'm trying to represent myself realistically, but I'm probably putting myself in a slightly better light, and maybe my GM in a slightly worse light.  I think overall I'm getting some great advice on how to handle this, and it's giving me a chance to vent so I don't go all crazy on my GM.  

I ended up replying to him and trying to be very mollifying.  I told him I wasn't planning on quitting over a name.  I emphasized being open to compromising, and if that was still off the table, that I'd either let the animals go nameless or let him name them, so as to avoid conflict/misunderstanding (yes, this is a bit of sour grapes on my part).  I thanked him for considering my request, and assured him that I would accept his final ruling and let it drop.  I did mention that I didn't think the concept of light-heartedness had a gender-bias, and that I didn't understand where he drew the line on "silly," and I tried to explain to him the origin of my name selections.  I also apologized for how I must have put things that got his dander up so bad.  

What I _didn't_ say was, if I continue to be micromanaged, unfairly IMO, then I will, politely and suddenly, have a lot of other things to do and need to take an indefinite (though probably permanent) hiatus from the game.  I don't want to burn any bridges as far as friendship goes, and perhaps he'll run a game in the future that won't require so much micromanagement.  But if not, no great loss, and I get to keep my friends.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 28, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I am _not_ a big believer (understatement alert) in the perfect ability of "market forces" to solve problems.  But in the case of DMs and players in an urban environment (and soon enough, anywhere with Internet access), the "market" works.  DMs that don't deserve players will lose players.  You (the OP) live in San Jose.  I live 50 miles north of you, and I know of three or four games in the SJ area.  If this DM doesn't work for you, you have a _lot_ of options.




Hm.  I have tried bayarea meetup.  I met a couple of games through that, but they didn't meet my standards.  I know of some other games as well, but most are full.  Currently I have a line on a possible two through another gamer friend of mine, but they may be full as well.  I get into most of my games by knowing a player/GM from another game.  Where do you find them

If you know of any GMs seeking players (and the GMs aren't micromanagers), then please feel free to send them my contact info.  jmmitchell @ yahoo . com  My name is Jennifer.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 28, 2009)

S'mon said:


> I had a player recently who subsequent to the death of his PC, informed me that his PC was unkillable, because his background "which I had approved" said he was cursed to be killed by a red dragon, ergo he could not be killed by anything _except _a red dragon.  I kicked him out right away.




I haven't actually run into this in too many high fantasy games — but I've seen it in the various oWoD White Wolf games more times than I can accurately recount (thankfully, not in many of the games I was running). I think it's one of the curses of established metaplot. 

I did play a lot of AD&D 2e with one guy, though, who always wrote up a "seventh son of a seventh son" or "an orphan with a mysterious past" or a "prophecied savior of worlds" and so on. _Always_. That and Ninja. In fact, I recall him demanding to play Japanese Ninja in game settings that had no analogue to the Far East. 

This guy fully expected whoever was GMing (usually me, unfortunately) to support these kinds of things mechanically. Even after it was explained that if he wanted those thing to have _mechanical_ meaning, he would have to _buy_ the related mechancial effects as a part of his character. Which he almost never did. 

I think that went on for several years in several different groups until another friend of ours found out that if you gave this guy enough Awesome, he'd use it to snuff his own characters. Much hillarity ensued, though those are tales for another thread.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 28, 2009)

FireLance said:


> It's not a player/DM issue. It's a question of whether the person insists on having fun on his own terms even though he knows it's at the expense of other peoples' fun. In other words, whether he is a jerk or not.




That sounds like a player/DM issue to me. . . or are players/DMs not people


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 28, 2009)

Mallus said:


> The DM shouldn't try to legislate the tone of the player characters. You can't legislate _gravitas_, or, more accurately, attempts to do so end up being sillier than campaigns that embrace lightheartedness. Many DM's aspire to Tolkien's heights. Do I need to discuss how many succeed?
> 
> *My experience is that a campaign worth taking seriously will be taken seriously by the players, despite the presence of animal companions w/pun names*.
> 
> *My experience also shows me that the silly and serious can co-exist peacefully in D&D* --hell, in the entire fantasy genre. A campaign can contain jokes without being a joke campaign. Our long-running 3.5e game is a testimony to that, as is our new 4e game, come to think...



Then again, my experiences - as DM and as player, over many years, with many people and groups - run entirely counter to that. *shrug* And as for 'aspiring to Tolkien's heights', why not? Life's short an 'all, so hey, why not do something really ******* amazing, in whatever way appeals. Mind you, I did score, oh, about as low as one can as a Casual Gamer (from memory), in the Laws quiz. Says it all, I suspect.  I R srs gamahz!!1! Heh.  But yeah, kinda. 

So really, there probably is no 'right' answer here. Sure, I know where I tend to stand on such matters, whether I'm DM or player. But that's what works for me and my fellow gamers.

I just hope you (_architectofsleep_) can work something out with a group you get along with, be that the current one or the next along.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 28, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> That sounds like a player/DM issue to me. . . or are players/DMs not people



Okay, so I was using the term rather loosely. What I meant was that problem players and problem DMs have more in common with each other than with other players and other DMs respectively.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 28, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> If you know of any GMs seeking players (and the GMs aren't micromanagers), then please feel free to send them my contact info.  jmmitchell @ yahoo . com  My name is Jennifer.



I'll ask around for you, Jennifer, and pass on your info when appropriate.

I've had the most luck with a local Bay Area forum called "Critical Hit," but it seems to have gone away.  (It was at "www.cilibrin.net/rolldice.)  I'm very surprised it's gone, as I used it when I found my first 3E game in 2000, and I got a couple of players from it as recently as six to eight months ago.  Shame.

There's a "Gamers Seeking Gamers" forum here on EN World (I just found a good online game using it), so you could give that a shot.  Also, there's a great game store in Santa Clara called Game Kastle that I know hosts several weekly D&D games.  (I can't vouch for the quality of those games, but I can vouch for the approachability of the gamers I met through Game Kastle when I lived in Los Gatos.)  They'll certainly have a "Gamers Seeking Gamers" physical bulletin board.

You have a _huge_ advantage going for you, being a woman.  While it's true that there are a fair number of gamer guys just looking for gamer girls to hit on, it's also true that most mature DMs would love to increase the female-to-male ratio in their games, because women bring different -- usually positive -- things to the table than male gamers do.  Because of this, you even have a good chance of wedging yourself into a "full" game.

What I'm getting at is that if you make the effort to find games, I wouldn't be surprised if, within a month, you have literally eight or ten you can choose from.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 28, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Okay, so I was using the term rather loosely. What I meant was that problem players and problem DMs have more in common with each other than with other players and other DMs respectively.




Well, I don't think they necessarily share the _same_ problem behaviors (IME, they often don't) but I do agree that both 'problem players' and 'problem GMs' are often to blame in _some_ way for what is ultimately a match made in Hell. 

Sometimes, though, the problem is entirely one-sided (f'rinstance, the guy that I mention a few posts up). Someday I may post those stories but they're so unbelievably crazy that only those posters here who know they guy wouldn't balk.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 28, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I'll ask around for you, Jennifer, and pass on your info when appropriate.
> 
> I've had the most luck with a local Bay Area forum called "Critical Hit," but it seems to have gone away.  (It was at "www.cilibrin.net/rolldice.)  I'm very surprised it's gone, as I used it when I found my first 3E game in 2000, and I got a couple of players from it as recently as six to eight months ago.  Shame.
> 
> ...




I used CritHit a lot when it was around.  I found one good game that I stayed with years.  But I left for grad school for a couple of years, and when I came back, the good gamers had jumped ship.  One of them brought me into the current game I'm kvetching about, in fact.  I, too, lament the loss of CritHit.

I didn't know about that game shop; I'll check it out.  I'm also heading to Dundracon this year in hopes of finding more options.  I'm new to EN World, so thanks for the tip on that.  I worry, though, because this is a global site and not a local one.

Being a gamer girl has its downsides, too.  I'm married, so that wipes out the creeps pretty quickly.   I find that I tend to be overly sensitive at times, which is why I like to vent my concerns in a neutral forum before bringing them to the GM.  I'm not a girly-girl, so expectations of me being all that different from male players tend to gp unfulfilled.  

Thanks for the tips and the help!


----------



## delericho (Jan 28, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> I have a GM who is, apparently, a control freak.  For example, I come up with a really great concept for a character background that I'm really looking forward to playing, and he comes back with a watered down, much more boring version of the same, telling me I can't play it the way I want to.




Yeah, that seems unreasonable. Working with the player to tailor the character background to the campaign better is fine, but changing the background for them is not on, IMO. In an RPG, the DM has control of the rules, the monsters, the NPCs and the world. The only thing the player has control of is his character, and he should therefore be permitted that control.



> Currently I'm playing a druid, and I've been coming up with slightly silly names for my animal companions, just for a little fun.  Think "Fido" for a wolf, or "Rex" for a dinosaur, or "Tweety" for an eagle.  Kind of undercutting their ferociousness or their skill, for irony's sake.  Nothing game-stopping, and just mildly amusing the first time you hear it.




However, here I have some sympathy with your DM, having seen one of our campaigns destroyed by this very thing - the DM said that he wanted to run a "semi-serious" Ravenloft campaign, a goal which lasted right up until one player gave her character a joke name. In that instant, the entire campaign was ruined.

Basically, your DM should have communicated to you the sort of campaign he wants to run (including setting, suitable character types, tone...). It is then up to you to create characters that fit that desired style (or persuade him to run something else, or get someone else to run a game). If the DM wants a semi-serious game, a Druid with a pet dinosaur named Rex just won't fit.

Besides, after the first twice, you would find that the joke name isn't even close to as funny as you first thought.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jan 28, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> Of course, I like the names Fido and Tweety because their easy to remember and pronounce. To many serious names suck because they are hard to pronounce and remember. (How come no one discusses _that_ aspect of fantasy names?)




I wish I had search function for this site and I might be able to dig up the old Forrester posts about this very subject - they were brilliantly funny.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jan 28, 2009)

S'mon said:


> I had a player recently who subsequent to the death of his PC, informed me that his PC was unkillable, because his background "which I had approved" said he was cursed to be killed by a red dragon, ergo he could not be killed by anything _except _a red dragon.  I kicked him out right away.




Oh, I wouldn't have kicked him out.  I would have had him run over and killed by a cart carrying manure.  Painted red.  Killed by a red wagon.


----------



## vagabundo (Jan 28, 2009)

Holy Bovine said:


> Oh, I wouldn't have kicked him out.  I would have had him run over and killed by a cart carrying manure.  Painted red.  Killed by a red wagon.




Or on a more serious note: have a themed Death knight who welds a red intelligent sword called Dragon.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Jan 28, 2009)

From his perspective he may think that you aren't taking his game seriously by giving your beasties funny names.  Considering the amount of effort that some DMs put into their settings and games I can see how it could be upsetting to him.  If he is trying to create a serious mood a silly name could ruin it.  If I were running a game in the Midnight setting I'd have to disallow silly names too... you are trying to inject comedy in what is supposed to be an intense and somewhat depressing setting.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 28, 2009)

Calico_Jack73 said:


> From his perspective he may think that you aren't taking his game seriously by giving your beasties funny names.  Considering the amount of effort that some DMs put into their settings and games I can see how it could be upsetting to him.



Speaking as someone who spends a borderline ridiculous amount of time developing his homebrew setting(s), I can understand this. But at the end of the day a D&D setting isn't just my own work of fiction, or at least, it stops being that as soon as the campaign begins. After that, for better or worse, it belongs to the group as a whole.

Besides, freely allowing player input in --even something as trivial as a mood-changing pet name-- can _enlarge_ the setting, make it bigger, richer, and more varied in tone than a single person's imagination could. I like to say that my group's aggregate imagination is greater than my own (and I'm pretty imaginative).



> If he is trying to create a serious mood a silly name could ruin it.



The name 'Fistandantilus' is so bad it's impossible to parody, and yet Dragonlance survived it. 



> If I were running a game in the Midnight setting I'd have to disallow silly names too... you are trying to inject comedy in what is supposed to be an intense and somewhat depressing setting.



On the other hand, you can't ban your way to an intense gaming experience. If the DM provides intense situations, the players will react accordingly. Even the ones who named their dire lion companions 'Mittens'.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 28, 2009)

It's not the sillyness that bothers me as much as the intrusion of 20th century names in a medieval world.  Rex wouldn't bother me, Tweety would.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 28, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Tweety would.



Because no one called a bird Tweety --or something similar that remarked on the sound the animal makes-- until Warner Brother came around?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 28, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Because no one called a bird Tweety --or something similar that remarked on the sound the animal makes-- until Warner Brother came around?




If it was a parakeet or some such, I'd be fine with Tweety.  A giant eagle?  Not gonna fly.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 28, 2009)

Animals with silly names?  How inappropriate!   If it was a PC with a silly name, yeah, a line needs to be drawn, but animals get named something silly as often as not in the real world, so why not.

The coolest ever familiar in a game I ran was a raven named Mr. Nevermoore.  He had an english accent and a chip on his shoulder, lotsa fun playing him.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 28, 2009)

Holy Bovine said:


> Oh, I wouldn't have kicked him out.  I would have had him run over and killed by a cart carrying manure.  Painted red.  Killed by a red wagon.




Well, as you might guess it was the culmination of various issues.  I was not enjoying GMing for him.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 28, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> ...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?



I'll be honest - I generally associate this attitude with general dickishness.

I've been DMing for over 20 years, and haven't found that extreme authoritarianism does anything but feed my ego.  It doesn't make the game more fun for my players, and if it doesn't make it fun for them, it's not fun for me, either.  I mean, I'm not just running games for me - I'm running it for them, too, and if they're not having a good time, then _my_ time really has been wasted.  I'd be just as well off writing a novel.

I DM because I enjoy DMing.  I may put more work into the game - but I think that's a great privilege, and I love doing it.  I can't imagine loving DMing so little, or seeing it as such a burden, or wanting such rigid control of the game, that a somewhat silly pet name would make me not-love doing it.  I dunno, it just doesn't seem like a healthy attitude...  It's not _my_ game, it's _our_ game.

-O


----------



## maddman75 (Jan 28, 2009)

I think the DM is way out of line and you are more than justified in walking.  Maybe I'm biased because I think a Druid with Marshmallow the bear is awesome.  If he sticks around, or better yet saves the party's bacon, then so much the better.  Marshmallow will be a trusted companion and friend.

D&D isn't high literature, I mean one of the canon monsters is the gelatinous cube.  Its genetically adapted to graph paper.  Embrace the wacky if the players want to bring it.  A DM cannot sit down and say "I'm going to run a campaign that has *this* kind of tone".  You can nudge things here and there, but so much is on the players.

And its not just the name.  The micromanagement, the sexism, the blatent rudeness.  From his response I'd wager he doesn't paticularly want you in his game.  I can't imagine responding to any of my players that way.  I'm forking this as well to talk about the "I put in all the work" line.

Move to Central Illinois, and I'll let you rock out with Marshmallow the bear all you want.  I love that idea.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 28, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Move to Central Illinois, and I'll let you rock out with Marshmallow the bear all you want.  I love that idea.



Heck yeah. 

Or, next time my work sends me out to San Jose, I can bring my D&D books along.  (I wish they'd send me now...  I'm sick of this ice & snow!)

-O


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jan 28, 2009)

S'mon said:


> I had a player recently who subsequent to the death of his PC, informed me that his PC was unkillable, because his background "which I had approved" said he was cursed to be killed by a red dragon, ergo he could not be killed by anything _except _a red dragon.  I kicked him out right away.




Did you, at least, have his character eaten by a red dragon first?


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Jan 28, 2009)

Rather than level the "dick" accusation at the DM, let's look at it differently. I suspect that the DM here may be a highly creative type. They tend to be rather sensitive to things and have a strong vision. (I know. I was this way for years.) The bit about him trying to change your cleric background idea - I can see that as trying to make everything fit into his world concept instead of picking on you. 

What is really going on here is a minor clash in playstyle. If you have the guts (realizing that it could lead to conflict) how about pointing your DM to this thread? He can read it while hopefully not getting to high blood pressure, and learn from it. Perhaps he'll understand your perspective better.

The word here is compromise. The creation of the world belongs to the DM. Yes, we invest tons of time into it. However, when you incorporate player ideas (that aren't radically out there), the world grows. It increases the ownership because now the player feels part of it too.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 28, 2009)

Brennin Magalus said:


> Did you, at least, have his character eaten by a red dragon first?




His PC had just been killed by a hobgoblin (critical hit with longspear).  He apparently then stayed up all night working out why his PC wasn't really dead.

Ironically, if we had not ended that adventure early there was a red dragon at the end of it that could have eaten him.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jan 28, 2009)

S'mon said:


> His PC had just been killed by a hobgoblin (critical hit with longspear).  He apparently then stayed up all night working out why his PC wasn't really dead.
> 
> Ironically, if we had not ended that adventure early there was a red dragon at the end of it that could have eaten him.




You should have told him the hobgoblin was a polymorphed red dragon.


----------



## Jasperak (Jan 29, 2009)

Varianor Abroad said:


> Rather than level the "dick" accusation at the DM, let's look at it differently. I suspect that the DM here may be a highly creative type. They tend to be rather sensitive to things and have a strong vision. (I know. I was this way for years.) The bit about him trying to change your cleric background idea - I can see that as trying to make everything fit into his world concept instead of picking on you.
> 
> What is really going on here is a minor clash in playstyle. If you have the guts (realizing that it could lead to conflict) how about pointing your DM to this thread? He can read it while hopefully not getting to high blood pressure, and learn from it. Perhaps he'll understand your perspective better.
> 
> The word here is compromise. The creation of the world belongs to the DM. Yes, we invest tons of time into it. However, when you incorporate player ideas (that aren't radically out there), the world grows. It increases the ownership because now the player feels part of it too.




Or that creative DM can go write a book. I started writing as a hobby for this exact reason. Forcing players to jump through hoops at my own whim was ultimately unrewarding and made my players resentful the more I tried to dictate the game style. Once I matured and realized that D&D goes both ways, my game naturally progressed to a point where everyone was generally satisfied. We told a common story.

Specifically, if my wife (who is a gamer as well) showed me an email that had that kind of a response, I'd have my own little chat with this DM. Not that my wife cannot handle herself, but I would want to make clear that I don't appreciate his responses and that insults to my wife are insults to me.

I think the situation as described bothers me because I have had sexists treat my wife like that at the table. Concerning the DM aspects, I used to be a control freak like him so I see the lack of maturity. If he runs a great game otherwise, hopefully he will grow out of it, but I strongly believe that if he feels that he has to force people to play his style of game, he probably sucks the big donkey  as a DM. BTW, my wife would have probably kicked him in the junk by now.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 29, 2009)

> Currently I'm playing a druid, and I've been coming up with slightly silly names for my animal companions, just for a little fun. Think "Fido" for a wolf, or "Rex" for a dinosaur, or "Tweety" for an eagle. Kind of undercutting their ferociousness or their skill, for irony's sake. Nothing game-stopping, and just mildly amusing the first time you hear it. Now he goes and tells me I can't name my animals (or my characters) anything silly. Because he can't take characters with silly names seriously.




Your DM sounds like a friggin' princess, unable to sleep for the pea 'neath her matress. Buy her a tiara.



			
				Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> I suspect that the DM here may be a highly creative type. They tend to be rather sensitive to things and have a strong vision.




Any DM who can't learn to handle a little bit of wackiness should put down the dice and pick up a pen. 

If they can learn, then perhaps this is an opportunity to teach them.

Mr OP, as yourself this: Can your DM be _taught_ to be more zen about the whole thing? To, perhaps, metaphorically speaking, grow a pair? If yes, then you have a chance to teach them by being a little assertive, saying something like: "Dude, let me play my character my way, kthnx?" If no, either suck it up and play within the bounds of Princess's _delicate sensibilities_, or ask if you can DM a session or four for a while. Perhaps running games built from the ground up to be more "anything goes" than the DM's normal game. Show him how it's done.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 29, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Any DM who can't learn to handle a little bit of wackiness should put down the dice and pick up a pen.



No doubt this is a popular enough view/stance, I'm sure.

But surely, it's OK for some campaigns to be closed to 'wackiness', just as some should - it would seem pretty clear - be open to it.

I know that there was a rather wide reactionary movement away from [perceived] 'high drama', 'storytelling games' and such, after certain events unfolded in the 90s. Seems maybe that reaction is still being clung to, here and there. Or voiced on the arpatubes, at any rate.

Again, _surely_, there's room in the world for both views, and everything in between.

Or, put another way, apart from some of that guy's behaviour - which, I agree, sounds to be bordering on intolerable - isn't this simply yet another case of conflicting playstyles?

Well, it certainly looks that way to me. *shrug*


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 29, 2009)

> But surely, it's OK for some campaigns to be closed to 'wackiness', just as some should - it would seem pretty clear - be open to it.




Keep in mind that threatening monsters with adorable names is very low on the "wackiness" scale, first. You could run a totally grim-n-gritty, survivalist horror game where things are named "fluffy," no problem.

Second, it's not OK for a campaign to be totally closed to what people have fun doing. If a player WANTS a little bit of wackiness, why shouldn't they get it? Every campaign is a balance of conflicting playstyles, because no two people are really looking for the same thing. A campaign should be flexible enough to accommodate everything the group is looking for (including the DM, but not exclusively the DM).

A little bit of wackiness is a common source of fun. Putting the lid on it puts the lid on FUN. Even a serious "dark world where dark stuff happens to dark characters and everyone is very dark and also darkness is very serious business" kind of world should be able to find a home for a brutal wolf named "fido." 

Honestly, in the end, it boils down to flexibility. Campaign settings are often better as blades of grass or stalks of wheat rather than as tall trees and intricate buildings, because player characters are hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes all at once. Artsy sensitivity doesn't survive nature red in tooth and claw, and an inflexible vision that can't adapt will die. It is not you Will to impose on others. It is a system, a coexistence, and if the DM can't learn to co-exist (while still having his own brand of fun), if the Princess can't learn to sleep on the pea, then sooner or later entropy takes over from order and the whole thing falls apart no matter how hard that DM tries. 



> I know that there was a rather wide reactionary movement away from [perceived] 'high drama', 'storytelling games' and such, after certain events unfolded in the 90s. Seems maybe that reaction is still being clung to, here and there. Or voiced on the arpatubes, at any rate.




This isn't a reaction against melodrama-style "storytelling" per se. My campaigns, for instance, tend to have very deep literary themes to them -- little mantras like "Hope in the Face of Hopelessness" or "Survival by Any Means," or "Your Family will Make You and Break You." My own pet system uses a pretty nice structure for telling these stories. I've got no problem with campaigns with a strong theme or a cohesive structure.

This is a reaction against inflexibility, ego, and total control, however, all of which are pretty bad to have in any collaborative effort. It's basic group dynamics. 



> Again, surely, there's room in the world for both views, and everything in between.
> 
> Or, put another way, apart from some of that guy's behaviour - which, I agree, sounds to be bordering on intolerable - isn't this simply yet another case of conflicting playstyles?




There is a bit of false dichotomy going on here. This isn't about "serious" vs. "casual" playstyles. This is about flexibility vs. inflexibility. Even a very serious play style needs flexibility to be...welll...playable.


----------



## architectofsleep (Jan 29, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This is a reaction against inflexibility, ego, and total control, however, all of which are pretty bad to have in any collaborative effort. It's basic group dynamics.
> 
> There is a bit of false dichotomy going on here. This isn't about "serious" vs. "casual" playstyles. This is about flexibility vs. inflexibility. Even a very serious play style needs flexibility to be...welll...playable.




This is exactly so.  In subsequent conversation with my GM, he has stated that he is stubborn and inflexible, and hopes I can be flexible enough to work with him.

Honestly, I can be; I'm a very flexible person in general, and as a player or a GM.  But I do have a hard time working with people who aren't flexible, or who decide to not even try to be flexible.  I can work with a reasonable amount of control -- he is the GM, after all -- but he has wandered into the realm of the ridiculous, imo.

Someone else suggested I GM and show him how it's done.  Ironically, our opposite gaming weekends are going to be filled for a while with a one-off that I'm GMing and he's playing in.  I was hoping to use it to demonstrate how rewarding it can be to have a flexible GM, but he's been using it to demonstrate to me how he thinks a player should act:  no complaining or whining whatsoever, no disagreeing whatsoever with anything the GM says, and overall obsequious behavior.  For some, he may be the ideal player, but to me, it's like he's being a Stepford wife or a bobblehead yes-man.  It's kinda creepy.   

Well, I plan on staying in his game until my one-off is over, and then re-evaluating.  If I still feel constrained to the point where it's not that fun, then I'm leaving.

I wanted to thank everyone for their input, on both sides of the equation.  You all really helped me gain some perspective on this, and your advice is highly valued.  Thank you for taking the time to read all of this and help a fellow gamer out.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 29, 2009)

architectofsleep said:
			
		

> Well, I plan on staying in his game until my one-off is over, and then re-evaluating. If I still feel constrained to the point where it's not that fun, then I'm leaving.




Good luck. If you end up having to go, take some of his other players with you. 

Mostly kidding. 

Sadly, DMing can attract control freaks. But, as any half-decent book about management techniques or parenting techniques or even political science on your local Border's bookshelf will tell you, getting along requires embracing a lack of control. IMO, DMing is like that mantra of an ideal police officer: "to serve and protect."

I feel a little bad for your Princess of a DM, so easily offended. She should lighten up.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 29, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> There is a bit of false dichotomy going on here. This isn't about "serious" vs. "casual" playstyles. This is about flexibility vs. inflexibility. Even a very serious play style needs flexibility to be...welll...playable.



Hm. I think it probably is about serious vs. casual, _as well as_ about [other] DM (and player) attitudes and expectations.

Some campaigns, some settings, are - I believe - designed for certain kinds of play. Now, each and every kind of implied playstyle is not going to appeal to all and sundry. So, on the flipside, in another way of looking at things, perhaps some players need to be more flexible in the ways they're willing to approach any particular setting or campaign. Or, perhaps, to know that there are some that are just not for them (e.g., they can't be 'serious' enough to stop themselves ruining the immersion others might seek).

Again, there are a whole bunch of viewpoints out there. I tend to err on the side of the DM in these matters (as is probably quite evident, though _please_ keep in mind I am a player as well as DM, myself), in the sense that they do far more work (e.g., prep), often particularly when it comes to initial decision-making, and setting creation & detailing.

I know that there is a (more modern?) paradigm that opposes mine, the one of increased (or even, *gasp*, equal!  ) player contribution [to the setting] and so on. I can't help thinking that's all this is down to. Paradigms/beliefs/expectations, I mean. Er, other than the DM-in-question's way of handling things (or not, as the case might be), natch.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 29, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> You could run a totally grim-n-gritty, survivalist horror game where things are named "fluffy," no problem.




You've basically just described Shaun of the Dead. In Shaun of the Dead,  zombies are plentiful and deadly, lots of main characters die horribly, and. . . I _still_ don't know anybody who would call Shaun of the Dead a "grim-n-gritty survivalist horror" _anything_. Silly names, jokes, and slapstick antics are — for better or worse — recognized as elements of _comedy_ by most people, not as an indicators of 'seriousness' in any way.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 29, 2009)

Brennin Magalus said:


> You should have told him the hobgoblin was a polymorphed red dragon.




Thanks, I guess the hobgoblin likely had ginger hair and his nickname must have been 'Red' Dragon...


----------



## S'mon (Jan 29, 2009)

Jasperak said:


> Specifically, if my wife (who is a gamer as well) showed me an email that had that kind of a response, I'd have my own little chat with this DM. Not that my wife cannot handle herself, but I would want to make clear that I don't appreciate his responses and that insults to my wife are insults to me.




While I think that GM behaved poorly, as a husband and GM I'd say there was absolutely no call for this and it would be a very bad idea.  Save the 'little chats' for the guy who propositions your wife or actually uses insulting obscenities at her.  For the behaviour described your spouse should deal with it herself, without your input.  You shouldn't be looking over your wife's shoulder all the time.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jan 29, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> Someone else suggested I GM and show him how it's done.  Ironically, our opposite gaming weekends are going to be filled for a while with a one-off that I'm GMing and he's playing in.  I was hoping to use it to demonstrate how rewarding it can be to have a flexible GM, but he's been using it to demonstrate to me how he thinks a player should act:  no complaining or whining whatsoever, no disagreeing whatsoever with anything the GM says, and overall obsequious behavior.  For some, he may be the ideal player, but to me, it's like he's being a Stepford wife or a bobblehead yes-man.  It's kinda creepy.




Oooooo - this would be my opportunity to break him.  Make the most outlandish rulings both in his favour and against him.  See how far you can push his 'yes-man' attitude.  But I am a petty and vindictive jerk!


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jan 29, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Your DM sounds like a friggin' princess, unable to sleep for the pea 'neath her matress. Buy her a tiara.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




DM's do not need to learn how to handle silly characters.  They can disallow them.  In my experience a silly character can really ruin the dynaminic and versimilitude.  If players want silly, I will run toon for them or play a night of munchkin.  But there are plenty of DM's for which silliness is not a factour in their game.

The DM the OP speaks of definitely has issues.  However I understand well not wanting silly characters in the game that can ruin the mood.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jan 29, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Keep in mind that threatening monsters with adorable names is very low on the "wackiness" scale, first. You could run a totally grim-n-gritty, survivalist horror game where things are named "fluffy," no problem.




You COULD run it yes, but it would most likely break the mood.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Second, it's not OK for a campaign to be totally closed to what people have fun doing. If a player WANTS a little bit of wackiness, why shouldn't they get it? Every campaign is a balance of conflicting playstyles, because no two people are really looking for the same thing. A campaign should be flexible enough to accommodate everything the group is looking for (including the DM, but not exclusively the DM).




Flexibility yes, but that does not mean one has to allow silly characters.
A DM should be flexible within the realm of the campaign.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> A little bit of wackiness is a common source of fun. Putting the lid on it puts the lid on FUN. Even a serious "dark world where dark stuff happens to dark characters and everyone is very dark and also darkness is very serious business" kind of world should be able to find a home for a brutal wolf named "fido."




It is a common source of fun for some people, certainly not all.  If I am running a D&D game like a KNIGHT's TALE then silliness is fine (Though I would hate a campaign based on such a BAD movie).  IF I am running CONAN THE BARBARIAN or EXCALIBUR... silliness will be policed.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Honestly, in the end, it boils down to flexibility. Campaign settings are often better as blades of grass or stalks of wheat rather than as tall trees and intricate buildings, because player characters are hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes all at once. Artsy sensitivity doesn't survive nature red in tooth and claw, and an inflexible vision that can't adapt will die. It is not you Will to impose on others. It is a system, a coexistence, and if the DM can't learn to co-exist (while still having his own brand of fun), if the Princess can't learn to sleep on the pea, then sooner or later entropy takes over from order and the whole thing falls apart no matter how hard that DM tries.




Agreed, but flexibility does not mean breaking versimilitude.  Simply if silliness was allowed it would have to be withn context of the campaign.  Aything anachronistic to the campaign could and should be disallowed.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 29, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> You COULD run it yes, but it would most likely break the mood.



Who plays this grim, humorless kind of D&D? In over 20 years I've honestly never seen it. 



> A DM should be flexible within the realm of the campaign.



A _campaign_ should be flexible enough to account for the tastes of the people playing. 



> If I am running a D&D game like a KNIGHT's TALE then silliness is fine (Though I would hate a campaign based on such a BAD movie).



The Knight's Tale??!! Bad???!! Surely you jest. Wait, did you mistake it for a serious historical film? 



> ...or EXCALIBUR... silliness will be policed.



Much as I loved Excalibur, you have to admit that Nicol Williamson's strange conflation of Merlin and Katherine Hepburn was a tad, well, silly. Actually Boorman's Excalibur is a wonderful example of a successful work that veers from epic to silly -- and several stops in between.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Jan 29, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> We're mid-level characters (about 8-10th level), and I was asking about playing a character who had been struck mad by a god (insanity is allowed as a character trait in this game).




Dude(tte)!  I totally wish my players would throw me bones like that more often.  That one line triggered about 3 story ideas in my head.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jan 29, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Who plays this grim, humorless kind of D&D? In over 20 years I've honestly never seen it.




I have not either, it was the example given by the person I quoted.  That said, if I am playing DEAD SPACE, and the developers put a comedy scene in there, it is going to annoy me.  



Mallus said:


> A _campaign_ should be flexible enough to account for the tastes of the people playing.




within reason I would agree.  The players do not however have the ultimate say.  I will state I am not a control freak, and allow for lots of freedom within the framework.  It is OK to have a silly characte within reason, like the IRISHMAN from Braveheart.  Even dialogue common in SPIDERMAN or DEADPOOL is fine.  it all has to fit the context of the campaign.  

I have always been of the philosophy the DM has the veto power.  He is the executive.  The players are the legislature.  



Mallus said:


> The Knight's Tale??!! Bad???!! Surely you jest. Wait, did you mistake it for a serious historical film?




Not bad... HORRIBLE.  I did not mistake it for an historical film, but instead of making a good movie about the middle ages, they created a 20th century modern world that has jousting.  I'll grant the story had merit, but everything brought it down to the level of a movie like DUMB AND DUMBER. There was very little to redeem the movie.  A movie like this was done before by monty python, and it was done much better.  Fortunately my fiance let me sell her copy back to GAME STOP when she moved in.



Mallus said:


> Much as I loved Excalibur, you have to admit that Nicol Williamson's strange conflation of Merlin and Katherine Hepburn was a tad, well, silly. Actually Boorman's Excalibur is a wonderful example of a successful work that veers from epic to silly -- and several stops in between.





sigh yes I have to admit that.


----------



## maddman75 (Jan 29, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Not bad... HORRIBLE.  I did not mistake it for an historical film, but instead of making a good movie about the middle ages, they created a 20th century modern world that has jousting.  I'll grant the story had merit, but everything brought it down to the level of a movie like DUMB AND DUMBER. There was very little to redeem the movie.  A movie like this was done before by monty python, and it was done much better.  Fortunately my fiance let me sell her copy back to GAME STOP when she moved in.




Um, its called anachronism.  Putting modern concepts into an ancient setting so that the audience can better relate to it.  The dancing wasn't supposed to be literal, nor the pro-wrestling style talking them up, nor the queen songs.  It was supposed to communicate that to these people, the Tournament was like Superbowl Sunday.

Not that its a great movie, but I got what they were trying to do.  Its a decent enough literary device.  I mean, Shakespeare used it.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 29, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Who plays this grim, humorless kind of D&D? In over 20 years I've honestly never seen it.



We haven't seen goofy names in more than 10 years, because we all agree that they really do break the mood... and we have lots of laughs. Based on your posts, I suspect you haven't seen a lot of things.



> A _campaign_ should be flexible enough to account for the tastes of the people playing.



Account for the tastes of the majority of people? Yeah, sure.

How much do we know of the other players the OP is with?


----------



## Caliban (Jan 29, 2009)

Engilbrand said:


> If he doesn't like your backstory, ask him for clarification. If he gives you one, refuse. If you want to name yourself something silly, do it. If he demands that you do things his way or else, take the else and leave. You're right. If he's ruining your fun, he's doing something wrong.




Because it's all about you. The DM must cater to your whims and desires, you're the star!

You have no obligation to cooperate with the DM on anything!


----------



## S'mon (Jan 29, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> sigh yes I have to admit that.




Or the first three Star Wars movies, IMO good examples of humour and silliness used without breaking the atmosphere.  It didn't seem to work in the prequels though.

I don't think A Knight's Tale worked; presumably it was supposed to be a comedy but for me it wasn't funny.  And it certainly wasn't dramatic.  The modern equivalent of the Tourney is professional boxing and racing (NASCAR, Formula One) not Professional Wrestling, which is more like a pantomime.  People die.

As far as the animal names go, I've never run a D&D campaign where I'd object to a PC giving her animals silly names.  If I were running a serious Tolkien game I suppose I'd be disappointed in the player, but I doubt I'd attempt such a thing.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 29, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Not that its a great movie, but I got what they were trying to do.  Its a decent enough literary device.  I mean, Shakespeare used it.





I got what they did too. It still didn't stop me from thinking it made the movie suck!


----------



## Mallus (Jan 29, 2009)

Arnwyn said:


> We haven't seen goofy names in more than 10 years, because we all agree that they really do break the mood...



Fair enough. But it's hard to argue that default D&D over the years doesn't have a fair amount of silly/bad puns baked into the core system cf. iconic monsters like gelatinous cube and beholder ("Oh, I get it, it's a floating eye!")



> Based on your posts, I suspect you haven't seen a lot of things.



Based on your lack of actually knowing me, I suspect you're wrong. Wait, you read a lot of my posts? Good for you. They're enlightening (on occasion).



> Account for the tastes of the majority of people? Yeah, sure.



That's all I'm sayin'. 



> How much do we know of the other players the OP is with?



I wasn't talking about the OP in line you snipped, it was just general advice.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 29, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> You COULD run it yes, but it would most likely break the mood.




The DM cant force a mood on players. If everyone isnt on board, too bad for the  DM.  My tolerance for DM fappery has always been low. Write a book if you want everything to go how you planned.




> Flexibility yes, but that does not mean one has to allow silly characters.
> A DM should be flexible within the realm of the campaign.




People have been naming their offspring and pets stupid names for how long?


----------



## Imaro (Jan 29, 2009)

Personally, I'm not really sure where I stand at on this issue.  But I have two questions for everyone claiming the DM has no right to impose campaign nature, tone, setting, etc....

First do you believe too many cooks can ruin the soup?

Secondly, should the nature, tone and background of each player's character also be designed by everyone?  I mean characters are an even bigger part of the game than the setting, so shouldn't any one player's character be subject to what everyone else thinks is fun and appropriate for the campaign as opposed to just the selfish desires of that particular player?

EDIT:  This is just a side about the OP's particular situation, but I think humor can often be one of those things that is very, very subjective.  Even amongst my longtime friends there are wide variations in the things we find funny, jsut something to consider.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jan 29, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Um, its called anachronism. Putting modern concepts into an ancient setting so that the audience can better relate to it. The dancing wasn't supposed to be literal, nor the pro-wrestling style talking them up, nor the queen songs. It was supposed to communicate that to these people, the Tournament was like Superbowl Sunday.
> 
> Not that its a great movie, but I got what they were trying to do. Its a decent enough literary device. I mean, Shakespeare used it.




Is starting a post with 'um' somehow supposed to indicate there is something vital the person being quoted is missing?

If so, I sincerely thank you for my literature lesson this evening.

OK then find me the ancient setting that was in knights tale. You won't be able to because there was nothing short of an incarnation of Chaucer, and a short blurb on the craft of thatching that was medieval. Weaponry, dress, dance, tourney field and procedure... none of it medieval. And stupid humour to boot.

Anachronism is fine, but the writers of the movie were not trying to communicate anything about the middle ages except that it IS like a rennaisance faire.   The movie performed no service to history or literature.

Yes shakespeare uses anachronism, but he used it well.

Sorry to derail the thread, when I mentioned it I did not expect people to actually come to the film's defence.


----------



## Engilbrand (Jan 29, 2009)

My contention was that the player should be able to make up a backstory that fits what has been laid out for the campaign. If it seems like it makes sense with the campaign, but the DM refuses it, the DM should give reasons and a consensus should be reached. If the DM refuses and then TELLS a player what their backstory should be, there is now a problem.
It sounds like her DM is not the sort that I would play under. He was insulting to her and even admitted to being inflexible. No thanks. I've had my times with crappy DMs in the past. I'm glad that I have a great group now, and we're involved in a bunch of different games. I have told the main leader of the group that I won't play under one of the other guys, though. I've played under "Mike" a few times. He focused too narrowly on what was in the book and wasn't very flexible. When he took over one game, rules that I have been following for my character suddenly changed. While I usually like "Mike" as a player, I will refuse to play in any more games that he DMs.
The DMs that I play under that I like are very open minded. I have been able to create character ideas that they have then applied to the setting. For a Wraith Recon game, I gave a Genasi the Dhampyr bloodline. I have a backstory that he agreed to that involves the Shadowfell. He now has a new place to draw ideas from.
The last crappy DM I was under reinforced the idea that no gaming is better than bad gaming. It was 3.5, and I rolled more saves in my first game with the group than I had in the YEARS before then since I had started playing. He had a script in his mind, and nothing else was important. I convinced 2 players in that game who hated it to leave and join me for 4th edition. In my last game with him, I took down a Hellcat with a charge and 1 hit point. I described the hell out of my action. He decided to get excited and said, "No no no. He does this." He "corrected" me about my character's action so that it was what he wanted. At that point, I should have just called him a douche and left.
I wholeheartedly subscribe to the 4th edition idea that it is a joint game. I refer to the group as OUR 4th edition group. He refers to his as "MY" Forgotten Realms Group. If there's no room for player ideas, there's no point in having players. DMs are important because they set the scene, but they aren't the only important thing. Everyone is equally important. Without DM, there's no game. Without players, there's no game. A game is like a book. The DM sets up the different places and events that work with the characters, and the players have their characters interact with the scenes to shape what's to come.
I also have a problem with this idea that I'm seeing that DMs create everything beforehand and then drop the PCs into it, and the PCs have to fit. A group of us are planning to start Hunter: The Vigil next week. We had a pretty long discussion about the type of game we wanted. The DM wanted to do a "blue collar" gritty game. I told him that I'm up for that, but I need to have a character with powers. I'm sure that that sounds stupid to some of you, but I told him that I refuse to play a character who is a completely normal person with nothing special about him. That's not why I game. I game for fun. If I want to be a normal person without powers dealing with strange, mind screwing beasts, I'd just come to work. (I'm a high school teacher.)
Everyone needs to be on board and agree to the type of game that is going to be played. If my friend had just said, "We're going to play Hunter and you're going to be normal guys trying to survive all of the monsters in the area", I would have told him that I had better things to do. Actually, that was one of his ideas, and I did tell him that I had better things to do.

Summary: The entire thing needs to be cooperative. If it's not, then someone is doing it wrong. If I ever find myself in a situation where I'm with a new DM, I'm told to be creative and run things by him, and he just starts shooting down ideas without a good reason, I'll just tell him that I'm not interested in the way that he runs things and I'll leave.


----------



## maddman75 (Jan 29, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Personally, I'm not really sure where I stand at on this issue.  But I have two questions for everyone claiming the DM has no right to impose campaign nature, tone, setting, etc....
> 
> First do you believe too many cooks can ruin the soup?




True enough.  If the cook wants to make Chicken Noodle, he'd better make sure his guests aren't expecting cream of broccoli.



> Secondly, should the nature, tone and background of each player's character also be designed by everyone?  I mean characters are an even bigger part of the game than the setting, so shouldn't any one player's character be subject to what everyone else thinks is fun and appropriate for the campaign as opposed to just the selfish desires of that particular player?




No, each character is the domain of their player for most games.  Though they should be subject to a veto, for examples like a wacky mime in a Cthulhu game.  Other than that, the character is the player's primary way to influence the game world.

Some games do have a group creation method though.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jan 29, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> The DM cant force a mood on players. If everyone isnt on board, too bad for the DM. My tolerance for DM fappery has always been low. Write a book if you want everything to go how you planned.




 No the DM can't FORCE a mood on the players, but the DM can tell players that they are not fit for the game he runs.  Perhaps they would be a better fit elsewhere.  I have told players before they won't work with the game I run.  We are still friends.

I am in a relatively big gaming group.  A common dialogue amongst us, is what players we think would be fit for a particular DM's game.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 29, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> True enough.  If the cook wants to make Chicken Noodle, he'd better make sure his guests aren't expecting cream of broccoli.




Yet the difference doesn't have to be that great.  Using your soup analogy, what if everyone agrees to Broccoli and cheese soup.  But when you all start making it five different cheeses are suggested...various amounts of salt, whether to put the Broccoi stalks in or not comes up... someone has to keep the soup within parameters or else it will become a mess.





maddman75 said:


> No, each character is the domain of their player for most games.  Though they should be subject to a veto, for examples like a wacky mime in a Cthulhu game.  Other than that, the character is the player's primary way to influence the game world.
> 
> Some games do have a group creation method though.




So players have a right to ownership of their characters and can influence the campaign world itself through those characters and they also have a right to shape the campaign world as well... Eh, I think the GM has just as much right to ownership of something as players do.

I'm sorry I see nothing wrong with the GM creating a campaign world he is happy with (especially if the players know upfront that this is the case.), I mean he's the one who has to run it for however long, and if he doesn't have a certain amount of ownership in it...then he doesn't have much investment in it and it shows.  I mean in the end one person has to make the calls about the campaign world and I think it should be the GM.

 I think the real problem is when a GM doesn't let that campaign setting evolve and grow through the actions of the PC's, but that's not what were discussing.


----------



## The Ghost (Jan 29, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Who plays this grim, humorless kind of D&D? In over 20 years I've honestly never seen it.




I do, twice a month. The game is full of hopeless situations, philosophical debates, heated exchanges, and all the other tropes used in creating dramatic tension. The setting is very dire with little hope of success. I also, twice a month, play a game that is very lite and loose with lots of joking around. 

I play both these games with the same group of players. I also enjoy both games equally. 

I look at DnD like I look at other forms of entertainment. Movies, for example. In the past two weeks I have scene Doubt, Bride Wars, and The Wrestler at the movie theater. I enjoyed all three. One was very grim and humorless, another was lite and funny, and the last was somewhere in between. I guess I find entertainment in multiple genres of movies and multiple styles of DnD.


----------



## phloog (Jan 29, 2009)

In the interest of being incredibly lazy, let me give my response to this and the forked thread at the same time about DM effort/reward.

I've been in parties with the following character names:

Sir Anus of Colon
Gowulf Khlobz
DeMetrius Velveeta Thorndyke
Randolph Lagenta Glitch
(etc. - a list too long for the boards)

and had a grand time...I've DMed games with similar goofiness (Archimedes Kartoffelopolis comes to mind.)  I've run grim and ultra-serious games, and I've run games where the group encountered Punchmunchkin the Riddling Gnome.

In all cases, the party was either full of players of a similar mindset, or had players who preferred serious names but could immerse themselves without it being broken by the goofiness.  

One of the issues I've had with a few of the directions these discussions have gone is they've tended to speak of a two-way conversation DM to player....everyone in the group has to remember that it's about making sure everyone has a good time.  If a player insists on silly names and it doesn't work with the group as a whole, that player should find another game.  If a player is in a group of silly namers and cannot abide, then that player should find another group.

The DM has a responsibility to provide the framework of a good story.  A character concept, name, background, that is incompatible with that framework shouldn't be allowed, because it damages the whole for all players.  Having said that, I would add to the definition of a 'Good DM' the ability to understand clearly at what level a given 'difference' breaks that game.  If it really seems incompatible, you have to make the call to disallow.

Interesting note, though...in the last ten years or so of my 30 years of DMing, I've never had a player argue with me when I ruled against a character choice, and it comes down to trust.  They understand that I'm not doing this lightly - any time I don't allow something it's because the game would suffer for everyone.

However, I would also point out that if DMing is to not become a chore, and is to be in itself a 'reward' for 'all those hours' you put in, it's often a really good idea to let your players surprise you and beat on the limits.

I think we start to go down a nasty road when we start talking about who 'owns' the characters....I think I'd rather switch hobbies if I found that an issue in my games.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 29, 2009)

Imaro said:


> But I have two questions for everyone claiming the DM has no right to impose campaign nature, tone, setting, etc....



It's not about rights, it's about what works. And any DM starting from the position of 'imposing' anything on their players/friends is only making their job more difficult. 



> First do you believe too many cooks can ruin the soup?



Depends on the quality of the cooks, doesn't it? 



> Secondly, should the nature, tone and background of each player's character also be designed by everyone?  I mean characters are an even bigger part of the game than the setting, so shouldn't any one player's character be subject to what everyone else thinks is fun and appropriate for the campaign as opposed to just the selfish desires of that particular player?



I do believe you're getting this backwards. The point is _your_ fun shouldn't depend on the other players playing _their_ characters to your liking. My fun ends where yours begins. It's the J.S. Mill school of D&D. 

People sharing a campaign should try to indulge one another. If someone's playing their PC a tad silly... let them have their fun. If someone soliloquy is running a bit long, let them go, trusting that they'll cede to extra time in the stoplight to you when your favorite shtick comes up. This includes the DM as well. If your DM is obviously really proud of some bit of setting history, some lineage of ancient kings or homebrewed cosmology, indulge them a little.

It makes the game go much smoother.  



> This is just a side about the OP's particular situation, but I think humor can often be one of those things that is very, very subjective.



Nonsense. I'm objectively funny...


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 29, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> Currently I'm playing a druid, and I've been coming up with slightly silly names for my animal companions, just for a little fun.  Think "Fido" for a wolf, or "Rex" for a dinosaur, or "Tweety" for an eagle.  Kind of undercutting their ferociousness or their skill, for irony's sake.  Nothing game-stopping, and just mildly amusing the first time you hear it.  Now he goes and tells me I can't name my animals (or my characters) anything silly.  Because he can't take characters with silly names seriously.
> 
> What the heck?  Now he's telling me what I can and can't *name* my characters?  It's really frustrating, and it's totally lowering my morale.  Ugh.  I can't quit over a name, but dang, if it ain't fun to play, why go?



Consider a reverse situation: you acquire cohorts/henchmen of some kind and the DM gives them "silly" names (where you are somewhat of a "serious" player or the general tone of the game is more "serious" than the given names).

This is exactly how the character names Bigby, Sigby, and Rigby came into the original Greyhawk campaign, by the way.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 29, 2009)

Mallus said:


> If you could use an, ahem, example of a successful campaign that contain jokes without being one, the 1st link in my sig is the Story Hour based on our 3.5e campaign.



Rob and Gary's original Greyhawk campaign is another.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 29, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> The players do not however have the ultimate say.



Sure. Didn't mean to imply they did. 



> I have always been of the philosophy the DM has the veto power.



I agree w/that. The DM needs something like the right to final edit. I'm just a strong advocate of saying 'yes' to most player input. I've found it frequently increases the players involvement in the campaign and makes the campaign setting richer. 



> I did not mistake it for an historical film, but instead of making a good movie about the middle ages, they created a 20th century modern world that has jousting.



Yes, it's a contemporary sports film/romance in showily-faux medieval drag. It embraces the fake-ness of movies and I loved it for that --okay, I'll stop... 



> ...sigh yes I have to admit that.



Don't get me wrong... Excalibur is one of my favorite films... and I should stop talking about movies, shouldn't I?


----------



## Mallus (Jan 29, 2009)

Gentlegamer said:


> Rob and Gary's original Greyhawk campaign in another.



Thanks... I'm trying to pimp my campaign's story hour and you go invoking the classics...

edit: I started playing in 1e Greyhawk. For me, D&D will forever be as silly, serious, and generally bug-f**k crazy as that setting.


----------



## The Ghost (Jan 29, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I do believe you're getting this backwards. The point is _your_ fun shouldn't depend on the other players playing _their_ characters to your liking. My fun ends where yours begins. It's the J.S. Mill school of D&D.
> 
> People sharing a campaign should try to indulge one another. If someone's playing their PC a tad silly... let them have their fun. If someone soliloquy is running a bit long, let them go, trusting that they'll cede to extra time in the stoplight to you when your favorite shtick comes up. This includes the DM as well. If your DM is obviously really proud of some bit of setting history, some lineage of ancient kings or homebrewed cosmology, indulge them a little.
> 
> It makes the game go much smoother.




Within context, yes. However, if we are playing a game based largely on Tolkien and someone wants to bring in an Illithid Psion or a renegade Githyanki do we indulge him? I don't think so. If we are playing a game based in Sigil - sure, why not? But not one based in Middle Earth.

I don't buy the argument that says you are somehow entitled to play whatever character you want in our game even if, especially if, that character breaks the tone, flavor, or mood of the campaign. There is a time and place for silly and wacky and a time and place for grim and serious. It's like I like Maker's Mark and I like Coca-Cola but Maker's Mark and Coca-Cola mixed together is disgusting.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 29, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Not that its a great movie, but I got what they were trying to do.  Its a decent enough literary device.  I mean, Shakespeare used it.





More importantly, almost all FRPGs do it


----------



## Obryn (Jan 29, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> Within context, yes. However, if we are playing a game based largely on Tolkien and someone wants to bring in an Illithid Psion or a renegade Githyanki do we indulge him? I don't think so. If we are playing a game based in Sigil - sure, why not? But not one based in Middle Earth.
> 
> I don't buy the argument that says you are somehow entitled to play whatever character you want in our game even if, especially if, that character breaks the tone, flavor, or mood of the campaign. There is a time and place for silly and wacky and a time and place for grim and serious. It's like I like Maker's Mark and I like Coca-Cola but Maker's Mark and Coca-Cola mixed together is disgusting.



Once again, I don't think anyone's actually saying this.

If the players and DM are in agreement that they're going to play a Middle Earth game, then the question of an Illithid Psion shouldn't really even come up.

Likewise, if everyone's sitting down to play Call of Cthulhu, an orc who communicates in interpretive dance would be disruptive.

-O


----------



## merelycompetent (Jan 30, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> This is exactly so. In subsequent conversation with my GM, he has stated that he is stubborn and inflexible, and hopes I can be flexible enough to work with him.




Hmmm... stubborn and inflexible. The first, IMO, is almost a pre-requisite for DMing. The inflexible part, combined with announcing it in tandem with a requirement that you, the player, be flexible enough to work with someone who's admitted to being inflexible...

Based on past experience, and what you've posted so far, I do not see a good outcome from this. A good DM *must* be flexible! The RAW simply can't cover all the things that happen in a session, nor all the crazy-wonderful ideas players come up with.



architectofsleep said:


> Well, I plan on staying in his game until my one-off is over, and then re-evaluating. If I still feel constrained to the point where it's not that fun, then I'm leaving.




It really looks like this is a case where your play style and the DM's play style are not a good match, even after you've both talked to each other and tried to work things out. That usually means one of you won't be staying. I hope that things work out well for you all. If I may offer some advice: If you do part company, make every reasonable effort to do so on good terms. No sense in burning bridges unless you really have to.

Good luck!


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2009)

Well, I've ranted on this issue more than a few times in the past as well.  I find it funny that most people are taking the player's side in this, when a few months ago, when I suggested that a DM place his personal preferences aside in favor of the player's preferences, I was resoundly booed.  

What changed?

Here we have exactly the point I was making back then.  The DM doesn't like something.  He has no reason to say no, other than his personal preference.  The player wants it.  Most people here are saying the DM should bend and allow the player what she wants.  Yet, back then, I was told that a DM's right to veto anything and everything in the game was absolute, 100% rock solid.  If the DM didn't like it, it was given the toss and you either sucked it up or left the group.

Funny how things go.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> What changed?



My take: who seems to be the aggressor.

In previous cases, it seemed to be the player muscling into DM territory, e.g. what mechanics or flavor to use.

In this case, it seems to be the DM trying to exert excessive control over the PC, e.g. names of pets and setting-appropriate backstory.


----------



## The Ghost (Jan 30, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Once again, I don't think anyone's actually saying this.
> 
> If the players and DM are in agreement that they're going to play a Middle Earth game, then the question of an Illithid Psion shouldn't really even come up.
> 
> ...




The point I am trying to make is that we have no idea what is really transpiring at the OP's game table. We have the OP's perspective but not the perspective of any other players or the DM. And yet here we are arguing over whether this DM is being a dick or not. Whether his restrictions are valid or not. I cannot ascertain as to whether the DM is out of line or this particular player is - all I can do is offer points as to why he is doing what he is doing. And why the rest in the group *may* like that.

I am not willing to call this DM out of line anymore than I am willing to call the OP out of line. I am just trying to offer a perseptive as to why they are doing what they are doing.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2009)

FireLance said:


> My take: who seems to be the aggressor.
> 
> In previous cases, it seemed to be the player muscling into DM territory, e.g. what mechanics or flavor to use.
> 
> In this case, it seems to be the DM trying to exert excessive control over the PC, e.g. names of pets and setting-appropriate backstory.




I suppose.  Personally, I don't really see the difference.  If, as was repeatedly stated in The DM entitlement thread I was talking about last post a DM's right to veto any and all things from his game, then, it is absolute.  There should be no difference at all.  His control of his game is 100% his, so, any quibbling by the player is wrong.

Note, I completely disagree with this and think that it should be very much a give and take proposition and that when the only issue at stake is the DM's personal preference, the Dm should step back, but, that's how I DM.  I don't think my position as DM gives me the prerogative to squash any and all ideas that my players have.

But, I was repeatedly told I was completely wrong in that other thread.

Funny thing that.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, I was repeatedly told I was completely wrong in that other thread.
> 
> Funny thing that.




If it makes you feel any better, you were wrong then and are still wrong!


----------



## chriton227 (Jan 30, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> I don't buy the argument that says you are somehow entitled to play whatever character you want in our game even if, especially if, that character breaks the tone, flavor, or mood of the campaign. There is a time and place for silly and wacky and a time and place for grim and serious. It's like I like Maker's Mark and I like Coca-Cola but Maker's Mark and Coca-Cola mixed together is disgusting.




I didn't get the impression that the OP was trying to introduce a silly character, nor having the animals do anything disruptive or over the top, just giving some light-hearted names to the character's pets.   To me the names sounded like terms of endearment and affection, not an attempt at complete sillyness.  Wouldn't you expect a character with such a close bond to its pets to come up with more personal names for them?  In my opinion, the pets are supposed to be companions and allies, not soulless weapons to be wielded and discarded. I would find it just as jarring to hear a character talk of how their wolf Razorfang Blooddrinker saved them when they were stranded in a blizzard by keeping them warm with its body heat, as the name implies a vicious killer, not a compassionate friend.  Just giving the animals names at all shows a deeper level of character development and investment in the shared story than I've seen from many players who play for several levels without bothering to name their animal companions.

On a different note, in all but the most grim and gritty works, there are usually some minor elements of humor or lightheartedness, if for no other reason than to provide contrast to emphasize the more solemn and serious aspects or to break the tension before it becomes unbearable for the reader/watcher.  You'll find this in works from Shakespeare's tragedies for example Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet) through Tolkien (no one can tell me that the hobbit names aren't light hearted, and a fire breathing dragon sharing a name with air pollution). You'll likewise find light-hearted moments in otherwise serious movies, be they dramas like Saving Private Ryan or suspense films like Alien.  I just can't buy that minor light-hearted elements can ruin a serious game, unless the players would prefer to not play in a serious game and are just waiting for an excuse to drop the seriousness, or the seriousness is so thin and contrived that instead of serving as a point of contrast, lighter elements serve to point out the absurdity of the seriousness.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2009)

FireLance said:


> My take: who seems to be the aggressor.
> 
> In previous cases, it seemed to be the player muscling into DM territory, e.g. what mechanics or flavor to use.
> 
> In this case, it seems to be the DM trying to exert excessive control over the PC, e.g. names of pets and setting-appropriate backstory.




Sounds about right.  I don't remember exactly what Hussar said last time, but I remember it annoyed me enough I incurred a three-day ban, whereas architect is coming across a lot more reasonable.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 30, 2009)

chriton227 said:


> I didn't get the impression that the OP was trying to introduce a silly character



The OP actually used the word "silly" to describe the names she was giving the animals.



chriton227 said:


> there are usually some minor elements of humor or lightheartedness



The reason you changed the phrasing from "silly" to "minor elements of humor and lightheartedness" is because there's a difference between "silly" and "minor elements of humor and lightheartedness."

Tone is important.

If I'm craving _Black Company_, I'm going to be disappointed by one of the _Myth, Inc._ books.  There is humor in serious fantasy -- and in RPG campaigns with a serious tone -- but (again) humor is not the same thing as silliness or frivolousness.  Attempts to conflate the two are puzzling to me.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 30, 2009)

I'm pretty sure that last time the undercurrent was dragonborn and tieflings.  I think that colored a LOT of the discussion.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 30, 2009)

Oh, and the point where I accused a substantial number of forum regulars of being psychologically damaged, that probably didn't help either.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I'm pretty sure that last time the undercurrent was dragonborn and tieflings.  I think that colored a LOT of the discussion.




Oh yeah, how if a player wanted to play a dragonborn, it wasn't legitimate for the GM to say "No, I don't like them".  Please let us not go there again.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 30, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Oh yeah, how if a player wanted to play a dragonborn, it wasn't legitimate for the GM to say "No, I don't like them". Please let us not go there again.



Actually, I've been thinking about it a lot, and... yeah, I'm going there again. 

Let me analogize to a judge.

A judge, when acting as a judge, has a LOT of power.  She can order you locked in jail, she can decide who does or does not own property, she can even terminate your legal rights to see your own children or order you executed.  We give judges this power for a reason, and choose them and position them in ways to encourage them to use this power as wisely and as ethically as possible.  To put things roughly, a judge has incredible power when acting in the interests of the lw and of justice.

A judge, when not acting as a judge, doesn't have any particular power.  A judge on her day off, say, at her kid's Little League game, cannot order you imprisoned.  A judge, even while seated on her bench at the height of her power, cannot properly make dictates that the law does not authorize, and will be reversed or censured if she tries.  In those contexts, the judge cannot do these things because she's not acting as a judge.  She's acting as just another person in the room, and she has only the rights and privileges of any other person in the room.

I think that DMs are the same way.

A DM has incredible power.  We give the DM that power for a reason, though, and that power exists in the context of that reason.  The DM has all kinds of power because we expect the DM to have a larger vision of the campaign and the game than the players.  We give the DM this power because we expect the DM to use that broader vision to make wiser long term decisions than a player might make from the player's limited perspective.

But a DM who isn't acting as a DM, like our judge on her day off, is just another person in the room.  A DM not acting as a DM has only the rights and privileges of just another person in the room.  Its why being the Dungeon Master doesn't entitle you to demand that your friends wash your car or clean your kitchen.  That doesn't have to do with your role as a DM.

The trickier questions are things that have to do with the _game_, but in my opinion, have nothing to do with _your role as a Dungeon Master_.  That's why I'm always so interested in a DM's motives rather than his decision itself.  A DM who, say, bans dragonborn, because he has an established 3e game in an established setting and he does want to switch to 4e but doesn't want to change the setting, is probably acting as a DM.  He is probably concerning himself continuity and setting coherence, and is probably making the decision that he reasonably believes to be in the long term interests of the game.

But what about a DM who bans dragonborn because he just hates them?  I don't think that DM is acting as a DM.  He's not using his higher vantage point to make a decision that's best for the group.  He's like the judge who tries to lock you in jail because your kid beat her kid in a baseball game.  He's using his power and the trust reposed in him to make a decision that's personal rather than related to the role which granted him power.

Now of course the immediate response to this is, "But if a DM hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?"  Which is fair.

But here's the thing!  That's not a DM concern!  That's a "guy in the room" concern.  Take out the word DM.  Add in Player.  "If a Player hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?"  Obviously he shouldn't.

The key here is that these sorts of decisions, made not as DM but rather as just some guy in a D&D game, have less _legitimacy_ than decisions made as a DM.  They're being made from a position that is on par with everyone else in the room.  And as such, compromise or adjudication of issues that affect the DM not as a DM but rather as a player in the game need to be made from the perspective of a group of equals.  Not from the perspective of one person dictating his will to his subordinates.

The only "power" a DM has to resolve "guy in the room" issues unrelated to his role as a DM is the power of the superior ultimatum- its generally harder to get a new DM than to get a new player, so the DM can make better threats to take his stuff and go home.  But lets be clear, in the "ban X because I hate it" context, that's all that's happening- the DM isn't trying to bring an unruly player into line, two friends are sitting in a basement arguing and threatening to take their toys and go home if the other won't play the game the way they demand.  One might own more of the toys, and therefore have superior leverage, but there's nothing going on other than a power play between moral equals.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Tone is important.



Sure. But complete uniformity of tone is not. 

And a DM that needs to prevent a player from calling their PC's pet 'Mittens' in order to preserve the campaign's tone probably hasn't done a very good job establishing that tone in the first place. If they had, the tone wouldn't be so fragile as to be threatened by a dire lion named Mittens.


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 30, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Now of course the immediate response to this is, "But if a DM hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?"  Which is fair.
> 
> But here's the thing!  That's not a DM concern!  That's a "guy in the room" concern.  Take out the word DM.  Add in Player.  "If a Player hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?"  Obviously he shouldn't.




I for one hate dragonborn, mostly because the art i have seen of them, which inundates the PHB and DMG, are not good pictures IMO, and because they do not fit the kind of pseudo-medieval campaign i'm currently running.  Although that campaign is the new FR and it's a core race there, convenientaly explained by the Spell Plauge problems.

Anyway, i haven't had any players want to play a dragonborn, and i told them last week i'm glad about that (prompting a joke about his next character being a warforged/dragonborn).  

Now, if one of them had INSISTED on playing a dragonborn? Well, first i would explain again why i don't like them, and i think they should be a rare and misunderstood species currently residing on a different continent.  If the player STILL wanted to do it, or offered a reasonable explanation, i would give in.  It doesn't matter enough to me to cause waves, it's just a game of the imagination anyway, but as DM i would put something i feel very strongly about first.  In the end, if i'm having a good time with the story and characters, then so are the players. 

Although i would be quick to inject a healthy dose of "fear and misunderstanding" about this draconic race blazing through town, and i would let the player know it's going to draw stares.  If nothing else, it would become a strong story/roleplaying element.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2009)

"But what about a DM who bans dragonborn because he just hates them? I don't think that DM is acting as a DM. He's not using his higher vantage point to make a decision that's best for the group. He's like the judge who tries to lock you in jail because your kid beat her kid in a baseball game..."

I disagree.  A GM is not a judge.  A judge should not adjudicate based on his/her personal enjoyment.  A judge is paid to be impartial.  A GM isn't paid.  The GM's reward is enjoyment.  A GM needs to take his/her own preferences and enjoyment into account when making a decision.

For instance, when I as GM kick a player out of my group because I don't enjoy GMing for them.  I am 'acting as a GM'.  Maybe it would be good if I did enjoy GMing for them, or if I were happy to suck up the unpleasantness, but I'm not, I don't, and it doesn't mean I'm 'not acting as a GM' when I do so.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Oh yeah, how if a player wanted to play a dragonborn, it wasn't legitimate for the GM to say "No, I don't like them".  Please let us not go there again.




No, lets. 

What's the difference between that case and this one?

You say it is perfectly legitimate for the GM to say, "I don't like them" and that's the end of the discussion.  The GM's preference is prime.

What difference does it make if "them" is dragonborn or what the player wants to name her pet?  After all, both decisions are player decisions - the player wants to play a dragonborn, the player wants to name her pet "mittens".

So, if I'm understanding you right, the DM has absolute authority in game over every single facet and the players have none.  After all, if I, as DM, can veto the NAME of a character, that's pretty absolute authority.

Where does it stop?  "I don't like them" is a pretty broad and well oiled slope.  "I don't like you doing X" is the same thing is it not?  Should a DM be allowed to veto any player action in the game simply based on the DM's preference?  Or is this solely limited to character creation?  If so, then why?  Why does the DM's authority stop when the game starts?  If I have the authority given to me by virtue of sitting in the big chair to rewrite your character concept to suit my whim (or preference if that makes you feel better), then why can I not rewrite anything else?

How does this point of view not totally legitimize railroading?


----------



## chriton227 (Jan 30, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> The OP actually used the word "silly" to describe the names she was giving the animals.
> 
> The reason you changed the phrasing from "silly" to "minor elements of humor and lightheartedness" is because there's a difference between "silly" and "minor elements of humor and lightheartedness."




True, but a "silly" name is not the same as a "silly" character or "silly" behavior.  I've met and aggressive rottwieler named "Princess".  It is a silly name.  It was not a silly dog. The name certainly didn't make interactions with the dog silly. 

In real life, what about "Rosey" Grier? Rosey is undoubtedly a silly name, especially for a guy of Rosey's size and strength.  Do you think the guys that Rosey Grier drove into the ground in the NFL thought the game in general or being mauled specifically was silly because the guy doing it was named Rosey? Was Robert Kennedy's assassination and the apprehension of Sirhan Sirhan silly because a guy named Rosey helped to apprehend him and made sure that he survived to be brought to trial instead of being killed by the crowd?  

To me, a silly name *is* a "minor bit of humor and lightheartedness", not a full out decent into vaudeville or Monty Python slapstick.  If on the other hand, the OP's bear was yellow, wore a red shirt, craved hunny, and got stuck in rabbit holes, *that* would be a silly bear (a silly old bear to be exact). 

It is a false dichotomy to say that things are either "silly" or "serious", there is a whole continuum in between.  On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "serious as a documentary on effects of small pox on Native American populations" and 10 being "a Looney Toons/Animaniacs marathon weekend", I would rank an otherwise serious character with a silly name about a 2 or 3.  A name is just a name, it is the actions of the character that really set the tone.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> No, lets.




But you'll only get me banned again...


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> What difference does it make if "them" is dragonborn or what the player wants to name her pet?




From my POV, a Player Character (not Player!) is at liberty to name her pet whatever she wishes.  That falls entirely within the player's prerogative, along with stuff like loot division.  In the absence of mind-control magic I believe in letting PCs do whatever the heck they want.

Playing a Dragonborn requires that Dragonborn exist in the campaign world, and is not something a Player Character can decide ("Hmm, I think I'll be a dragonborn!"), so it does not fall within the player's prerogative.  The GM is free to allow it or disallow it.


----------



## Simm (Jan 30, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Now of course the immediate response to this is, "But if a DM hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?"  Which is fair.
> 
> But here's the thing!  That's not a DM concern!  That's a "guy in the room" concern.  Take out the word DM.  Add in Player.  "If a Player hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?"  Obviously he shouldn't.



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.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2009)

S'mon said:


> But you'll only get me banned again...




LOL.  Well, let's keep the gloves on then.  

Look, I'm not trying to push buttons here.  I really do believe what I'm saying.  I see this sort of thing as really abusing the position of DM.

Where does it stop?  One thing gamers can almost universally agree on is that railroading is bad.  Yes, there are occasions when it might not be bad, but, by and large, we can usually agree on that.

But, isn't this the same thing?  Instead of forcing the players to jump through my predefined hoops to get to the end of my story, I'm forcing the players to accept my predefined hoops in order to achieve my personal satisfaction.  

GregK simply claims that I was wrong then and I'm wrong now.  But, he provides no reasons.  "A DM's authority over the game is absolute"  Where is that written in the rules?  Where in the rules does it give me, the DM, the authority to reach over with an eraser and change the name the player gives her pet?  That's HER pet.  That is not mine.  

And, I see this frequently from players that I get from other groups.  Players that turn to me with these blank, vapid looks waiting for me to wheel up the plot wagon and start dishing it out.  No input.  No initiative.  The only initiative they take is mechanical because they know that most DM's out there won't futz with the rules.  

People constantly complain about "the build" player.  But, I contend that the "build" player is a direct result of DM's who refuse to cede any authorial control over the campaign.  Why should I try anything creative when the DM is just going to tell me I'm imagining my elf wrong?  That his sense of make-believe is "better" than mine?  

I have a real problem with that.


----------



## Carpe DM (Jan 30, 2009)

I think the focus on right and wrong has gotten us off track.

This is not a question of right and wrong.  This is a question of compatibility.

Architect and his GM are not compatible.  He should walk.  Hussar, sounds like you should walk, too.  This does not require a discussion of who is right and who is wrong -- that's an excercise in intellectual ... self-indulgence.  

Further, by the way, the result is not "right" or "wrong."  If anything, it is the process that is right or wrong.  Friends ought to be able to reach negotiated agreements, without tirades or ultimata.  Sounds like this GM can't manage that.  

DTGMA (ditch the GM already), to mangle Dan Savage.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 30, 2009)

S'mon said:
			
		

> For instance, when I as GM kick a player out of my group because I don't enjoy GMing for them. I am 'acting as a GM'. Maybe it would be good if I did enjoy GMing for them, or if I were happy to suck up the unpleasantness, but I'm not, I don't, and it doesn't mean I'm 'not acting as a GM' when I do so.



No, you aren't.  Or at least you might not be.  

You're probably going to follow up now with all the horror stories of how some guy destroyed your game and made everyone miserable and how your decision to remove him was in the best interests of both yourself, the game, and everyone else at the table.  In which case maybe you were.  This feels like a trap to me, where its going to start out "because I don't enjoy GMing for them" and turns into "because he was a registered sex offender and I live next to a preschool."

Look, I'm not saying that being a person in the room entitles you to nothing more than the back of my hand.  But "playing in the same game as this guy isn't fun" isn't something that only happens to DMs.  In your case, you might get to kick someone out, but it isn't because you were acting as a DM when you made the decision.  It was because, as the DM, you have better leverage in your social group.  If your group meets to play D&D in the living room of one of your players, I bet he'd be awfully effective at kicking out people he didn't like, too.  

Once you step outside your role as DM, its all about the leverage.  The fact that maybe you CAN parlay that into, I dunno, insisting that you never have to pay for pizza, doesn't mean that not paying for pizza is a DM thing.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Where in the rules does it give me, the DM, the authority to reach over with an eraser and change the name the player gives her pet?  That's HER pet.  That is not mine.
> .




Well, a GM recently was running a game where the premise included that the PCs were from a French culture, with French names.  I asked to play a PC from a Germanic area, with a German name.  The GM said yes, but it would have been entirely legitimate for him to say no.

I think architect's example of the GM negating her background concept and telling her to play a formerly evil PC wrestling with her horrific past acts was far, far worse.  Unless that were built right into the game's premise - the intro proposal to the game - I would totally flip at something like that.

Anyway, if the game premise does not include Dragonborn (and why should it?!) then the GM is entitled to disallow dragonborn PCs.  And that applies whether the game is Call of Cthulu or 4e Greyhawk.

Although I guess not in _Mutant Future_.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> No, you aren't.  Or at least you might not be.




Well, to me, deciding who gets to play in the game is part of the GM's role.  YMMV.  Even players with lots of leverage (host, GM's wife, etc) approach the GM about getting another player dropped, they don't just declare it to the group.

I dunno, do you think determining who plays is _not _normally part of the GM's role?


----------



## Imaro (Jan 30, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Actually, I've been thinking about it a lot, and... yeah, I'm going there again.
> 
> Let me analogize to a judge.
> 
> ...




I would beg to differ with this.  I think a DM being upfront about not liking Dragonborn and banning them from play is probably the best solution for all,  and here's why...  He has to run the campaign world, now assuming a player character creates a Dragonborn because they like the race as a whole as opposed to the bonuses (which I think is a perfectly valid assumption), doesn't it then befall on the DM to create a portion of his campaign and adventures around Dragonborn?  Now since the DM has already stated he doesn't care for the race, is it fair for him to  have to spend so much effort and time dealing with an aspect of the game he dislikes?  Another fact is that the DM will probably not do as good of a job catering to this player as he will the others for the simple fact he dislikes this portion of his duties... personally I'd rather a DM be upfront about this than wonder why the game seems to center around Fred's elf and Garry's Halfling but never my Dragonborn. 

 I don't think it's about "right" or "wrong" but I do feel if you choose (because no one is forcing you) to play in a DM's game, then you are choosing to abide by his particular biases for his campaign.  If you don't like them then quit, I'm sure a DM who has biases that no one will deal with will end up without a group, but really it could just be that you have chosen the wrong group to be a part of.  

The only problem I see is when a DM suddenly decides to flip the script midway through a game or campaign... the social contract has been broken at that point and really should be discussed byy everyone.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Look, I'm not trying to push buttons here.  I really do believe what I'm saying.  I see this sort of thing as really abusing the position of DM.




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.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 30, 2009)

Its not consistent for you to say that a DM should be able to ban tieflings because he hates them and a player playing a tiefling will force the DM to deal with tieflings, while also saying that the player should have the power to name his animal companion whatever he wants without DM interference.  The DM has to deal with the animal companion as well.

And if we're positing DMs who, I don't know, have allergic reactions to tieflings, why shouldn't we posit DMs who react similarly to Tweety?

That... that kind of gets to my other point from the old thread, the one that was... less well received.  I don't actually believe that some DMs will have their fun destroyed as much as they claim by player characters that they think are stupid.  If you begin with the assumption that the player wants to play a character that, from the DM's perspective, is _so incredibly stupid_ that the DM will be unable to enjoy the game, slowly detach himself, prepare less, and eventually lead to the total collapse of the game, then, well, its hard to say that the character should be allowed.  

But I mean, really?  Seriously?  This sounds like cooking the hypothetical.  If my wife likes eating chili, but I hate the smell of chili _so much_ that even having it cook in the same household as me will drive me into misery and depression and resentment eventually leading to emotional disconnection between her and myself and ultimately ending in divorce, then she'd be awfully selfish to make chili, wouldn't she?  Sure, I really don't like chili, but that much?  Maybe I'm just being dramatic?


			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Well, a GM recently was running a game where the premise included that the PCs were from a French culture, with French names. I asked to play a PC from a Germanic area, with a German name. The GM said yes, but it would have been entirely legitimate for him to say no.



And its legitimate under my rubric as well.  Would you think his decision legitimate if he made it because he passionately hates German people?


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Well, a GM recently was running a game where the premise included that the PCs were from a French culture, with French names.  I asked to play a PC from a Germanic area, with a German name.  The GM said yes, but it would have been entirely legitimate for him to say no.



It would have been illogical for him to say 'no'. It would imply people from one region never traveled to the other. I suppose if each country were surrounded by enormous walls then maybe... 



> Anyway, if the game premise does not include Dragonborn (and why should it?!) then the GM is entitled to disallow dragonborn PCs...



Why for the Dragonborn hate? The game is called Dungeons and _Dragons_. Lizard-y humanoids have been a part of the game for decades. A hugely popular series of novels and gaming tie-ins featured scads of dragon-men. What am I missing about the Dragonborn? 

It's not like they're kender or anything...


----------



## Imaro (Jan 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> LOL.  Well, let's keep the gloves on then.
> 
> Look, I'm not trying to push buttons here.  I really do believe what I'm saying.  I see this sort of thing as really abusing the position of DM.
> 
> ...




I think your overgeneralizing and working from alot of assumptions here.  I personally think there are alot of players who want to explore and interact with the DM's vision.  In fact I have been this player, probably for he simple fact that I DM majority of the time and rarely get to indulge in this aspect of the hobby.  If this means giving up a little control over things to see if the DM's vision is more enjoyable with these caveats...I don't usually have a problem with that, especially if he's upfront about it.   No one is forcing me to play in his game, plain and simple. 

In the case of this particular example I don't know the rest of the group so I can't specifically judge.  Perhaps the name really isn't that serious of an issue and the DM really is being to anal.  Perhaps he's trying to run a gothic horror campaign and knows one of his players can't help but make side jokes and comments thus he feels in limiting the silly names he is limiting that players chances to break the mood for everyone, in this case it seems worth it IMO.  In the end I feel you should trust the DM to do what he feels is best to give you the best in-game experience in the parameters he has set down.  It's funny how a DM can be trusted to make all the judgement calls in a game... but not that a certain element shouldn't be a part of the campaign... just saying.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 30, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Well, to me, deciding who gets to play in the game is part of the GM's role. YMMV. Even players with lots of leverage (host, GM's wife, etc) approach the GM about getting another player dropped, they don't just declare it to the group.
> 
> I dunno, do you think determining who plays is _not _normally part of the GM's role?



It usually is. I don't think its inherent to being a DM though. I think its inherent to being the social center of the group. Its the same as being the guy who's house everyone comes to when they watch the big game. If he decides someone isn't welcome, that's that.

Its not DM authority. It may be social authority that is typically ceded to the DM, but it isn't something that stems from being the DM.

As for the host, stop and think for a second. You're actually saying that the person who owns the home where everyone plays can be vetoed by the DM when he decides that he doesn't want a player to enter his house? Of course you're not. You're recognizing that the host might consult the DM as a social courtesy. But its his freaking house! Nothing in the DMG gives the DM the power to force entry. If the host says you go, attending is a _crime._

And of course the DM might object and move the game to another location and the host would have to decide what to do with that, but at this point it should be obvious that we're dealing with social norms and leverage and ultimatums, not with anything that comes from the role of Dungeon Master.


			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> 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 agree with that, except that I think that in-game decisions that are made for sheer caprice are also abuse. There's not much difference between "its my wife so her character doesn't die" and "I'm the DM so everything I want happens and everything I don't want doesn't. Start roleplaying the way that I like, not the way that you like!"


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Its not consistent for you to say that a DM should be able to ban tieflings because he hates them and a player playing a tiefling will force the DM to deal with tieflings, while also saying that the player should have the power to name his animal companion whatever he wants without DM interference.  The DM has to deal with the animal companion as well...
> 
> ...And its legitimate under my rubric as well.  Would you think his decision legitimate if he made it because he passionately hates German people?




pt 1 - Like I said, the _Player Character _can choose to name the animal however wished.  My position is not inconsistent:

_From my POV, a Player Character (not Player!) is at liberty to name her pet whatever she wishes. That falls entirely within the player's prerogative, along with stuff like loot division. In the absence of mind-control magic I believe in letting PCs do whatever the heck they want.

Playing a Dragonborn requires that Dragonborn exist in the campaign world, and is not something a Player Character can decide ("Hmm, I think I'll be a dragonborn!"), so it does not fall within the player's prerogative. The GM is free to allow it or disallow it._

NB: This is how I do it.  I'm not trying to impose a Kantian Universal Imperative on you.

pt 2 - yes, if he (a Frenchman) created a world without Germans because he hated Germans, that's irrelevant.  The decision is legitimately a GMing decision.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> It would have been illogical for him to say 'no'. It would imply people from one region never traveled to the other.




No it wouldn't.  There might not have been a Germanic area in his world.  Or Germans might have been abhuman fiends, unsuitable as PCs.  Or any other reason.

Edit:  You sound like the kind of guy who demands to deplay a Samurai in a game of Pendragon.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2009)

Cadfan:
"As for the host, stop and think for a second. You're actually saying that the person who owns the home where everyone plays can be vetoed by the DM when he decides that he doesn't want a player to enter his house?"

No, I'm saying that the host typically recognises the GM's authority, approaches the GM and says:  "I don't want that player coming any more".  Then the GM either agrees, or ceases to game at that person's house.  But the host does not typically just ring up the player and tell them they're dropped, without consulting the GM.  As GM I'd certainly consider that odd behaviour.  The GM is recognised as the _executive_ authority, although in this case ultimate authority lies with the host because it's their house.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 30, 2009)

S'mon said:


> pt 2 - yes, if he (a Frenchman) created a world without Germans because he hated Germans, that's irrelevant. The decision is legitimately a GMing decision.



Well, congratulations, you've managed to create a definition of "GMing decision" that entitles GMing decisions to absolutely no presumption of respect whatsoever from the players.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 30, 2009)

Cadfan,
What if the DM realizes that his dislike for dragonborn will ultimately have a negative effect on the quality of the game he runs?  If the presence bothers him, every time the character comes into play, the character is a reminder of how much he dislikes that race. It's reoccurence and having to make accomodations for it when he designs adventures, when the PCs interact with NPCs, etc. results in DMing becoming unfun and a chore.  When, DMing becomes unfun, the game as a whole suffers in quality and probably dies often resulting in no game for anyone (if we are to believe the disproportionate number of players to dms).





Cadfan said:


> But what about a DM who bans dragonborn because he just hates them?  I don't think that DM is acting as a DM.  He's not using his higher vantage point to make a decision that's best for the group.  He's like the judge who tries to lock you in jail because your kid beat her kid in a baseball game.  He's using his power and the trust reposed in him to make a decision that's personal rather than related to the role which granted him power.
> 
> Now of course the immediate response to this is, "But if a DM hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?"  Which is fair.
> 
> But here's the thing!  That's not a DM concern!  That's a "guy in the room" concern.  Take out the word DM.  Add in Player.  "If a Player hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?"  Obviously he shouldn't..


----------



## Greg K (Jan 30, 2009)

Simm, have yourself an XP 



Simm said:


> 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.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2009)

S'mon said:


> No it wouldn't.  There might not have been a Germanic area in his world.  Or Germans might have been abhuman fiends, unsuitable as PCs.



I did kinda assume the presence of a faux-French culture meant the existence of a faux-German culture next door. My mistake. 



> Edit:  You sound like the kind of guy who demands to deplay a Samurai in a game of Pendragon.



I'm not that guy. He sounds like a bit of a prick. As DM I'm open to a great many things. That does not, however, imply that I make demands as a player.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> LOL.  W
> GregK simply claims that I was wrong then and I'm wrong now.  But, he provides no reasons.  "A DM's authority over the game is absolute"  Where is that written in the rules?   Where in the rules does it give me, the DM, the authority to reach over with an eraser and change the name the player gives her pet?  That's HER pet.  That is not mine.




Let's  look at the 3.0 DMG
1. "Let's start with the biggest secret of all: the key to Dungeon Mastering (Don't tell anyone, okay?). The secret is that you are in charge. That is not telling-everyone what to do sort of in charge. Rather, *you decide how the group is going to play the game* and *"you decide how the rules work, which rules to use and how strictily to adhere to them.*"(DMG p.6). 

2. "the whole tenor of the game is in your hands".

3. Providing the World
 " The dungeon master is the creator of his or her own campaign world" (DMG p.8).

4. "Other style considerations:
You should think about a few style considerations." (DMG p.8)

" *Naming Conventions:  Related to how serious or humorous the game is, character names should be fairly uniform in style throughout the group*. Although any name is fine in and of itself, a group that includes Bob the fighter, Aldorious killraven  of Thistledown and Runtboy as characters *lacks consistency to be credible*" (DMG p.9)  

5. "Consistency is the key to a believable fictional world' (DMG p.8)

That the DMG tells the DM he or she is in charge of  both the setting and the tone of the game, that consistency is important for a believeable world and naming conventions affect the tone and consistency, the DM has the right to limit charater names.

That all said, while I agree that the DM has every right to place the limits that they want, it doesn't mean that I am going to play with a DM if I dislike the tone of their game or the rules they set.  As a player, it is my right to walk and either find another game or start one of my own.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2009)

Greg K said:


> "Consistency is the key to a believable fictional world' (DMG p.8)



This from the game that introduced elves fighting Jello molds to fantasy.



> Although any name is fine in and of itself, a group that includes Bob the fighter, Aldorious killraven  of Thistledown and Runtboy...



Sounds like a D&D party to me. Also, a popular contemporary fantasy series sports characters named Whiskeyjack, Bugg, and Anomander Rake the Lord of Moon's Spawn.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> This from the game that introduced elves fighting Jello molds to fantasy.




And that is why it is important for the DM to shape his world, if he finds this inconsistent... he can just ban elves... or gelantinous cubes 




Mallus said:


> Sounds like a D&D party *to me*. Also, a popular contemporary fantasy series sports characters named Whiskeyjack, Bugg, and Anomander Rake the Lord of Moon's Spawn.




Emphasis mine... and that's great for the type of game *you* want to run.  Again individual tastes vary.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2009)

Imaro said:


> And that is why it is important for the DM to shape his world, if he finds this inconsistent... he can just ban elves... or gelantinous cubes



If you're going to ban elves and gelatinous cubes you might as well be playing Harn!



> Again individual tastes vary.



Of course they do. But what does that have to do with D&D's long history of silly names? Some of which can be found in the classic 1e modules and in EGG's original campaigns.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> This from the game that introduced elves fighting Jello molds to fantasy..




Well, the giant amoeba predates DND and, even, the Blob.  It goes at least as far back as the pulps and a 1923 issue of Wierd Tales.

As for elves fighting them,  that is a campaign design decision.  Nothing requires the DM to includes elves and or gelationous cubes.  



> Sounds like a D&D party to me. Also, a popular contemporary fantasy series sports characters named Whiskeyjack, Bugg, and Anomander Rake the Lord of Moon's Spawn.




To you, perhaps. However, that is your decision on how you want to play and run


----------



## Stereofm (Jan 30, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> What the heck?  Now he's telling me what I can and can't *name* my characters?  It's really frustrating, and it's totally lowering my morale.  Ugh.  I can't quit over a name, but dang, if it ain't fun to play, why go?




I usually am in the "DMs are Right, now Shut up ! " camp.

However, at this rate, yes, it is going too far.

Tell him bluntly this is too much, and change Dm if he does not get the message.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> If you're going to ban elves and gelatinous cubes you might as well be playing Harn!




Soo... unless I include everything, then I'm not playing D&D... well at least certain people from WotC agree with you...



			
				Ampersand Article said:
			
		

> This is also the year that we bring the Eberron campaign setting into 4th Edition. This summer is all about Eberron, with the release of the Eberron Campaign Guide, Eberron Player’s Guide, and the Seekers of the Ashen Crown adventure. As one of the co-creators of the original Eberron campaign setting, and as one of the key people behind selecting Eberron when we ran the campaign search a few years back, the world of pulp fantasy and adventure is very special to me. It’s an exciting place, full of amazing new ways to look at a D&D campaign. By bringing the setting into 4th Edition, we’re reinvesting in this world that’s caught between the Last War and an uncertain future. If you haven’t checked out Eberron, or if you’ve been away from Eberron for awhile, then this is the summer for you. And like every D&D setting, you can play it as is or you can borrow elements to add to whatever campaign you’re playing in.* Warforged and artificers can and should show up in any D&D game*.




Too bad I don't believe the hype.




Mallus said:


> Of course they do. But what does that have to do with D&D's long history of silly names? Some of which can be found in the classic 1e modules and in EGG's original campaigns.




Again...EGG doesn't run * my* campaign.  I respect him for giving me the tools to play this wonderful game, but the minute I opened the books... it became mine.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 30, 2009)

Cool, I get to give out XP to a second person in one day!  Great post, S'mon



S'mon said:


> 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.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 30, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Too bad I don't believe the hype.



Yep, hype done soley for marketing rather than making a better play experience and interesting campaign settings, imo.  Then again, I think the in-house design team and their suits should worry  less on cross-marketing and more on being better designers (the opinion of others opinions may vary).


----------



## The Ghost (Jan 30, 2009)

chriton227 said:


> ...
> 
> It is a false dichotomy to say that things are either "silly" or "serious", there is a whole continuum in between.  On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "serious as a documentary on effects of small pox on Native American populations" and 10 being "a Looney Toons/Animaniacs marathon weekend", I would rank an otherwise serious character with a silly name about a 2 or 3.  A name is just a name, it is the actions of the character that really set the tone.




I agree that it is a sliding scale and not just a black-or-white-silly-or-serious kind of thing. First, where on that scale does a silly name appear? Second, in what context does the name interact with the world? Finally, does using it multiple times diminish its endearing quality?

Let's take your Roosevelt "Rosey" Grier example - Does he have a silly nickname? Yes, but it is not overly silly. Does his name make him endearing? Yes. Does his name defeat the seriousness of the Fearsome Foursome of the L.A. Rams? No, in all likely hood it enhances it. But, I contend, it enhances it because of the existence of Lamar Lundy, Merlin Olsen, and Deacon Jones. Their names allow the name "Rosey" to stand out as enduring.

Compare that to a hypothetical line made up of Rosey Grier, Mashmellow Lundy, Tinkerbell Olsen, and Smiling Deacon Jones. I would have a hard time calling this second group the Fearsome Foursome. 

With regards to the OPs original point - I would have no problem with her calling her bear "Marshmellow", however, if that bear was followed by Mittens who was followed by Ruff who was followed by Tinkerbell then I think the DM has a right to say no. Context is important. I would have a hard time calling a game serious if names are consistantly on the lighter side.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Well, congratulations, you've managed to create a definition of "GMing decision" that entitles GMing decisions to absolutely no presumption of respect whatsoever from the players.




See, this is where responding as I'd like to would risk a ban again, *sigh*


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Well, the giant amoeba predates DND and, even, the Blob.



Ah, but neither giant amoebae or the Blob can hold a cubic shape. Hence the 'mold' part --that was D&D's innovation. 



> It goes at least as far back as the pulps and a 1923 issue of Wierd Tales.



Ah, but planetary romances didn't have elves. 



> Nothing requires the DM to includes elves and or gelationous cubes.



Which is irrelevant to the point I was making, which was: despite what's written in the 3e DMG, D&D has never been in the forefront of consistent, believable fantasy.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Soo... unless I include everything, then I'm not playing D&D...



Did I say that? I bet you know the answer... 



> Too bad I don't believe the hype.



For what it's worth, Eberron's a quality product. Not to everyone's taste (naturally), but its more than just marketing. 



> Again...EGG doesn't run * my* campaign.  I respect him for giving me the tools to play this wonderful game, but the minute I opened the books... it became mine.



And what does your game being yours have to do with the fact that D&D has a long history of silly names, despite what's written in the 3e DMG?


----------



## ProfessorPain (Jan 30, 2009)

This is a difficult conflict to resolve because it boils down to taste, expectations and campaign style.  Personally I don't have a problem with a player giving his 'pets' silly names, since people have always given them silly names. That said, I did notice that some of you choices are a little anachronistic, which isn't always a problem, but perhaps for your GM it is.  A good compromise might be to keep it silly, but avoid modern sounding names or names that have pop culture references (i.e. Tweety). Would he object to a names that just describe the animals in ironic ways but fit within the campaign world setting?


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Well, the giant amoeba predates DND and, even, the Blob.  It goes at least as far back as the pulps and a 1923 issue of Wierd Tales.




There's a giant flesh-eating amoeba in _The Boats of the Glen Carrig_ by William Hope Hodgson, 1907 I believe.  Also features a small monster manual's worth of other horrors, most get hacked to bits by the protagonists.  The original monster bash.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Cool, I get to give out XP to a second person in one day!  Great post, S'mon




Wow, thank you.    I just noticed I've been getting a lot of XP lately; nice to be appreciated.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Why for the Dragonborn hate? The game is called Dungeons and _Dragons_. Lizard-y humanoids have been a part of the game for decades. A hugely popular series of novels and gaming tie-ins featured scads of dragon-men. What am I missing about the Dragonborn?
> 
> It's not like they're kender or anything...




I'll take kender or lizardmen over Dragonborn.  Wait, my campaign actually has a lizardman race. I just don't want a race of fire breathing reptillian humanoids-  especially pcs. It's not the style of game that interests me.  

It probably doesn't help that between dragon heritage sorcerous feats, half-dragons with breath weapons, dragon shamans etc. the whole thing, imo, has become ridiculous (except if specifically chosen in a toolbox approach or for a dragon themed campaign).  
Give me something different like dragons as divine creatures and half dragons,  as their offspring, don't have breath weapons. Instead, they are more charismatic in presence, better physical specimens (better con and either str or dex), and have some kind of divine commanding voice  with the dragon heritage as requirement for a PrC (or for Epic Destiny)- just not breath weapons.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Did I say that? I bet you know the answer...




Just trying to understand how your statements relate to the bigger issue we are discussing... perhaps you could clarify me since apparently I missed the point about elves and Gelantinous cubes...




Mallus said:


> For what it's worth, Eberron's a quality product. Not to everyone's taste (naturally), but its more than just marketing.




Yeah, that's great have plenty of material from 3.5... doesn't mean I agree that warforged and artificers should be in every campaign setting... the bolded part.



Mallus said:


> And what does your game being yours have to do with the fact that D&D has a long history of silly names, despite what's written in the 3e DMG?




I don't have to allow them in my game, if it doesn't fit is the point.  D&D has a multitude of feels and tones as exemplified by the numerous settings of 2e, but I guess for all of them silly names were the norm.  Not.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2009)

Imaro said:


> ... perhaps you could clarify me since apparently I missed the point about elves and Gelantinous cubes...



Advice in the DMG pertaining to the creation of believable, consistent fantasy worlds should be treated as ironic. Clearer, yes? 



> D&D has a multitude of feels and tones as exemplified by the numerous settings of 2e, but I guess for all of them silly names were the norm.



The silly we have always had with us. Are you honestly disagreeing with that?


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2009)

Greg K said:


> II just don't want a race of fire breathing reptillian humanoids-  especially pcs. It's not the style of game that interests me.



I'm not trying to argue taste, I'm just trying to understand the POV that vehemently objects to fire-breathing dragon-men in a D&D-style fantasy game. What surprises me about Dragonborn is how _long_ it took for them to appear in D&D. They look like a gimme.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 30, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Cadfan,
> What if the DM realizes that his dislike for dragonborn will ultimately have a negative effect on the quality of the game he runs? If the presence bothers him, every time the character comes into play, the character is a reminder of how much he dislikes that race. It's reoccurence and having to make accomodations for it when he designs adventures, when the PCs interact with NPCs, etc. results in DMing becoming unfun and a chore. When, DMing becomes unfun, the game as a whole suffers in quality and probably dies often resulting in no game for anyone (if we are to believe the disproportionate number of players to dms).



1. Why is this concern unique to the DM?  What if the DM hates dragonborn, but loves tieflings, and one of the players knows that his hatred of tieflings will ultimately have a negative effect on his contributions to the game?

If your argument is that the DM is more important, so he has to be mollycoddled more than the players because his unhappiness will reverberate in a way that a player's will not, are you really happy with that reasoning?  With the idea that the DM is essentially a giant baby, and everyone has to be extra nice to him and give him privileges that no one else gets not because he will use them more wisely, but simply because catering to him is the only way that everyone can get along?

2. I question whether this really happens to people.  See my earlier post about actually hating something so bad it makes the game suffer, and just being dramatic.  IF the DM hates something so bad the game will suffer from his primal revulsion, THEN that something should probably be banned (or the DM replaced with someone a little less emotionally fragile), BUT I think it is very unlikely that most people actually hate something like a player character race quite that much.

I'm amazed how much disagreement my views generate.  I just think that the reason that we respect the DM's authority is because he is in a position to best decide whether adding dragonborn to the game will help or hurt the overall game experience.  I think the respect that the DM is entitled to is tied to this superior perspective, and is therefore forfeit if the DM abandons that perspective and starts using the authority vested in him by the group to satisfy personal whims unrelated to the quality of the game.

So, I respect the decision of a DM who bans something for a game related reason, and I don't respect the decision of a DM who bans something because he thinks its stupid and he knows he can get away with banning it because the players will let him have what he wants rather than try to find a new DM.

I don't see why that's so controversial.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Advice in the DMG pertaining to the creation of believable, consistent fantasy worlds should be treated as ironic. Clearer, yes?




Huh?  How is an elf fighting a gelantinous cube inherently not consistent.  You're loosing me here.



Mallus said:


> The silly we have always had with us. Are you honestly disagreeing with that?




I am saying there is a big difference in the inherent silliness found in the FR versus the inherent silliness found in Dark Sun, do you disagree with that?


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Huh?  How is an elf fighting a gelantinous cube inherently not consistent.  You're loosing me here.



From my perspective, how is an elf fighting a hostile cube of Jello anything other than absurd?



> I am saying there is a big difference in the inherent silliness found in the FR versus the inherent silliness found in Dark Sun, do you disagree with that?



Nope.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> From my perspective, how is an elf fighting a hostile cube of Jello anything other than absurd?




Absurd =/= inconsistent, it's all dependent upon the context of the world that the DM creates.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 30, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Absurd =/= inconsistent...



You're making my head hurt.

Anyway, Imaro, I just created a new thread for posting current PC names in your party. Drop in and add yours. I'm curious to see how my experience re: names differs from, well, anyone post to that thread.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 30, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 1. Why is this concern unique to the DM?  What if the DM hates dragonborn, but loves tieflings, and one of the players knows that his hatred of tieflings will ultimately have a negative effect on his contributions to the game?
> 
> If your argument is that the DM is more important, so he has to be mollycoddled more than the players because his unhappiness will reverberate in a way that a player's will not, are you really happy with that reasoning?  With the idea that the DM is essentially a giant baby, and everyone has to be extra nice to him and give him privileges that no one else gets not because he will use them more wisely, but simply because catering to him is the only way that everyone can get along?
> 
> ...




Please allow me to reiterate...



Imaro said:


> I would beg to differ with this. I think a DM being upfront about not liking Dragonborn and banning them from play is probably the best solution for all, and here's why... He has to run the campaign world, now assuming a player character creates a Dragonborn because they like the race as a whole as opposed to the bonuses (which I think is a perfectly valid assumption), doesn't it then befall on the DM to create a portion of his campaign and adventures around Dragonborn? Now since the DM has already stated he doesn't care for the race, is it fair for him to have to spend so much effort and time dealing with an aspect of the game he dislikes? Another fact is that the DM will probably not do as good of a job catering to this player as he will the others for the simple fact he dislikes this portion of his duties... personally I'd rather a DM be upfront about this than wonder why the game seems to center around Fred's elf and Garry's Halfling but never my Dragonborn.




This isn't about being emotionally fragile, it's about human nature.  If I don't like something it will be harder for me to integrate it into my game, come up with cool things for it and generally devote the time and effort into it that I do with the parts of the campaign I enjoy... human nature.  I think it's more mature to admit you don't like it and ban it than to end up doing a mediocre to horrible job integrating the race and engaging the PC who wants to play that race. 

And I mean honestly couldn't the same argument be said for a PC who has to have a specific race (out of the numerous ones offered) or OMG!!! Teh game is irrevocably ruined!!! for them?


----------



## Nightson (Jan 30, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Huh?  How is an elf fighting a gelantinous cube inherently not consistent.  You're loosing me here.




A Gelatinous Cube is jello that eats people.  I mean, it's a silly monster.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 30, 2009)

Nightson said:


> A Gelatinous Cube is jello that eats people.  I mean, it's a silly monster.




I get it's a silly monster but that does not automatically make it inconsistent... if one's campaign world is silly, does it?  Inconsistent and silly are two different things is all I'm saying.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 30, 2009)

> This isn't about being emotionally fragile, it's about human nature. If I don't like something it will be harder for me to integrate it into my game, come up with cool things for it and generally devote the time and effort into it that I do with the parts of the campaign I enjoy... human nature. I think it's more mature to admit you don't like it and ban it than to end up doing a mediocre to horrible job integrating the race and engaging the PC who wants to play that race.



But it would be even more mature not to be the sort of person who has such a hate-on for a part of a roleplaying game that he can't do a good job running a game if its present.

I mean, I hate half races.  I think they're the dumbest thing ever.  I hate the implications about biology, and I hate the way that only certain half races ever show up.  I particularly hate the way all of the half races are popularly labeled by their percentage of human.  

But I can't for the life of me imagine not being able to DM competently to a group with a half orc PC. 


Imaro said:


> And I mean honestly couldn't the same argument be said for a PC who has to have a specific race (out of the numerous ones offered) or OMG!!! Teh game is irrevocably ruined!!! for them?



Yes.

I mean, I acknowledged _that_ up front, in the first sentence of the material you quoted.  If its possible for someone to hate something like a player race so much that he can't contribute to the game effectively if its present, then there's no reason that's limited to only DMs.  Its an open question for those who think that this sort of thing happens- what should  players do in those circumstances?  I honestly don't know.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Well, I've ranted on this issue more than a few times in the past as well.  I find it funny that most people are taking the player's side in this, when a few months ago, when I suggested that a DM place his personal preferences aside in favor of the player's preferences, I was resoundly booed.
> 
> What changed?
> 
> ...




I commiserate with the OP, I don't like playing pregen characters either or constantly having my ideas shot down.

However after talking things over with the DM and trying to get him to change his mind those_ are _the options. If he won't change his ruling architect of sleep can either suck it up and play under these conditions or decide not to play.

Ultimately its still the DM's call about what is included or not included.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 30, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> But it would be even more mature not to be the sort of person who has such a hate-on for a part of a roleplaying game that he can't do a good job running a game if its present.
> 
> I mean, I hate half races.  I think they're the dumbest thing ever.  I hate the implications about biology, and I hate the way that only certain half races ever show up.  I particularly hate the way all of the half races are popularly labeled by their percentage of human.
> 
> But I can't for the life of me imagine not being able to DM competently to a group with a half orc PC.




I guess I don't see this as anything different than a DM/GM selecting the genre he wants to play in or what game system he wants to run... each of these is a subjective thing right?  I mean honestly, there are certain sci-fi rpg's I don't want to run because I'm not interested in them or don't like certain aspects of them, is this any more or less irrational than not wanting to run a fantasy game with certain races or tropes?  Again other than all of this being upfront before people choose to play or not, I see no problem with the DM having ownership over the campaign world and tropes, while the players have ownership over their characters.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I suppose.  Personally, I don't really see the difference.  If, as was repeatedly stated in The DM entitlement thread I was talking about last post a DM's right to veto any and all things from his game, then, it is absolute.  There should be no difference at all.  His control of his game is 100% his, so, any quibbling by the player is wrong.
> 
> Note, I completely disagree with this and think that it should be very much a give and take proposition and that when the only issue at stake is the DM's personal preference, the Dm should step back, but, that's how I DM.  I don't think my position as DM gives me the prerogative to squash any and all ideas that my players have.
> 
> ...




What do you mean any quibbling is wrong? The DM has final say. That doesn't mean players can't talk about what they would like or don't like. It means the DM can veto stuff.

I still think you are wrong.  I don't feel that in a conflict of DM and player personal preferences about a game world element the DM is morally obligated to accede to a player's preference.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 30, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Actually, I've been thinking about it a lot, and... yeah, I'm going there again.
> 
> Let me analogize to a judge.




Sure. 


> A judge, when acting as a judge, has a LOT of power.  She can order you locked in jail, she can decide who does or does not own property, she can even terminate your legal rights to see your own children or order you executed.  We give judges this power for a reason, and choose them and position them in ways to encourage them to use this power as wisely and as ethically as possible.  To put things roughly, a judge has incredible power when acting in the interests of the lw and of justice
> 
> A judge, when not acting as a judge, doesn't have any particular power.  A judge on her day off, say, at her kid's Little League game, cannot order you imprisoned.  A judge, even while seated on her bench at the height of her power, cannot properly make dictates that the law does not authorize, and will be reversed or censured if she tries.  In those contexts, the judge cannot do these things because she's not acting as a judge.  She's acting as just another person in the room, and she has only the rights and privileges of any other person in the room.
> 
> I think that DMs are the same way..




Some significant differences. The judge is paid and obligated to be the judge. The judge does not have discretion over who or what they deal with. The judge cannot decide what system of laws to apply or have unfettered discretion in applying laws and making adjudications. There are appeal processes.



> A DM has incredible power.  We give the DM that power for a reason, though, and that power exists in the context of that reason.  The DM has all kinds of power because we expect the DM to have a larger vision of the campaign and the game than the players.  We give the DM this power because we expect the DM to use that broader vision to make wiser long term decisions than a player might make from the player's limited perspective.




Eh, I'd disagree here. I've played in games where I've been more into it and taken if more seriously and put more thought into it than the DM and I'd expect I'd make "wiser long term decisions" even given my limited player perspective. 

The DM runs the game and provides the world and environment the players interact with. This includes things allowed in and excluded. The DM's power is derived from that position, not a superior wisdom position.



> But a DM who isn't acting as a DM, like our judge on her day off, is just another person in the room.  A DM not acting as a DM has only the rights and privileges of just another person in the room.  Its why being the Dungeon Master doesn't entitle you to demand that your friends wash your car or clean your kitchen.  That doesn't have to do with your role as a DM.



 Agree.



> The trickier questions are things that have to do with the _game_, but in my opinion, have nothing to do with _your role as a Dungeon Master_.  That's why I'm always so interested in a DM's motives rather than his decision itself.  A DM who, say, bans dragonborn, because he has an established 3e game in an established setting and he does want to switch to 4e but doesn't want to change the setting, is probably acting as a DM.  He is probably concerning himself continuity and setting coherence, and is probably making the decision that he reasonably believes to be in the long term interests of the game.
> 
> But what about a DM who bans dragonborn because he just hates them?  I don't think that DM is acting as a DM.  He's not using his higher vantage point to make a decision that's best for the group.  He's like the judge who tries to lock you in jail because your kid beat her kid in a baseball game.  He's using his power and the trust reposed in him to make a decision that's personal rather than related to the role which granted him power.




I think its because of your opinion of what a DM's role is. I disagree with that role so its not surprising I disagree with your conclusion here.

I also find this judge analogy off the mark. If the DM were banning X from playing a dragonborn because he doesn't like X that would be closer. I'm having trouble coming up with something analogous to banning dragonborn from a campaign a judge can do based solely on an openly stated personal preference.  



> Now of course the immediate response to this is, "But if a DM hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?"  Which is fair.
> 
> But here's the thing!  That's not a DM concern!  That's a "guy in the room" concern.  Take out the word DM.  Add in Player.  "If a Player hates dragonborn, why should he have to play in a game with dragonborn?"  Obviously he shouldn't.




Neither of them has to. There is no obligation as either a player or a DM to play a D&D game you don't want to.

That's not the immediate response though. 

The immediate response is that choosing things like whether the world has dragonborn is a DM role. Whether a player wants to play one is a player role choice.



> The key here is that these sorts of decisions, made not as DM but rather as just some guy in a D&D game, have less _legitimacy_ than decisions made as a DM.  They're being made from a position that is on par with everyone else in the room.  And as such, compromise or adjudication of issues that affect the DM not as a DM but rather as a player in the game need to be made from the perspective of a group of equals.  Not from the perspective of one person dictating his will to his subordinates.
> 
> The only "power" a DM has to resolve "guy in the room" issues unrelated to his role as a DM is the power of the superior ultimatum- its generally harder to get a new DM than to get a new player, so the DM can make better threats to take his stuff and go home.  But lets be clear, in the "ban X because I hate it" context, that's all that's happening- the DM isn't trying to bring an unruly player into line, two friends are sitting in a basement arguing and threatening to take their toys and go home if the other won't play the game the way they demand.  One might own more of the toys, and therefore have superior leverage, but there's nothing going on other than a power play between moral equals.




I don't see your distinction between rulings based on campaign theme versus personal preference power. That power is still there when the DM makes rulings based on wise decisions for the good of the campaign. Ultimately both DM and player can walk away if they don't like how things are going for whatever reason. As opposed to a judge and someone engaged before the court.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 30, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> If its possible for someone to hate something like a player race so much that he can't contribute to the game effectively if its present, then there's no reason that's limited to only DMs.  Its an open question for those who think that this sort of thing happens- what should  players do in those circumstances?  I honestly don't know.




Three options, suck it up and play despite it, ask that it not be included or that some compromise be made, or don't play.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> LOL.  Well, let's keep the gloves on then.
> 
> Look, I'm not trying to push buttons here.  I really do believe what I'm saying.  I see this sort of thing as really abusing the position of DM.




I believe you honestly believe that. I just disagree.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 30, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> But it would be even more mature not to be the sort of person who has such a hate-on for a part of a roleplaying game that he can't do a good job running a game if its present.
> 
> I mean, I hate half races.  I think they're the dumbest thing ever.  I hate the implications about biology, and I hate the way that only certain half races ever show up.  I particularly hate the way all of the half races are popularly labeled by their percentage of human.
> 
> But I can't for the life of me imagine not being able to DM competently to a group with a half orc PC.




We can do things we don't like. So? That isn't a reason to do so.

Wouldn't it be better to run a game without elements you hate? Taken as given that both you and your players are flexible enough that you can deal with or without anything in the game why include things you know you hate? Is there nothing your players can enjoy playing except the things you hate? Don't you as DM want to take into consideration the likes and dislikes of the players and vice versa? Isn't a game that includes elements everyone likes and none that people dislike a better goal than having everybody accept things they don't like?

There are a ton of possibilities and options in D&D. More than people can use. I don't see a need to include things you don't like.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 31, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 1. Why is this concern unique to the DM?  What if the DM hates dragonborn, but loves tieflings, and one of the players knows that his hatred of tieflings will ultimately have a negative effect on his contributions to the game?




Isn't the common wisdom that DMs are much harder to come by? If so, then yes, the DM is more important and players are a dime a dozen, because without DMs there are no games for the players.  Not that I don't love my players to death (and, with all the player horror stories and entitlement threads, I always appreciate them more).




> If your argument is that the DM is more important,so he has to be mollycoddled more than the players because his unhappiness will reverberate in a way that a player's will not, are you really happy with that reasoning?  With the idea that the DM is essentially a giant baby, and everyone has to be extra nice to him and give him privileges that no one else gets not because he will use them more wisely, but simply because catering to him is the only way that everyone can get along?




Sorry, you are too blind to see the difference between being a baby and how an irritant can become something worse with time and lose interest and,  furthermore, how the DM's interest is more important than one player- if one player leaves a group there is still a game.  If the DM leaves, there is only a game if somebody is willing to step up.

And, players don't have some special right to play in a campaign being run by somebody.  Players have the right to ask upfront the terms and style of the campaign and, if they don't like the terms, to  walk (or, even, better, start a game with a style they prefer)- and I would encourage anyone to do so if they don't enjoy the game that they are in.  




> 2.BUT I think it is very unlikely that most people actually hate something like a player character race quite that much.




In my experience, you are wrong. Most DMs I know  happend to have races they don't like and that affects the content of the settings they build.  Furthermore, among the gamers I know, it extends to a lot of WOTC's supplements . Therefore, they rely mostly on core houseruling some elements or use 3rd party with limits on WOTC material. I happen to be one of them.  As such my, campaigns are shaped primarily by Unearthed Arcana and various  third party supplements into the type of campaign I want to run.  

Outside of the core books and UA, the only WOTC books heavily used are MM2 and Fiend Folio with  Heroes of Horror, Fiendish Codex 1, Stormwrack,  BOVD, Lords of Madness and Dragonomicon used depending upon the campaign.  We use also use a few odds and ends  from PHB2,  Complete Arcane, Complete Warrior, Complete Mage, Complete Adventure, Arms and Equipment Guide, OA (Shaman class) and Sandstorm, but the amount is negligible.

You won't find any of the WOTC supplemental base classes (except the OA shaman), half dragons or other templated characters,,monsters as PCs (except for a lizardman race in my current campaign ). You also want find TOB, MoI, ToM, XPH, because I dislike them.

You will, however, find lots of UA style class variants that fit the roles and cultures I envision for the setting and third party supplements that help shape the game to reflect what I am interested 

And, despite my refusal to use most WOTC  supplemenal books, classes, prcs, etc, I must be doing something right, because

a) I  have been the default DM in a group that has always had three to four dms at a time  and, everytime I try to be a player, the other players and DMs want to know when I will be ready to run again;

b) I have  only lost players to relocation for school (which I knew would happen before they joined) or work (2 that moved cross-country);

c) have players that make trips three or four times a year just to play in my game. 

d) receive calls from previous players when they return asking if I have room in my current campaign or if I might reboot an older campaign so they can resume playing a character.


----------



## Mark (Jan 31, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Isn't the common wisdom that DMs are much harder to come by?





Yes and no.  DMs are harder to come by than players but wisdom is harder to come by than either.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jan 31, 2009)

Talking about DM player relations more generally.

I take the approach that there are only two rules to dungeon mastering:
1. The DM rules with absolute authority. (Caesar has nothing on the power a DM wields.)
2. The DM rules with consent of the governed.

Generally speaking, it's best for a DM to keep rule number two a secret from his or her players. Mind you, it's an important rule all DMs should keep in mind. But it's better for everyone if the DM doesn't actually remind anyone of the fact; doing so could lead to dissension among the rabble.

Keenly aware of number two, I throw my players a few bones to keep them quite (or at least, ignorable):

1. The rules in the main rule book are binding on me. 

In D&D only the PHB is binding on me. (PHB 1 in editions that have more than one.) The DMG is persuasive. The MM is also persuasive, but less so. If players try to tell me a monster I'm running must certain stats are be a certain way, they will quickly be set straight.

2. Players have full control over their characters backgrounds, names, and actions. 

Real life examples include the Gnome who thought he was the Nome King from _Ozma of Oz_ (and other Oz books), the guy who named his character Sir Sir Sir. (The first Sir was a title), the guy who wanted to be a half-orc in a Norse campaign where half-orc were giants (we did warn him), and the kid who said his tifeling was 1/4 demon (sure, whatever makes you happy.)

3. Some consistency in encounter design and make-up. 

This creates a sense of stability that allows my players to come-up with interesting strategies and plan ahead, combat wise. This ties in with making the main rule book binding. This gives the players the ability to plan and plot using a stable ruleset that has online support. 

The upshot for me, is that I can exploit this familiarity by lulling my players into a false sense of security. 

The important thing to remember, though, is that rule number two means that if the DM abuses his or her authority the number of players in the group may drop to zero. However, I've found that keep that from happening by employing the above guidelines.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jan 31, 2009)

Greg K said:


> I'll take kender or lizardmen over Dragonborn.  Wait, my campaign actually has a lizardman race. I just don't want a race of fire breathing reptillian humanoids-  especially pcs. It's not the style of game that interests me.
> 
> It probably doesn't help that between dragon heritage sorcerous feats, half-dragons with breath weapons, dragon shamans etc. the whole thing, imo, has become ridiculous (except if specifically chosen in a toolbox approach or for a dragon themed campaign).
> Give me something different like dragons as divine creatures and half dragons,  as their offspring, don't have breath weapons. Instead, they are more charismatic in presence, better physical specimens (better con and either str or dex), and have some kind of divine commanding voice  with the dragon heritage as requirement for a PrC (or for Epic Destiny)- just not breath weapons.




Good Post.  Dragonborn was one of the first things that turned me off to 4th edition.  I even let a player play one, and I am known for eliminating races I don't like from being playable.

Still Dragonborn are commonly found at my dunkin donuts.  They come in packages of 20, or 50.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jan 31, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 1. Why is this concern unique to the DM?  What if the DM hates dragonborn, but loves tieflings, and one of the players knows that his hatred of tieflings will ultimately have a negative effect on his contributions to the game?
> 
> If your argument is that the DM is more important, so he has to be mollycoddled more than the players because his unhappiness will reverberate in a way that a player's will not, are you really happy with that reasoning?  With the idea that the DM is essentially a giant baby, and everyone has to be extra nice to him and give him privileges that no one else gets not because he will use them more wisely, but simply because catering to him is the only way that everyone can get along?
> 
> ...




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...


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 31, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Still Dragonborn are commonly found at my dunkin donuts.  They come in packages of 20, or 50.



I see what you did there.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Jan 31, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Jan 31, 2009)

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 (Jan 31, 2009)

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 (Jan 31, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2009)

S'mon said:


> 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?
> 
> ...




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 (Jan 31, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2009)

S'mon said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2009)

Mallus said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2009)

Simm said:


> 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)


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 1, 2009)

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 (Feb 1, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2009)

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 (Feb 1, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2009)

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 (Feb 1, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2009)

Greg K said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2009)

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 (Feb 1, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 1, 2009)

Professor,
Have yourself an XP.



ProfessorPain said:


> 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.


----------



## Oryan77 (Feb 6, 2009)

Hey, a thread all about me! It's taken 5 years or so, but I'm finally being ranted about....I'm almost famous! 

I am the DM that architectofsleep is complaining about. So I'd like to defend myself so I don't get my DM membership card taken away (man, 12 pages of this but I got through it, sorry for the long post)....




architectofsleep said:


> I have a GM who is, apparently, a control freak.



A DM that is running a published campaign setting is sorta expected to be a control freak when it comes to running the world around your characters. I'm not running a campaign where players get to _help_ me create the world around us beyond what their PCs do in game. 



> For example, I come up with a really great concept for a character background that I'm really looking forward to playing, and he comes back with a watered down, much more boring version of the same, telling me I can't play it the way I want to.  Ok, fine, I'll come up with something else, because I don't want to play a background he writes up for me, you know?




Her background had to do with a god possessing her mind and controlling her for a period of time. I am not a fan of having direct contact from a god with low-mid level PCs unless it was initiated in game so that I can control what the god does. I would never let players dictate what the gods do in a Planescape campaign, that's my job as the DM. So I suggested that she make it some type of powerful fiend, undead, or wizard that possessed her mind for a short time instead.

She also wanted to do The Shining "index finger talking" scenario all the time so other players will know her PC is crazy. I thought that was a bit silly, especially since it was a famous scene in a movie. She got upset and told me she didn't get it from the Shining, she got it from a Muppets movie. So being from the Muppets is even more proof how "silly" it is.

And finally, if her cleric was going to heal a party member, she wanted to make the other player say a random phrase in order to get the heal. So they don't get healed unless the player says whatever the cleric tells them to say. This will only annoy players and I said this isn't something that would go over well with the group.

Yes, I don't like silly names in the campaign I'm running. 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. But that lion died and when she got a new bear companion, she wanted to name it "Marshmallow". I saw this was going to be a repetitive occurrence. For me, that's just too silly and I'm not interested in keeping the silly name thing going for every companion. So I asked her to change it. Yes, she even tried doing the old "I'll use a french word for marshmallow then", and I told her I was ok with that because it sounded more fantasy and as long as I don't have to hear the name Marshmallow then I could deal with it.

I'm not even against giving cliche pet names, just as long as it could fit as a name for an animal you are sending into battle and risking death. Yelling out, "Marshmallow, attack the Fire Giant" would make me cringe if I heard that in a serious fantasy movie. Some people might get a kick out of hearing that in a movie, but that's just not my taste.



> He sent it back to me saying, how about I make her have done all kinds of evil acts in her past and is now full of anguish and trying to atone for her deeds?




Then apparently I misunderstood your history idea. I wasn't trying to rewrite it. I *thought* you wanted her to be possessed by a god, forced to kill townsfolk, and since she was a good cleric, she was traumatized by what the god forced her to do and it made her insane. All I did was ask that it not be a god that possessed her but a fiend or something instead. I also threw in some other ideas in case you were interested...ya know....I was trying to be helpful 



> I found out after the second name that the whole "no silly names" thing was actually a house rule that everyone but me knew about....Alas, he got my hopes up, and then dashed them!



I apologize then if I got your hopes up. Remember, you came into the group as a friend of another player & I never "interviewed" you & you never got to "interview" me. This is why you get annoyed whenever you learn the "do's & don'ts" of the game during the game....it's always a surprise to you (which is understandable).



Jack7 said:


> Name your animal companions something solid but also have nicknames. In important situations (as far as game play) you can call them their "real names" and in silly moments, moments of comic relief, and relaxed times, call them by their nicknames.



This is a really good suggestion and I may have been ok with this as long as it wasn't a modern day reference. As part of her argument, she brought up the fact that a player has a silly nickname. So I guess we are already doing what you suggested. His nickname is a bit silly sounding but no more than Bilbo is silly...it's not the same as a goofy pet name.



Jeff Wilder said:


> So, for me, "Can I have a god directly meddle in my background?" is a no, but, "Can my PC _claim_ that a god meddled in his background?" is a "great idea!"




This was suggested and I told her I didn't have a problem with this. I don't think it mattered though. The fact that I _dared_ to alter her original ideas was enough to thwart any attempt to work something out.



Jasperak said:


> AOS, that guy sounds like a dick.




Yeah, the way she describes me on Enworld, I do sound like a dick. I'm sure I could make her sound bad too if I was the one ranting. It's too bad she's the type of person that just reacts to the surface of what someone says rather than try to understand what is being said.  What I've told her in private was not meant to be condescending or full of myself...I was simply trying to explain where I'm coming from as a DM trying to run a game.



maddman75 said:


> The micromanagement, the sexism, the blatent rudeness.




Anytime a man says _anything_ to a woman about gender, of course she is going to claim he's sexist. The OP is an extremely defensive person. Sometimes it's hard for me to finish a thought without being interrupted due to her being defensive. I am not sexist. I am a dumb caveman at times, but all I said to her was that 'my opinion on what names are silly or not may be because I grew up with a bunch of "macho" men'. Every one of my friends would roll their eyes at a name like Marshmallow. She couldn't understand why I thought a name is silly or not and that was the only explanation I could think of. I can see more woman being ok with a name like that than I can see my male friends being ok with it. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> If a player WANTS a little bit of wackiness, why shouldn't they get it?




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.



architectofsleep said:


> But I do have a hard time working with people who aren't flexible,




First of all, I have been flexible many times on many situations with all of the players. Just because you don't always get your way does not mean I haven't been flexible. 



> I was hoping to use it to demonstrate how rewarding it can be to have a flexible GM, but he's been using it to demonstrate to me how he thinks a player should act:  no complaining or whining whatsoever, no disagreeing whatsoever with anything the GM says, and overall obsequious behavior.  For some, he may be the ideal player, but to me, it's like he's being a Stepford wife or a bobblehead yes-man.  It's kinda creepy.




I've told you that you don't need to demonstrate anything when it comes to DMing. I have played with a lot of people and I have read DMs thoughts online about many many issues. I understand the differences in DMing playstyles.

When I asked you not to pick a silly name, you retaliated by saying, "well I'm going to *make* you have a silly character name in my game". Yeah sure, you were kidding, I know. But you were saying that as if you were proving a point. I told you, if you were running a game that required us to have silly names, I'd have no problem AT ALL making a silly name for my PC. I will fit my PC into the type of game world you are trying to run. Yes, I don't argue with DMs, I don't require them to cater to me, I try to help them run a good game. Calling me creepy for that is flat out weird. People always complain about bad players that are argumentative ect ect. I've never seen anyone try to make me look bad for trying to be a *good* player.



Holy Bovine said:


> Oooooo - this would be my opportunity to break him.  Make the most outlandish rulings both in his favour and against him.  See how far you can push his 'yes-man' attitude.  But I am a petty and vindictive jerk!




This would be actions of a bad DM and I'd hope she wouldn't do this to me. I don't play with people that are not fair to their players. If I'm trying to be a positive player and help the DM run a good game by not being disruptive, why would you try to disrupt your own game? If she started playing a DM vs Player game, I'd just stop playing. 



Imaro said:


> I think the real problem is when a GM doesn't let that campaign setting evolve and grow through the actions of the PC's




The OP sorta makes it seem like this is how I do things. I don't. I want the players to immerse themselves in the world and do their own thing. I even take time to think up side plots for each individual PC so they can do 'their own thing' in between adventures. My hope is that by doing this, the game becomes more personal to them. It's hard to do effectively though because players feel like they are taking time away from the other players by attempting personal goals.



merelycompetent said:


> If you do part company, make every reasonable effort to do so on good terms. No sense in burning bridges unless you really have to.




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.



Carpe DM said:


> This is not a question of right and wrong.  This is a question of compatibility.




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. 

----------------------------------------

Well, after finding out this thread was created and seeing how you favor me mostly as a bad DM and even belittle my attempt at being a positive player, I don't think we should even game together in our other games. It also hurts that you'd call me names and label me as sexist. I don't agree with your politics and I even let you freely express your views in my home...and I've never called you names like this.

I can respect your opinions about my DMing, but I'm not interested in you trying to _teach_ me how to be a good DM because there's no reason for that...I'm sure you're an excellent DM for your style of gaming but I prefer DMing my campaign the way I'm doing it. You won't be teaching me anything I don't already know about. I think if I were to play in your off-shoot game now, I'd just feel like you had ulterior motives and wanted to prove something to me. Even when I tried to reassure you that I would not be a problem player, you argue with me for the sake of disagreeing with me and tell me I *should* argue with you as the DM. It's a no-win situation with you. I'm not a demanding player, I don't whine when I don't get my way, I don't argue at the table, I try to fit in with the campaign, ect ect. I thought telling you this would make you feel good about DMing me...but you still managed to turn it around against me to make me look like I'm a pompous jerk.

As I've said in our emails before I found this thread, I hold no ill feelings towards you. I am upset with what you've said about me and causing the public to think bad of me, but whatever. Next time you meet a possible DM, before you give him a hard time like you've given me, just think to yourself, how would you feel if you found a thread like this on the internet that was all about you?


----------



## architectofsleep (Feb 7, 2009)

Oryan,

Nobody knew this GM was you until you said something here, so nobody was judging you personally.  

Yes, I would have talked about any problems I was having.  And I have talked about it.  And not only here.  I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to get things off my chest in a way that isn't going to be harmful to you or to our relationship as players.  Plus, I got a lot of insight from other people about where you might be coming from.

I think I mentioned more than once that I didn't really have a problem with you declining my character background, but rewriting it and watering it down is something I did have a problem with.  BUT it wasn't a big enough problem that I felt I needed to bring it up to you directly.  I have lots of ideas; if one doesn't work, I can come up with another one.  I only used it as a means to exemplify for others why I thought the micromanaging thing wasn't just a one-time thing.  There were other examples I could have given, but I didn't.

The initial problem I had was with cracking down on innocuous names.  And then with further e-mails between us, I saw a lot more cause for concern.  After talking it over with people, pretty much everyone agreed that our styles were incompatible.

I think it's clear that they were right.

Beyond that -- whose style is right and whose is wrong?  I don't think most of the intelligent comments here called it either way.  They simply called them different styles, and usually stated which ones they preferred and why.  I don't think anyone is being especially judgmental of you or of me, and those who were, well, personally, I tried to ignore those comments.

That aside, my question to the community was a valid one, and I don't regret bringing it up.  Where does GM control end, and player control begin?  Can they successfully meld?  I'm sure I didn't say at as eloquently in the beginning, but I was airing a grievance, so a certain emotionality touched it.

Anyways, best of luck to you and yours in all your gaming ventures.


----------



## Jasperak (Feb 7, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> Yeah, the way she describes me on Enworld, I do sound like a dick. I'm sure I could make her sound bad too if I was the one ranting. It's too bad she's the type of person that just reacts to the surface of what someone says rather than try to understand what is being said.  What I've told her in private was not meant to be condescending or full of myself...I was simply trying to explain where I'm coming from as a DM trying to run a game.




XP for you, for coming here and expressing your side. I apologize for my hasty comment, although I did intend for it to be taken in a more hypothetical manner. Intentional or not, the side we originally got made you out to be "not a very flexible member of the D&D community "
[insert rigid prick pun]

I am not touching the rest of this thread with a 10' pole, although the question of DM's control v. Player's control merits discussion.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 7, 2009)

Oryan77, you have proven your case well.  Kudos for coming here and outing yourself. It seems to me like you were being a level headed DM.


----------



## Oryan77 (Feb 7, 2009)

architectofsleep said:


> Nobody knew this GM was you until you said something here, so nobody was judging you personally.



I'm not worried if people know it's me or not. But if you want to speak your mind and bash me, I'm going to explain my side of it if I have the chance. 



> I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to get things off my chest in a way that isn't going to be harmful to you or to our relationship as players.




Think about this for a second. You _didn't_ get things off your chest in a way that wasn't harmful to me or us as players. My wife found out that you were bashing me behind my back and doesn't feel comfortable seeing you in our home or knowing that I'm still playing D&D with you. You weren't just "discussing" a player vs DM issue, you were belittling me behind my back. The end result was that not only are you not playing in my campaign, but I'm not even playing in yours. So I think your posts were harmful to our gaming relationship.



> but rewriting it and watering it down is something I did have a problem with.  BUT it wasn't a big enough problem that I felt I needed to bring it up to you directly.



It was a big enough problem for you to rant about it though. So obviously it wasn't just a small issue for you. As I said, I must have misunderstood your history idea because I swear to you, my purpose was not to rewrite it & water it down, it was to make it work in the campaign. If asking that the history not involve a god, silly quirks stolen from the Muppets, or quirks that would annoy other players is considered rewriting & watering down, then I guess I am guilty and I stand by my decision. Those were the *only* issues I had. I never meant to make it seem like I was altering everything else you had written as a history. My other suggestions were only ideas to play off of what you came up with. 



> I don't think anyone is being especially judgmental of you or of me, and those who were, well, personally, I tried to ignore those comments.




It would have been nice to see that you had my back though when people trashed me. I mean, if you're going to rant about me behind my back, and I find out, it would have been nice to see that you stuck up for me in your thread. Discussing DM control is cool, but you came off to me as if this was the "Oryan is a crappy DM" thread.



Jasperak said:


> I apologize for my hasty comment,




It's cool man. I understand how these type of threads go. I just wish she held me in a little bit more of a positive light than she appeared to. I know it's a small thing & kinda silly, but even if I saw her defending me once, it would have meant a lot to me.



ProfessorPain said:


> Oryan77, you have proven your case well.  Kudos for coming here and outing yourself. It seems to me like you were being a level headed DM.




Thanks. It's rare to hear both sides of the story. Believe me, I can rant about her as a player the same way but there is no reason for that. It's better for both of us to go our separate ways. 

The funny thing is, I posted an ad yesterday on Enworld looking for a new player (I noticed she posted looking for a DM). I hope this thread isn't going to scare any potentially compatible players away


----------



## Obryn (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm glad to hear the other side here.

But um...  I'm still going to go with architectofsleep on this one.  Your response is a bit too much "I banish thee, heretic, for doubting my excellence!" for my taste.

-O


----------



## merelycompetent (Feb 7, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> Hey, a thread all about me!...
> 
> As I've said in our emails before I found this thread, I hold no ill feelings towards you. I am upset with what you've said about me and causing the public to think bad of me, but whatever. Next time you meet a possible DM, before you give him a hard time like you've given me, just think to yourself, how would you feel if you found a thread like this on the internet that was all about you?




This is the best public response I've ever even *heard of* to a situation like this. Polite, courteous, reasonable.

Kudos to you, Oryan77. You get the first xp I've ever handed out. As soon as I figure out how. 

(Edit: 'Tis done. Wasn't hard, either. I'll take my Geek Card back now.)


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

Oryan, you definitely come across as something of a control freak GM.

Anyway, this thread has been useful as I have seen some things I need to watch in my own GMing.  Compared to Hussar's mandated style I'm certainly more towards the viking-hat end of the GMing spectrum, and I need to be careful I don't take it too far.


----------



## Cyronax (Feb 7, 2009)

One of the main points that was in contention here (whehter or not it was part of a misunderstanding) was still the amount of divine intervention at hand in a campaign. If a DM doesn't want his game to turn into a Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal style game (at even a minimal level), that shoule be his perogative. 

The DM still has to enjoy the game too. All to often the 'player's always right' crowd on these boards can forget that part too. If the DM just doesn't allow something despite doing his/her best to accommodate some type of compromise, then I either adapt or I leave and find a new campaign. 

And I say this as a player who has periodically tried to play an anesiac power-downed immortal type character and at one instance a 'plaything of the gods' similar to Jason (of the Argonauts). And most cases the DM at the time asked me to prune back the story slightly or completely 

C.I.D.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

Divine intervention - a player should never be able to mandate divine intervention ("My father Zeus would rescue me!") IMO, but whether a PC believes they were possessed by a god should normally be within the player's prerogative I think*.  The GM can determine the truth of the matter for his own purposes, or, perhaps better, keep it deliberately unresolved.  Maybe some fraction of the god's psyche possessed the PC, as occurs in many real-world religions - it's not a particularly big deal if the Loa rides you awhile, or you felt filled with the Holy Spirit.  The GM should be able to run with that.

*With the understanding that the player cannot mandate any mechanical effect from this.  I had a player recently claimed his PC background made him unkillable.  Nope.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Oryan, you definitely come across as something of a control freak GM.
> 
> Anyway, this thread has been useful as I have seen some things I need to watch in my own GMing.  Compared to Hussar's mandated style I'm certainly more towards the viking-hat end of the GMing spectrum, and I need to be careful I don't take it too far.




Mandated?  That's a bit strong dontcha think?  

I'm not mandating anything.  

The problem is, people keep exploding my position to include all sorts of things it shouldn't.  Most of the time, we'd likely agree, I think.

99% of the time, the conversation will likely go something like this:

DM:  I am running a new campaign.  You can have options A, B, and C.
Player:  Hrm, I don't really like those, can I try D?
DM:  Well, no, I don't think so for these reasons...
Player:  Ok.

or 

DM:  I am running a new campaign.  You have options A, B and C.
Player:  Hrm, I don't really like those, can I try D?
DM:  Ok.

IMO, that's what's going to happen 99% of the time.

With Oryan and his player, apparently we've strayed into that 1%.  

Now, this is where my "mandated" style comes in.  When you reach and impasse and neither the DM nor the player wants to budge.  Apparently, there are a number of DM's out there, who have chimed in on this thread, who think that booting the player out of the game is the better option.  That maintaining their vision of the campaign is more important than the player.  

I disagree.  I think, at this point and ONLY this point, the DM should step back, really look at what's important and probably back down and let the player have what he or she wants.

I mean, apparently in this case we're talking about a Planescape campaign.  Complaining about silly names in a PS campaign seems a bit strange considering the whacked out crap that the setting is filled with.  All sorts of anachronisms and steampunkesque bits.  A pet named Fluffy doesn't seem like a big deal to me.  Certainly not something to get into this big of a fight over.

((Now the other issues, like a diety possession and whatnot, I am NOT going to comment on))

So, yeah, I do think that in those very rare situations when there is an absolute impasse, where you have tried to compromise and nothing seems to fit with both the DM and the player, giving way to the player is the better option.  

Note, this is only my opinion and should not be seen as anything other than my opinion.  If you want to wear the "viking hat" more power to you.  I've certainly been there in the past.  I used to agree with GregK and S'mon 100% about this sort of thing.  I don't anymore because I find it works better the other way.  YMMV and all that.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Feb 7, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Oryan, you definitely come across as something of a control freak GM.



Not in _my_ eyes.  I think this is simply an incompatibility issue, and if I had AOS playing in my game, I bet I'd respond pretty much exactly the way Oryan did.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 7, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Oryan, you definitely come across as something of a control freak GM.




Maybe I am just old school, but I don't get a control freak GM vibe from him.  Remember it is the job of the GM to enforce the rules of the game, so that everyone has fun and the game is balanced. What this player proposed was potentially unbalancing. I know I wouldn't want another player to have that background in my campaign, unless it fit with the rules and setting. Relatedly, it is the job of the GM to make these kinds of editorial decisions to maximize everyone's enjoyment of the game. He has to consider the other players' tastes.  My gut tells me, he was making this call on behalf of everyone else in the group. If they don't want silly names, or a character with that sort of background, then it is perfectly acceptable for the GM to prohibit those things. Another point, it sounds like this was a new player coming into the group (a friend of a friend situation).  It isn't very gracious to immediately get in an argument with teh GM when you are new to a group. You kind of have to adapt to the groups style in those situations.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

My POV is that the DM should make every effort to see things from the player's POV, to think how the player's desires can be squared with the DM's desires, and not arbitrarily squash something without considering it (unless the player has already established they're a fount of crappy ideas - I had one of those recently).  

But at the end of the day it's up to the DM to make the call.  If Oryan can't stand animal companions to have silly names, very well.  I do think it's better he stand firm than run the game boiling with resentment (which Hussar doesn't think ever happens).

I guess my problem is that in the abstract I disagree with Hussar's approach - I believe in the unquestioned authority of the GM, and all that entails.  But in the concrete, I would not have done what Oryan did.  I'd have wanted to talk through with the player how to make her ideas work in-game, while retaining their essential essence.  Unless she was a total munchkin or similar* I'd have treated her with more respect than I think Oryan did.  With the great authority of the DM comes great responsibility to use it wisely.

*White Wolf playing, elf-murdering moral relativist, to give one particular example.

So, I'm probably not very clear here, but I think my problem with Hussar's approach is that it says "In the last resort, say yes."  I argue the reverse - in the last resort, you need to follow your instinct and say no, if necessary.   If you can't stand Dragonborn, and the player won't agree to you reskinning them to fit your campaign, you need to stand firm and ban them.  But first find out what it is the player really wants - the powers?  Well, maybe you have a human-looking clan descended from a dragon with those powers.  To look like an alligator?  Well, there are some lizardmen in that marsh...


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Maybe I am just old school, but I don't get a control freak GM vibe from him.  Remember it is the job of the GM to enforce the rules of the game, so that everyone has fun and the game is balanced. What this player proposed was potentially unbalancing. I know I wouldn't want another player to have that background in my campaign, unless it fit with the rules and setting.




My POV is that the player has no right to mandate any mechanical benefit from their background.  So there's no way "I was possessed by a god" can be unbalancing - any benefits acrued would be at GM's discretion, and in 3e/4e would count to standard wealth by level.  I'd treat it as at most a plot hook.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 7, 2009)

S'mon said:


> My POV is that the player has no right to mandate any mechanical benefit from their background. So there's no way "I was possessed by a god" can be unbalancing - any benefits acrued would be at GM's discretion, and in 3e/4e would count to standard wealth by level. I'd treat it as at most a plot hook.




Even without specific mechanical benefits, having that kind of 'relationship' with a divine entity, will create balance issues. Again, I am just going on what has been said, but when a player asks for this sort of thing, it usually isn't just a fluff thing. There are expecting some benefits, even if they are stricly in terms of story (religious or political power, having the knowledge that the god possesses etc). It is also unfair to the players who are not possessed. It really gives that player a shine the others are going to have trouble to compete with; it all but forces the GM to center the story on that player. I am not saying it cannot be done.  But if the GM doesn't want to have to put up with this sort of background, or the other players' object, the person requesting it should just drop it. Perhaps somewhere down the road, they can fit the background into another campaign. The GM needs to have some control over backgrounds, especially if they that outrageous.  As a player I would be glad my GM didn't let the new guy be possessed by a God.


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 7, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Even without specific mechanical benefits, having that kind of 'relationship' with a divine entity, will create balance issues. Again, I am just going on what has been said, but when a player asks for this sort of thing, it usually isn't just a fluff thing. There are expecting some benefits, even if they are stricly in terms of story (religious or political power, having the knowledge that the god possesses etc). It is also unfair to the players who are not possessed. It really gives that player a shine the others are going to have trouble to compete with; it all but forces the GM to center the story on that player. I am not saying it cannot be done.  But if the GM doesn't want to have to put up with this sort of background, or the other players' object, the person requesting it should just drop it. Perhaps somewhere down the road, they can fit the background into another campaign. The GM needs to have some control over backgrounds, especially if they that outrageous.  As a player I would be glad my GM didn't let the new guy be possessed by a God.




Exactly... Presumably, the backstory is there for the DM to work with.

If that's the case, the player who comes up with a character who used to be the avatar of a god, or is a dispossessed royal, or that once wielded epic power but is now a low level character is bringing a ton of baggage into the campaign. If the DM doesn't give that character the spotlight, he opens himself up to accusations of ignoring all the "hard work" the player did coming up with the character background - and if he does, he's letting one person dictate the tone of the campaign.

I don't know what other people's experiences are, but I have yet to play in a good campaign in which every PC had a complex and heroic background, they all got equal time center stage, _and_ all those adventures were seamlessly woven into the overall plot in a way that didn't overshadow it. Few people manage that sort of thing when writing a novel, with complete control of the story... Which is why I think it's actually a good idea for a DM to make the players be realistic (meaning, account for the fact they're just one out of five or six people who all deserve equal time) with their character backgrounds.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Even without specific mechanical benefits, having that kind of 'relationship' with a divine entity, will create balance issues.




There are plenty of religions, like voodoo, where divine possession is a normal part of worship.  Maybe you're right that the player is a munchkin looking to blindside the GM and dominate the game, but as GM I prefer not to think that until I get strong evidence to the contrary.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

mmu1 said:


> If that's the case, the player who comes up with a character who used to be the avatar of a god, or is a dispossessed royal, or that once wielded epic power but is now a low level character is bringing a ton of baggage into the campaign. If the DM doesn't give that character the spotlight, he opens himself up to accusations of ignoring all the "hard work" the player did coming up with the character background.




That wouldn't fly with me.  Having the GM make use of your background is a privilege, not a right.  IMC your PC might buy the farm tomorrow, all that hard work (which I didn't require) is wasted anyway.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

mmu1 said:


> Exactly... Presumably, the backstory is there for the DM to work with.




I assume the backstory is there to inform the player's roleplaying of their character.  Nothing to do with me, unless I choose to use an element of it in play.  I run dungeons, not soap operas.

Eg I recently had a nameless bandit mook encountered in the dungeon turn out to be the brother of a PC - he could well have been killed before she recognised him; but luckily it worked out, there was a tearful reunion, and very happy player.  Conversely I had a player who sent reams of backstory I barely glanced at after a while.  When the PC died he informed me that in fact he could not die; his PC was cursed to be killed by a red dragon and therefore unkillable otherwise (!!!!!).  I booted his arse right away.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

mmu1 said:


> If that's the case, the player who comes up with a character who used to be the avatar of a god, or is a dispossessed royal, or that once wielded epic power but is now a low level character...




I played one of those recently - an elderly Wizard who used to be high level but had retired after a terrible (& level-draining) battle with a demon.  There were no problems that I could discern.  The GM said I'd been in stasis a thousand years so I had no contacts or useful knowledge.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 7, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Divine intervention - a player should never be able to mandate divine intervention ("My father Zeus would rescue me!") IMO, but whether a PC believes they were possessed by a god should normally be within the player's prerogative I think*.  The GM can determine the truth of the matter for his own purposes, or, perhaps better, keep it deliberately unresolved.  Maybe some fraction of the god's psyche possessed the PC, as occurs in many real-world religions - it's not a particularly big deal if the Loa rides you awhile, or you felt filled with the Holy Spirit.  The GM should be able to run with that.
> 
> *With the understanding that the player cannot mandate any mechanical effect from this.  I had a player recently claimed his PC background made him unkillable.  Nope.




You do realize Oryan77 was cool with the above... right?



 Jeff Wilder said:


> So, for me, "Can I have a god directly meddle in my background?" is a no, but, "Can my PC claim that a god meddled in his background?" is a "great idea!"






Oryan77 said:


> This was suggested and I told her I didn't have a problem with this. I don't think it mattered though. The fact that I _dared_ to alter her original ideas was enough to thwart any attempt to work something out.


----------



## Oryan77 (Feb 7, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Your response is a bit too much "I banish thee, heretic, for doubting my excellence!" for my taste.





S'mon said:


> Oryan, you definitely come across as something of a control freak GM.




I don't know if you guys are trying to be helpful by pointing out my flaws, or if you're just trying to belittle me. Either way, I'm well aware of what people might think are my "flaws". 

Expecting a DM to run a game *your* way is as much of being a control freak as you say I am being. 

I can understand why you'd think this about me. When I meet strangers interested in joining, I tell them up front what limitations there will be. But I have *many* more options than I have limitations. The OP didn't have the opportunity to interview me because she came in as a friend of a player. If we did interview each other, I probably wouldn't have even invited her to the group because I'd realize she would have a problem with my DMing style. Also, she may have realized beforehand that she wouldn't want to play in our campaign because of my "flaws" (I don't find them as flaws but I understand others might).

Look, people can criticize a DM for wanting to run a campaign the way *he* wants to run it. You have every right not to like his way of DMing. But at the same time, I don't like DMing for players that need to be catered too and pampered as if they are doing me a favor by playing in our campaign. I don't like to DM _high maintenance_ players. And believe me, there are plenty of them out there. 

I don't claim to be a perfect DM for everyone, but I try my best to be a good DM (DMing is a difficult thing to do well). It's not like I don't _try_ to make the players happy. But if I'm not happy DMing, then I can't run a good game and then nobody will be happy playing D&D. I would rather not DM than be forced to DM in a way I don't like. I would never tell a DM that he should be running his campaign a certain way or he should give me whatever I want. I would be grateful that he's DMing me and doing that extra work for my entertainment. If I didn't want to play in a game like his, I simply wouldn't play. I'm not going to post a thread on Enworld and badmouth him cause I didn't get my way.

I like my style, I like my players, I _think_ the rest of them like me, and I know our game isn't for everyone. 



S'mon said:


> I would not have done what Oryan did.  I'd have wanted to talk through with the player how to make her ideas work in-game, while retaining their essential essence.




I'm confused. What makes you think that I wasn't trying to help her make her history work and keep the same basic story she was trying to convey? Wanting to change an NPC from a god to something less divine is considered a complete rewrite of a background?



ProfessorPain said:


> My gut tells me, he was making this call on behalf of everyone else in the group.



Yes that's exactly the reason. I don't mind contact with a powerful NPC or even a proxy of a deity. But none of the other players have as epic of a history as having direct contact with a deity. It just seemed too extreme for the campaign & their level.



> It isn't very gracious to immediately get in an argument with the GM when you are new to a group. You kind of have to adapt to the groups style in those situations.



She was very argumentative even the first day I met her and we played together. We let her know that we try not to argue at the table and she did a great job adapting to that. It seemed like she had to do a lot of adapting though; which frustrated her & led to the downfall 



S'mon said:


> Maybe you're right that the player is a munchkin looking to blindside the GM and dominate the game



Naw, I don't think that was her intention. She was simply just trying to create an interesting history and probably thought it would be unique.

Oh and thanks for the XP everyone. I've been out of the Enworld loop for months, so I'm not really sure what it means though


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 7, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> Hey, a thread all about me! It's taken 5 years or so, but I'm finally being ranted about....I'm almost famous!



Funny thing is, while reading this thread these lastfew days, I got the feeling tht it was just the whining of a player and not your fault.  No DM is that evil, else they would not have able to dm that long. And honestly, if you read between the line in her posts, you get the incompatability issue. Kudos on ocming on and clearing up the matter. 

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

She came into an established campaign with outlandish ideas, so it should be understood that she will need to adjust to the group.  I have had a couple of these types of situations come up in my years of dming. For some reason, there are players that move into a campaign and attempt to "test" the dm, try to get away with something that their previous dm(s) did not allow.  It's up to the DM to stick with the rules of his world and campaign and, if a player asks, try to work with hte players to take their character concept into your world.  Sounds like she is one of those players who needs to make her character "special" and seperate. Call it the batman syndrome.  This is when a player, in a need to make their character the most important or most standout, needs to create additional rules for a player to make them stand out. 

 I have a player at my game that started out just like this, and we didn't get off on the right foot, but after about a year we learned how to work with one another and now she's one of the best players at the table. What you have to do is make sure that thye don't introduce any thing extra that compromises 1. the integrity of the game is not compromised and no rules are broken, 2. that requires additional dm effort or wastes other players time and 3. will not break the immersion of the game.  Also, when you have a player like this, you need to make sure that you develop moments in every few games where the player has the opportunity to shine. (Though i think this should be a rule for all characters, when u have a player like this u need to make sure). 

In my experience I've had players want to play children, want to train specific breeds of dogs and develop statistics for them all and players that wanted to start off with the inert ability to fly because she's been possessed by a demon her whole life.  Yet, once given guidelines and stuck firm with them, I've seen all of these players create normal characters that they enjoyed and loose the feel to make eccentric characters to be noticed in the party.



			
				s'mon said:
			
		

> Eg I recently had a nameless bandit mook encountered in the dungeon turn out to be the brother of a PC - he could well have been killed before she recognised him; but luckily it worked out, there was a tearful reunion, and very happy player. Conversely I had a player who sent reams of backstory I barely glanced at after a while. When the PC died he informed me that in fact he could not die; his PC was cursed to be killed by a red dragon and therefore unkillable otherwise (!!!!!). I booted his arse right away.



That is sad. YOu should be so lucky to have players that care enough about a game to dedicate their personal time to a character.  The fact that you ignore backgrounds shows a lack of expanding your imagination of the game and a clear sign of taking advantage of players. Backgrounds are a players way of saying. I"d like for this to come up inthe campaign and a great resource for DMs to structure adventures.   If you're idea of dming is creating a maze and plopping down some creatures, you're robbing your players of not just the rest of the game, but the kind of story they obviously want to experience.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> I'm confused. What makes you think that I wasn't trying to help her make her history work and keep the same basic story she was trying to convey? Wanting to change an NPC from a god to something less divine is considered a complete rewrite of a background?




Yes, absolutely.  I would have been furious if I were in her place.  Can't you see how "Touched by the Divine" is different from "Touched by a Demon/Devil/Lich/High Level Wizard"?  A blanket 'no' would have been better.  To me it destroys the integrity of the concept.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> That is sad. YOu should be so lucky to have players that care enough about a game to dedicate their personal time to a character.  The fact that you ignore backgrounds shows a lack of expanding your imagination of the game and a clear sign of taking advantage of players. Backgrounds are a players way of saying. I"d like for this to come up inthe campaign and a great resource for DMs to structure adventures.   If you're idea of dming is creating a maze and plopping down some creatures, you're robbing your players of not just the rest of the game, but the kind of story they obviously want to experience.




OK, time to put the viking hat back on...

I'm really more interested in what I want to experience.  If the players are interested in it too, great, I run (and am running) my game.  If they weren't, I wouldn't be running it.  I'm not interested in drama-queen players (so who knows, if aos is the way Obryn describes I might have taken the same view of her he did; but on what's been said I didn't see her demanding anything off the GM like special powers or extra spotlight time).

For my current campaign I mostly run old site-based published modules (eg the classics Rahasia, Horror on the Hill, and the recent C&C Palace of Shadows) that the PCs interact with.  It's an approach that I think works well for a twice-monthly, open access, low prep campaign in a games club.  There is a very loose campaign arc in my head, based on sequential modules.  Plot and story emerge in play, not foreordained by character background.  I absolutely reject that I am obliged to use any element of a PC's background.  I use it if I choose to, if it appeals to me and it fits with what's happening in the game.  Eg a player had her PC's brother be a bandit, it made sense for the nameless NPC bandit in the dungeon to be her brother.  I certainly don't require PC backgrounds; not all players supply them beyond maybe a single line - "I'm a Cleric of the Unconquered Sun".  We've had 8 deaths in 11 sessions, and if your PC dies the work on a background is wasted.  That doesn't bother me.

I will mine PC backgrounds for tidbits that enhance the fun of the game, but I see them very much as resource for the player to aid in playing their PC, not an obligation or burden imposed on the GM.


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 7, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Yes, absolutely.  I would have been furious if I were in her place.  Can't you see how "Touched by the Divine" is different from "Touched by a Demon/Devil/Lich/High Level Wizard"?  A blanket 'no' would have been better.  To me it destroys the integrity of the concept.



When a player writes a background, they write it from the perspective of the PC, not the omnipresent view, such s the one the dm has.  Breaking that barrier underminds the DM.  

What diffrence is it to the pc what the true nature of the "touched" is.  The pc does not know, she believes what she believes and it has influenced that personality.  However, once that background enters the dms world its fare game.  I have a character who told me he was a member of the resistance against the kingdom the pc is in at 1st level. What he dosnt know is that he's so far on the bottom wrong of the resistance, that he doesn't know their real motives are to bring back a great evil. 

As a player, she should excpet this and look forward to seeing how this really should unravel from a character development point of view.  What the DM has done is give her a plot in the world, a reason to adventure and care outside of whatever other things come up for the party.  


> OK, time to put the viking hat back on...
> 
> I'm really more interested in what I want to experience. If the players are interested in it too, great, I run (and am running) my game. If they weren't, I wouldn't be running it. I'm not interested in drama-queen players (so who knows, if aos is the way Obryn describes I might have taken the same view of her he did; but on what's been said I didn't see her demanding anything off the GM like special powers or extra spotlight time).
> 
> ...



What the DM in this posting and what you do are two different things.  YOur game sounds like Decent with Dungeons and DRagons (I think they call that 4e now  ) .  How can there be any character development when there's a new character coming into the party every week. Not saying that its not fun (because its your game, your players, it works for you guys) , but this DM seems to have more of a story focused campaign world that relies on PCs who contribute to the world via engrossing backgrounds and their in game storytelling. It is important for those backgrounds to make sense with the world.  Backgrounds should not provide as many facts as they should to help the DM develop mysteries and tie the player to the campaign world .


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> When a player writes a background, they write it from the perspective of the PC, not the omnipresent view, such s the one the dm has.  Breaking that barrier underminds the DM.




If you're saying that the GM has the right to make a private note to himself "Thinks she was god-possessed... actually a lich." - sure, that's fine.  I agree 100%.

What's important is that the player can use the concept to inform the roleplaying of the character.  So don't tell her it was a lich, not IC nor OOC.  If the truth ever is revealed, it should be for good reason.  Until then it's a Schrodinger's cat - who knows, the GM might change his mind and decide it really was a god after all!

Edit:  Although I'd not do this myself, 'possessed by a god' is just so much cooler, and has far more mythic resonance.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> What the DM in this posting and what you do are two different things.  YOur game sounds like Decent with Dungeons and DRagons (I think they call that 4e now  ) .




I don't think classic Red Box Basic modules like B5 Horror on the Hill and B7 Rahasia, or a Dungeon Crawl Classic like Palace of Shadows, bear much resemblance to 'Decent' (I think you mean 'Descent'), nor even much to 4e.  There's plenty of roleplaying and in-character interaction as well as fighting and killing.  But it's old school; character and story emerge in play, they're not pre-written.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2009)

S'mon said:


> I assume the backstory is there to inform the player's roleplaying of their character.  Nothing to do with me, unless I choose to use an element of it in play.  I run dungeons, not soap operas.
> 
> Eg I recently had a nameless bandit mook encountered in the dungeon turn out to be the brother of a PC - he could well have been killed before she recognised him; but luckily it worked out, there was a tearful reunion, and very happy player.  Conversely I had a player who sent reams of backstory I barely glanced at after a while.  When the PC died he informed me that in fact he could not die; his PC was cursed to be killed by a red dragon and therefore unkillable otherwise (!!!!!).  I booted his arse right away.




Very cool.  And I love the Wizard concept too.

I think, S'mon, our positions are actually very very close.  So, let me ask you this:  What would you do?

You are running your campaign and the player comes to you with the "touched by the divine" hook.  You hate it (work with me here) and want to nerf it down to something less than godly.  You hit an impasse.  The player, like you said yourself, would absolutely hate the dilution of the concept and you the DM would hate to have the touched by divine hook.

So, how do you resolve it?  Do you stand firm and take the "my way or the highway" approach, or do you step back, put yourself in the player's shoes, realize that in the grand scheme of your campaign it isn't going to make a lick of difference and let him/her have it?


----------



## Vegepygmy (Feb 8, 2009)

S'mon said:


> If you're saying that the GM has the right to make a private note to himself "Thinks she was god-possessed... actually a lich." - sure, that's fine. I agree 100%.



I disagree with you 100%.

When I write a background for my character, and the DM gives it his stamp of approval, I consider that almost like a contract between us.  We've had a meeting of the minds, and this is what my character's background _is;_ there's no "Well, that's just what your character _thinks_," unless the background actually _says_ "Maekrix believes he was possessed by a god (which may or may not be true)."

What you are suggesting sounds to me like a bait-and-switch, and I'd be pretty annoyed as a player if the DM later revealed I wasn't possessed by a god _like he agreed I was_ when he okayed my background.  I would much rather be told the divine angle doesn't work in the DM's opinion, but it's okay for my character to _believe_ he was god-possessed.  I'd then play the character that way, and not feel like the DM is pulling the rug out from under me when it is revealed that my character is mistaken.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Very cool.  And I love the Wizard concept too.
> 
> I think, S'mon, our positions are actually very very close.  So, let me ask you this:  What would you do?
> 
> ...




We're very very close because 99% of the time our approaches will give the same result.  I will make a big effort to have the player's concept become sonething that is cool _to me_ as well as to the player. I'll look at it from various angles.  But I won't step back and allow in somethng I hate.  Life's too short.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 8, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> I disagree with you 100%.
> 
> When I write a background for my character, and the DM gives it his stamp of approval, I consider that almost like a contract between us.  We've had a meeting of the minds, and this is what my character's background _is;_ there's no "Well, that's just what your character _thinks_," unless the background actually _says_ "Maekrix believes he was possessed by a god (which may or may not be true)."
> 
> What you are suggesting sounds to me like a bait-and-switch, and I'd be pretty annoyed as a player if the DM later revealed I wasn't possessed by a god _like he agreed I was_ when he okayed my background.  I would much rather be told the divine angle doesn't work in the DM's opinion, but it's okay for my character to _believe_ he was god-possessed.  I'd then play the character that way, and not feel like the DM is pulling the rug out from under me when it is revealed that my character is mistaken.




How about if you're the player and the GM says:  "OK, you believe you were posssessed by a god."

Do you say:

"No!  I definitely _was_ possessed by a god!  No funny business mister!"

Though I take your point about the bait & switch, and I would be reluctant to do this to a player character in a way that seemed disrespectful to the player.  

OTOH, this 'contract' approach was exactly what got the unkillable-PC player booted from my game last December - he'd sent me a multi-page background, poorly written, I'd glanced at and signed off on.  When his PC died he emailed me after the game and said that the bit in the background about his family being cursed to be killed by a red dragon meant a contractual obligation on me that he could _only be killed_ by a red dragon.   This wasn't the first attempt to pull crap like that on me, though by far the worst, so I kicked him out of the group.  I take such demands very poorly.  The PC's background is not a contract on me in any way.


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 8, 2009)

S'mon said:


> How about if you're the player and the GM says:  "OK, you believe you were posssessed by a god."
> 
> Do you say:
> 
> ...



There we agree. Your backgrouns is as it is, it can not change the rules of the game nor add additional rules for me to keep track of. 

I had a player tell me she wanted her character to be very chaotic, loosing control on a whim , and then she proceeded to send me 3 pages of rules and charts for the "anger" of this character. I pololitly told the character that I have no problem with wanting to play your character that way, and if you want to roll to make decisions i am fine with it, but i have no intention on changing the rules of the game to accomodate your character.  

In your situatoin that's not a background situation, as much as that is a player tryng to put one over on you.  A background situation would be if he had in his background that he's from Molthune, and you introduce his bandit brother as always living in Nirmathas.  

I think there needs to be an agreement before you play the ame of what the background is. Hussar in your game its a contract and set in stone. In my game its a living document, its a telling by the PC of the story of his life.  It is written from the point of view of the PC, not the player.  

YOu also got to watch for players who make toooo elaborate plots in their background, that could derail the campaign.  

BTW, wasn't knocking your campaign or Decent. I love decent, and when you described what you guys do it reminds me more of decent than a campaign world type campaign. Decent has some graet scenerios, and its primarily dungeon crawl with a bit of role playing thrown in. Wheras the op's dm seems to be a story driven campaign.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 8, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> BTW, wasn't knocking your campaign or Decent. I love decent, and when you described what you guys do it reminds me more of decent than a campaign world type campaign.




It's a campaign world type campaign, inspired by Narnia (esp The Last Battle), Lord of the Rings, the Master of the Desert Nomads modules, and the 732 AD Battle of Tours.  Modules give me a good framework.  I guess it's not a player-driven campaign; which would not work in my public access gamer club situation with a highly variable player base.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 8, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> I had a player tell me she wanted her character to be very chaotic, loosing control on a whim , and then she proceeded to send me 3 pages of rules and charts for the "anger" of this character. I pololitly told the character that I have no problem with wanting to play your character that way, and if you want to roll to make decisions i am fine with it, but i have no intention on changing the rules of the game to accomodate your character.




My dragon-curse player was exactly the same, constantly emailing me poorly thought out rules he'd made up, though in his case it was all stuff to benefit his character, like being able to use craft skill to churn out magic weapons & armour (he was playing a Fighter).  I'd never seen this before.


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 8, 2009)

S'mon said:


> It's a campaign world type campaign, inspired by Narnia (esp The Last Battle), Lord of the Rings, the Master of the Desert Nomads modules, and the 732 AD Battle of Tours.  Modules give me a good framework.  I guess it's not a player-driven campaign; which would not work in my public access gamer club situation with a highly variable player base.




Sorry was deriving my opinion off of the previous brief statement, (friends come over, we go into the dungeon, divide xp).  That description sounds more campaign worldish and very creative.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 9, 2009)

S'mon said:


> How about if you're the player and the GM says:  "OK, you believe you were posssessed by a god."
> 
> Do you say:
> 
> ...




Yeah, well, there's always THAT sort of player.   I think we've all seen that sort of thing.  And, since, as you said it wasn't the first time, giving him the toss is probably the best idea.  

I've run across that as well.  

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.

S'mon, I realize you have a problem doing this simply because of your gaming situation.  My advice would be to have a short, one page handout of THE RULES.  Since you're almost running a sort of Convention game where you have players coming and going constantly, you can't really afford the time to build up that level of trust between you and the players.

I know in my first OpenRPG campaign I had a similar issue.  Actually, in a few of my campaigns I've had this issue.  In my first camp, I had two players who always showed up, one that was very casual and two chairs at the table that changed almost every week, certainly every month.  It was brutal.  A completely eye opening experience that was.  This was where I developed my The Rules guidelines and they got revisited and revised constantly for a while.

When I ran my World's Largest Dungeon campaign, my group had settled for the most part.  I had four players that were pretty much rock solid and a fifth seat that seemed to get changed far too frequently.  It became something of a group joke that anyone who sat in that seat was doomed to fade away to nothing.  But, since I had a more static group, I could really start to build up the trust between the players and myself and relax my grip considerably.  The players themselves began policing each other much more than I do.

Now, with my Savage Tide campaign, the group has been pretty much together for over a year now, with an addition of a sixth player a few months ago.  Having a stable group makes a world of difference.

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.

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?  On a side note (because I missed your post a while back) I agree that a player who refuses to compromise the background of a dragonborn would be a problem.  If he's insisting that a dragonborn MUST come with the entire package listed in the PHB, then, yup, I 100% agree with you that I would likely say no as well because that entails too much change in my campaign world.  My question to you is, what if the player is willing to change the flavour, so that it suits your campaign world (heck, using the tried and true "fell down a rabbit hole and is trying to get home" trope works), would you still veto dragonborn?


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Feb 9, 2009)

How interesting! (Or, should I say, how typical?) At the end of the day, it's a difference in play styles! One highly creative player vs. one DM with a clear vision and a group that works well together. It's come to a mutual resolution (parting of the ways).

What did we learn?


----------



## S'mon (Feb 9, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Feb 9, 2009)

S'mon said:


> 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 (Feb 9, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Feb 9, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Feb 9, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> 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 (Feb 9, 2009)

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 (Feb 10, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> 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  



Mallus said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2009)

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 (Feb 10, 2009)

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 (Feb 10, 2009)

S'mon said:


> 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.



jdrakeh said:


> 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.


----------



## Engilbrand (Feb 10, 2009)

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 (Feb 10, 2009)

*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 (Feb 11, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Feb 11, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> 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 (Feb 15, 2009)

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 (Feb 16, 2009)

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 (Feb 16, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2009)

Mallus said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2009)

Roman said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2009)

Mallus said:


> 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.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 18, 2009)

DonTadow said:


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



Of course players assist in creating the sense of immersion. Playing a single session with bored, unengaged and otherwise disinterested players should be enough to prove that.   



> 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.



The player's input is still required to bring the world to life. Therefore, they are necessary 'partners in Creation' (sorry to keep using that phrase, I really like it, I think it's from Judaism).


----------



## Vegepygmy (Feb 18, 2009)

Mallus said:


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



Power and responsibility go hand in hand; you can't have one without the other.

Since the DM has much greater power over the world than the players, his responsibility is likewise much greater.

Players typically exercise power over the game world only through their characters.  To that degree, yes, they have a responsibility to use that power appropriately (and help produce an immersive world).  So one might say that they share the responsibility, but they certainly don't share _equal_ responsibility, IMO.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 18, 2009)

Of course it's true that players share the responsibility of creating an immersive world.

That's _exactly why_ they shouldn't do things that go against the tone the DM wants, like giving silly names to their characters and companions.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 18, 2009)

In my experience, the "silly" names aren't half as silly as the Authentic Fantasy Names.

When in doubt, spell your own name backwards. "Silly" is subjective, but you can't argue with precedent.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 18, 2009)

Marshmallow the bear is no sillier then Drizzt Do'Urden or Tordek or any other "fantasy" name.  At least I can *pronounce* Marshmallow unlike every damn elven name in existance.

I never understood the need for long and complex names.  What's so bad about Joe?  Joe's a great name for any time period.  So long as people have been able to pronounce "Joe," it's been a name.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Marshmallow the bear is no sillier then Drizzt Do'Urden or Tordek or any other "fantasy" name. At least I can *pronounce* Marshmallow unlike every damn elven name in existance.
> 
> I never understood the need for long and complex names. What's so bad about Joe? Joe's a great name for any time period. So long as people have been able to pronounce "Joe," it's been a name.





I like to pick names that are fairly consistent with the setting. If we are in an oriental adventure, I will pick something with an asian ring. And if some guy names his character Roy Jones, it will kind of bother me. That said, I agree with you there is nothing wrong with Joe. Simple existing names that fit the setting are always best. Though in the Joe case, I would probably write Joseph on my sheet. Just like Roy Jones in an oriental setting can kill suspension of disbelief, so can some strange name that sounds totally unfamiliar and is loaded with daring consonants. Familiar is usually better, so long as it fits the setting.


----------



## Nightson (Feb 18, 2009)

I don't have any problem with DMs banning anachronistic references.  So not allowing marshmallow is actually okay with me.  Put if the character (rather then the player) could name it that then DMs need to butt out.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 18, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> Po one might say that they share the responsibility, but they certainly don't share _equal_ responsibility, IMO.



Therefore they should share in a bit of the power, no? The DM should grant them that much, at least with regard to nomenclature.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 18, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> That's _exactly why_ they shouldn't do things that go against the tone the DM wants, like giving silly names to their characters and companions.



Why should the DM set the tone exclusively (seeing as we've already established that the players share responsibility in creating a successful, immersive campaign)? 

Is it because he wears the viking hat? 

Note: I primarily DM. Personally, the viking hat looks silly on me.


----------



## Henry (Feb 18, 2009)

Bob Salvatore named the ranger who taught Drizzt "Montolio de Brouchée", but that's not what he's known as -- in the stories, he's always called "Mooshie the Ranger." 

Gary Gygax was King of accepted silly names in RPGs - lest we forget Mr. Gleep Wurp the Eyebiter, Fonkin Hoddypeak, or Shab Heanling (before anyone writes, YES, I know they mean things in Middle or Elizabethan English or whatnot, but let's see someone try to use one of those campaign long without jokes being thrown... )

I'm currently playing a Gran Sniper character in a Star Wars game. His name? Aat Aaq. Fits perfectly with Star Wars' Gran naming conventions, but I definitely get a reaction when my name's called in the init order. 

_"Aat Aaq?"
"Thanks! Don't mind if I do!"_


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 18, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Of course players assist in creating the sense of immersion. Playing a single session with bored, unengaged and otherwise disinterested players should be enough to prove that.



By doing their job, immersing themselves, they are providing their part of the game.  True if a player sits there disinterested talking about the last night's episode of smallville, then it will break the immersion of the game.  However, it falls on the DM to keep that player on track or remove that player if he is going to be a constant deterence to the immersion.   


> The player's input is still required to bring the world to life. Therefore, they are necessary 'partners in Creation' (sorry to keep using that phrase, I really like it, I think it's from Judaism).




A player being disruptive is no more creating the world than a player being immersive is creating the world.  The player's job, or function at the game is to play the game, and apart of that function is to role play or immerse themselves in the world.  The end though, still relies on the DM to make sure that they are providing their end of the bargain.  A DM can't make a player play, but can control who plays at the game and thus, keeps the world functioning as it is suppose to.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Feb 19, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Therefore they should share in a bit of the power, no? The DM should grant them that much, at least with regard to nomenclature.



Since you seem to have completely overlooked my point, I'll repeat it:



			
				Vegepygmy said:
			
		

> Players typically exercise power over the game world only through their characters. To that degree, yes, they have a responsibility to use that power appropriately (and help produce an immersive world).



Or as Jeff Wilder more bluntly puts it:



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Of course it's true that players share the responsibility of creating an immersive world.
> 
> That's _exactly why_ they shouldn't do things that go against the tone the DM wants, like giving silly names to their characters and companions.



And to bring us full circle, I'll answer your question: why does the DM get to dictate the tone?

_Because power and responsibility go hand in hand._  The DM is responsible for everything in the world that isn't a PC, so he has _power_ over everything in the world that isn't a PC--including its tone.  The players (typically) have all the power over their PCs, and therefore they have the responsibility to use that power appropriately--which includes making sure that the PC's name (and the names of things the PC gives a name to) support rather than undermine the immersiveness of the DM's world.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 19, 2009)

One can have control without being an iron fist dictator.

If the pet was called "Farty McButtcheese" I could understand not wanting it.  Banning a bear named _Marshmallow_ is a bit too much in my opinion.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 19, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> And to bring us full circle, I'll answer your question: why does the DM get to dictate the tone?
> 
> _Because power and responsibility go hand in hand._  The DM is responsible for everything in the world that isn't a PC, so he has _power_ over everything in the world that isn't a PC--including its tone.



Isn't acknowledging and/or validating a player's input one of a DM's responsibilities?  



> ...--which includes making sure that the PC's name (and the names of things the PC gives a name to) support rather than undermine the immersiveness of the DM's world.



And maybe this is core of our disagreement. It stops being the "DM's world" as soon as her or she lets the players into it. Look, I'm an inveterate homebrewer and I'll say with all lack-of-modesty I'm pretty damn good at it. I _know_ firsthand what it feels like to be protective of a settings I've authored. But the minute I agree to run a campaign in one, that world becomes _ours_. 

edit: perhaps the best way to put it is that, when I DM, I'm more concerned with my responsibilities toward my players --including accepting and incorporating input from them I don't particularly _like_-- than I am with their responsibilities toward me (at least w/r/t keeping everything in the game exactly to my taste). 

I'm more interested in sharing my world than making other people conform to it. The viking hat just doesn't fit me anymore...


----------



## Mallus (Feb 19, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> One can have control without being an iron fist dictator.
> 
> If the pet was called "Farty McButtcheese" I could understand not wanting it.  Banning a bear named _Marshmallow_ is a bit too much in my opinion.



Exactly!


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Feb 19, 2009)

Any DM worth his salt is going to either make recommendations for names, or work with the players to find a happy medium. I can fully understand the necessity for wishing to maintain a tone to the game; fantasy names irritate me just as much as stupid or silly names.

There is a middle ground to be found. Make a character name that is satisfactory and use a nickname amongst your comrades.


----------



## Maggan (Feb 19, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Isn't acknowledging and/or validating a player's input one of a DM's responsibilities?




So your stance is that the DM should bend over for any wish a player makes?

IMO he should draw a line based on his planned game, and if the player doesn't agree with that he/she should examine whether that game is for him/her or not.

And if it's not, just walk out. A DM who is abusive ends up without players. It's a natural selection.

If my DM told me "no naming pets Marshmallow" I'd go "okay" and get on with playing the game, so I fail to see why it's being made out to be the poster child of abusive DM's.

/M


----------



## Mallus (Feb 19, 2009)

Moniker said:


> I can fully understand the necessity for wishing to maintain a tone to the game; fantasy names irritate me just as much as stupid or silly names.



Wishing to maintain an _overall_ tone is fine, and the DM has ample opportunity to do while still ceding pet and/or PC naming rights to the players. This is more about wanting to maintain absolute control over campaign tone, which seems, well, _unnecessary_ to me. 

I literally _drown_ the players in names during the course a campaign. A few outlier names belonging to the PC's isn't especially disruptive to the overall tone.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 19, 2009)

Maggan said:


> So your stance is that the DM should bend over for any wish a player makes?



I bet you already know that isn't what I wrote nor meant. 



> A DM who is abusive ends up without players. It's a natural selection.



I'm discussing techniques that can yield to a better game with more engaged players, not Darwin.



> If my DM told me "no naming pets Marshmallow" I'd go "okay" and get on with playing the game...



So would I. Of course I've been talking about what a DM should do in that situation. 



> so I fail to see why it's being made out to be the poster child of abusive DM's.



I'm not labeling anyone anything. I'm questioning why, exactly, some DM's feel the need to exert that level of authorial control over their games. Specifically, is there any benefit to it, other than making the players conform to the DM's aesthetic? And if that's it, what are the drawbacks?


----------



## Maggan (Feb 19, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I bet you already know that isn't what I wrote nor meant.




I wasn't really sure what you meant, actually. 

You ask so many questions yourself that seem very rethorical and mostly aimed at establishing a position where the action of disallowing "Marshmallow" as a name for a pet is painted as a prime example of bad DMing.

That's how I read it. I might have misunderstood your questions, and the motivation for asking them though.

/M


----------



## Maggan (Feb 19, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Specifically, is there any benefit to it, other than making the players conform to the DM's aesthetic?




Consistency of tone being one, for example, and one which has been mentioned several times during this thread.

For us, it's the differences between the game worlds we play in that make them interesting. So the DM sets the tone for one game, and another for another game.

A freewheeling whimsical game feels and plays differently than a serious and tragic game, for exampel. And that's the benefit right there; by letting the DM set the tone, we get to explore different types of styles and assumptions, which we don't get if a player is free to carry the freewheeling whimsical attitude into the serious and tragic game.

It's like design, really. It's the limitations that make a game interesting to play in. And those limits are, in our group, primarily set by the DM. 

That way we can experience many different ways of creating fun for the players. Although our group might be a bit atypical, being made up of six DMs/GMs. We play six sessions under one DM and then switch to another, with a new set of assumptions that he presents.

/M


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 19, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> And to bring us full circle, I'll answer your question: why does the DM get to dictate the tone?
> 
> _Because power and responsibility go hand in hand._  The DM is responsible for everything in the world that isn't a PC, so he has _power_ over everything in the world that isn't a PC--including its tone.  The players (typically) have all the power over their PCs, and therefore they have the responsibility to use that power appropriately--which includes making sure that the PC's name (and the names of things the PC gives a name to) support rather than undermine the immersiveness of the DM's world.




This pretty much covers it, along with Jeff Wilder's comments. Done and done.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 19, 2009)

Maggan said:


> A freewheeling whimsical game feels and plays differently than a serious and tragic game, for example.



Agreed. I suppose our difference is that I don't feel as dash of whimsy spoils a good tragedy. I've played in campaign with varying tones before , but I have to admit I've never played in one with a completely _uniform_ tone. My experiences with D&D have been quite the opposite. While a campaign might have an overall tone, they're also usually a bit of a hodgepodge --this, I think is endemic to D&D and a large part of 'D&D-style' fantasy-- w/r/t genre influences and tone.  



> And that's the benefit right there; by letting the DM set the tone, we get to explore different types of styles and assumptions...



This is exactly how I feel about allowing PC input I don't like into one of my homebrews... I get to explore my creation from a fresh perspective as I'm forced to incorporate material that I wouldn't have included otherwise. 



> Although our group might be a bit atypical, being made up of six DMs/GMs. We play six sessions under one DM and then switch to another, with a new set of assumptions that he presents.



Our current campaign will have 4 DM's by the time it ends, running in a setting created primarily by two of them.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 20, 2009)

I think the disconnect for me is that I've never seen D&D - in any edition - as a game that ever _could_ be 100% serious.  If they were playing, say, Promethean, then I suppose it could be vaguely possible, but even then, a campaign that never gets silly?  That isn't going to happen.  Forget characters for a minute, there's no way _players_ are going to somehow disconnect the idea of humor from the game.  And good grief, that's a good thing.  Imagine a world without black humor, or without little bits of silliness at even the worst of times.  What a horrible, horrible concept.

Taking control away from the players doesn't help the game.  It just pisses them off.  You can suggest that a character changes the name, but you never force it, because then all you have is an angry player.  And if they choose not to change it, so long as it's nothing obscene, _play with it and see how it goes_.  If Marshmallow is a problem with other players and yourself, then yeah, pull the offender aside and talk to them.  But if the only one getting their face red is you, then maybe the pet isn't the problem.

The bad DM says "No," the good DM says "Maybe," the really good DM says "Roll and we'll find out."  The issue here is that, quite frankly, I still don't see the issue with "Marshmallow," and I don't think the player did either.  And the DM hasn't really offered a reason for it as well, other then "It didn't fit the tone."  We don't know what the tone is.  We don't know what the other characters or NPCs were named.  All we know is that the DM said "No, screw you, that's banned."


----------



## Oryan77 (Feb 20, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> but you never force it, because then all you have is an angry player.



At the same time, I can say, "because then all you have is an angry *DM*." It's one thing if a DM like Mallus wants to allow players to help dictate the game world, but when a DM doesn't want to run that type of campaign and the player demands to use a silly name, that's just being a selfish & controlling player in my eyes.



> If Marshmallow is a problem with other players and yourself, then yeah, pull the offender aside and talk to them.




I was not the only one in the group that thought the name Marshmallow was silly. We don't want this campaign to be a "silly" campaign. Yes, we have comedy relief in this campaign. No, Roger Rabbit antics are not our form of comedy relief in this campaign.



> The bad DM says "No,"




So any time a player doesn't get his way, the DM is being a bad DM? I don't agree with that at all.



> I still don't see the issue with "Marshmallow," and I don't think the player did either.




Everyone will have their own opinion on what is silly and what isn't. I shouldn't have to defend my opinion to the player beyond saying that I just don't want to hear a stupid name that fits more in a Loony Tunes episode rather than a Star Wars movie. But I tried to explain why I thought it was silly (which is very hard to do). When I innocently _tried_ to explain it, she called me sexist in return. 



> And the DM hasn't really offered a reason for it as well, other then "It didn't fit the tone."  All we know is that the DM said "No, screw you, that's banned."




Nope, I always try to be nice when I have to say "no". Just because a player didn't get their way doesn't mean I'm a jerk that said "screw you". I hate telling a player no. One of the best pieces of advice I got on Enworld years ago was, "Always try to say yes." 

See, I've dealt with a lot of players with bad gaming habits. One player type that doesn't fit in with our group is the "selfish" type. I actually do give players a lot of things they ask for during character creation. I even offer them things they didn't ask for. I put together a list of about 35 PC races to choose from and I have never turned down a PrC or class request. I use magic items from the DMG & MIC. Sometimes, that's not even enough for selfish players. They'll still beg me to give them magic items from a different book or allow a race not on my list. I would even run a particular adventure if they asked me to. I would even stop running certain types of encounters if they didn't like them. The thing is, selfish players *never* acknowledge all the times I've said "yes". But boy, they are sure quick to criticize me when I say "no". 

I think "it doesn't fit the tone because it is too silly" is the best reason I can give. That should be good enough for you. The only thing I feel obligated doing after that is explaining why I think it's silly...which I did for the OP. When she still complained at the table about it, I also told her that it sounded too modern to me. So she immediately got on her cellphone to check on the internet when the marshmallow was invented. I understand plenty of players have no problem pulling this crap, but I would never do this to a DM. Once he said "no", that's cool with me. I'm not going to be fussy and try to prove him wrong in hopes that I'll get my way.  

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. The OP even played that game and then admitted right in this thread that it was a silly name. She knew what she was doing; she wanted to have a theme going where each of her animal companions had a "quirky" name. She found it amusing and I found it over the top. We all know what her intent was, so questioning me on why I wouldn't allow it is pointless.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Feb 20, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Isn't acknowledging and/or validating a player's input one of a DM's responsibilities?



Your question is too vague.  What does "acknowledge" mean in this context?  What does "validate" mean?  If it means the DM _must_ accept the player's input, then no, that is not one of a DM's responsibilities.  If it simply means the DM is obliged to hear out the player and give his input fair consideration, I'd agree that it is one of the DM's responsibilities.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> And maybe this is core of our disagreement. It stops being the "DM's world" as soon as her or she lets the players into it...the minute I agree to run a campaign in one, that world becomes _ours_.



This is indeed the core of our disagreement.  I do not agree that it ceases to be the "DM's world" as soon as he allows players into it.  And while I, personally, do refer to campaigns I run as "ours," I certainly don't mean "equally ours."  I mean "ours" in the same sense that the house my kids and I live in is "ours" -- that is, it's _mine,_ but I let them live in it and want them to feel like they belong there.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 20, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Banning a bear named _Marshmallow_ is a bit too much in my opinion.




Depends on the campaign, the tone of play, and the PC.

For example, Marshmallow might be OK as the name of a bear owned by a flighty gnome jokester in many campaigns.

But as the name of a bear owned by a grim half-orc marauder of some sort, it probably doesn't fit the character.

As the DM in that situation, I'd ask: "Why does Thordar the Barbarian want to give his bear a silly name?"

I'd hope for an answer like, "It's not a silly name to Thordar . . . it's to honor the human nun who gave him a marshmallow in his hot chocolate at the orphanage"  or "It's not after the candy, which of course doesn't exist in this world, it's after the marsh plant.  Thordar likes marshes."

Either way would be fine with me -- the first is actually kinda awesome, combining real role playing for the PC with silliness from a player perspective is fine to me.  I probably wouldn't even point out that IMC chocolate is a high valuable trade good, only from volcanic islands in the Dramidj Ocean . . . it does exist, and marshmallows (from the plant) are possible, so OK.  Heck, I could even build around that -- how the heck did the nun get some chocolate?  Hmmm, a gate in the orphanage basement?  Hmm . . .


----------



## Engilbrand (Feb 20, 2009)

haakon1, that's some awesome stuff right there. I find myself wanting to do something like that in one of our more serious games. It's awesome.

Oryan77, you said that you shouldn't have to defend yourself to someone when they ask you why you won't allow something. I disagree heavily with that. While I disagree quite a bit with your method of DMing that you've mentioned, this is where I have the biggest problem. I hate being told to do something without a reason. When I ask, it's so that I can understand. I have ADD. In me, it means that anything I don't get starts to confuse and anger me. I'm a teacher. I've been given conflicting instructions by the principal before and got in trouble later because they didn't jibe in my mind and I screwed up both of them. When I sit down to role-play for fun, I like to have a lot of creative control. I'll throw out a few ideas, see if the DM has any problems, and go from there. If there's something that I really want to do, and he doesn't want it, I will ask for a reason. If he refuses to give one beyond, "No me gusta." then we have a problem and I have no problem arguing. It's a good gaming group of friends, so this sort of thing isn't a game killer.
If there's an established world, plot, and tone, then I'll agree with you that someone purposely being goofy is an annoyance. But, 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.


----------



## Maggan (Feb 20, 2009)

Engilbrand said:


> When I sit down to role-play for fun, I like to have a lot of creative control. I'll throw out a few ideas, see if the DM has any problems, and go from there. If there's something that I really want to do, and he doesn't want it, I will ask for a reason. If he refuses to give one beyond, "No me gusta." then we have a problem and I have no problem arguing.




Now, I'm not Oryan, but I can easily see a situation where a DM just don't want to do something without having a reason other than gut feeling. At least when I DM/GM, some of the calls I make are off the cuff, based on experience and my skill in creating a good game for my players.

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 not that logical and reasoned when I play or design, and to me, that's what makes it interesting. And I believe that my players feel the same thing.

/M


----------



## Engilbrand (Feb 20, 2009)

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. I'll never play another game run by one of the guys because I've been in them before and he's too focused on what I view as the "wrong things". He's a great player, though, so I don't usually have a problem with him in a game unless he's got his laptop and WoW going.
For the rest, we're very open to things and rarely get turned down. I'm in an FR game one guy is running. I decided that I would play 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.
That's how most of our stuff happens now. Everyone comes up with ideas, and the DM finds ways to mix things in.
For a different game, we're doinga  Buffy/Angel thing using Unisystem. I through out an idea with some stuff that wasn't in the books. We spent about 10 minutes hashing things out. There was even a part before we started playing where he asked a random question that tied into the module he was running. "Who has a connection to an Irish Pub in the city?" Just like that, my Contact dots became the Pub owner and I created the background for it, turning it into a "human-form demon" bar and a secondary base.

My group obviously looks at things differently. Some of you guys seem to tell the players how everything is. The different DMs for my group throw out the idea, and the players start to do a lot of creating. When you set limits, it's easier to say no. When you open it up to people you trust, there's no reason.
You also have to keep in mind that none of us will go out of their way to purposely go against everything that's established without good reason. For the Buffy/Angel game, 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.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 20, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2009)

Engilbrand said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2009)

Mallus said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2009)

Engilbrand said:


> 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.



Maggan said:


> 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. 



Mallus said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2009)

Maggan said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2009)

Maggan said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2009)

Engilbrand said:


> 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 (Feb 21, 2009)

Mallus said:


> 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.



Mallus said:


> 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 (Feb 21, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> 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.


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 21, 2009)

But What's a marshmallow? does it exist in this world, if not its a silly name.  

Now, some campaigns are serious, some aren't.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 21, 2009)

Maggan said:


> 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.



The point was the DM can establish a distinctive campaign tone without resorting to banning player names they don't like (the particular tone of my campaign, charming as it may be, is irrelevant). 



> But a PC has about a thousand times more screen time than your black magician Dr. Mephisophocles.



Are you really claiming player-authored names get more screen time than DM-authored ones? The DM gets to name every NPC in the game and in the case of homebrew settings, every country, continent, constellation, ocean, large rock outcropping, etc.



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



While I agree 'Sacher Torte' would be more appropriate, would a name like Marshmallow really do egregious harm to your WHFR campaign?


----------



## Mallus (Feb 21, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> But What's a marshmallow? does it exist in this world, if not its a silly name.



A name can work on multiple levels. It be can a pleasant arrangement of syllables to the _character_ and a meaningful --even funny-- reference to the _player_. 

Take the name of my aforementioned NPC, Dr. Mephisophocles. It _sounds_ like an appropriate name for a scholarly magician, and if you don't recognize the two famous names I smooshed together to form it, that's all it would be.


----------



## Maggan (Feb 21, 2009)

Mallus said:


> The point was the DM can establish a distinctive campaign tone without resorting to banning player names they don't like (the particular tone of my campaign, charming as it may be, is irrelevant).




Sure, and no one has disputed that point.



Mallus said:


> Are you really claiming player-authored names get more screen time than DM-authored ones?




Yes. The PCs are the stars. They will appear in any story more frequently than any NPC.

If they don't, I have to ask for an example, because I just can't see the situation where an NPC gets more screen time than the PCs in a campaign, without the players walking out.



> While I agree 'Sacher Torte' would be more appropriate, would a name like Marshmallow really do egregious harm to your WHFR campaign?




Yes. My gut feeling is that we have more fun without "Marshmallow". My gut feeling has guided us through 20 years of WFRP campaigns, so my gut feeling for what makes a campaign tick for us is fairly accurate.

Conversely, would disallowing "Marshmallow" bring your campaign to a grinding halt?

/M


----------



## Vegepygmy (Feb 21, 2009)

Mallus said:


> The point was the DM can establish a distinctive campaign tone without resorting to banning player names they don't like (the particular tone of my campaign, charming as it may be, is irrelevant).



EDIT: (I'll dispute it, Maggan.)

Uhm, no. A silly campaign (such as yours) can have serious names on occasion and still remain silly, but a serious campaign that has silly names on occasion will probably not remain serious.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Are you really claiming player-authored names get more screen time than DM-authored ones?



I believe he is claiming that any given player-authored name is likely to get much more screen time than any given DM-authored one...which I completely agree with.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> The DM gets to name every NPC in the game and in the case of homebrew settings, every country, continent, constellation, ocean, large rock outcropping, etc.



Yep. And few (if any) of those names will be uttered by anyone at the gaming table more often than will the names of the PCs and their pets.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> While I agree 'Sacher Torte' would be more appropriate, would a name like Marshmallow really do egregious harm to your WHFR campaign?



Why does it have to be "egregious" harm? _Any_ harm should be sufficient to justify a ban, since (1) it's so easy to avoid the harm by picking a different, appropriate name, and (2) only a jerk would want to do _any_ harm to the DM's campaign.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 21, 2009)

Personally I like moments of levity to alleviate the grinding seriousness of my campaign...


----------



## Maggan (Feb 21, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> EDIT: (I'll dispute it, Maggan.)






Great points as well!

/M


----------

