DM Control: How Much is Too Much

[Vella_Malachite]

Question for all the more experienced DMs out there:

Basic story; I keep getting these wonderful plot ideas, that I can create wonderful and detailed campaigns from, and things shall be glorious and all that guff.

The problem is, I have a feeling that writing has gotten to my ideas a little bit, because my characters often end up with starting restrictions on them: the last one was that there were no magic-users, since the world was very low in magic (before the demons and insanity broke in, that is...muhahaha). The players have said that this works rather well, as it heightens the horror aspect of the campaign and makes them feel truly helpless and insignificant in the face of these world-shaking changes. TBH, this was the effect I was going for, and it works really well.

But how much control is too much? The recent idea I came up with (for after this campaign is finished) is a campaign where the characters are actually poppets created by a wizard, whose sole purpose in life is to find the lost city of Baudelaire (this came to me in that strange, half-awake time of the morning, and so help me, I can't change that name now). Is dictating that the characters have no memories of their past, have no names, are wearing two strange necklaces each, and giving them the characteristics of wizard-made poppets too much to begin with?

tl;dr: How much control over how the players create their characters should a DM have, and how much can the plot control their creation choices?

[shatterspike1]

As much as your players are okay with. In this case, I'd just ask them if they were okay with creating and role playing said wizard-puppet character types in a way that doesn't spoil the plot for them.

[Mnemnosyne]

It really depends on the game. Also in my case (if I was your player) would depend on how long I've been playing with you and how confident I am that you're going to hand me an interesting character to play and that the story will be worth the loss of character creation control.

Talk to the players, tell them you have an idea for a campaign that requires them to have particular backgrounds (or lack thereof) and you think it's going to be interesting that way.

For instance, how much character creation would be theirs to do? Will they choose their own character classes and feats to start with? Again taking myself for an example, I would have to be very confident that you're going to give me a good story before I would want to play a character I didn't at least choose my class and starting feats on. But if I can pick those basic mechanics and you've given me a good campaign or two before, I wouldn't mind playing with unknown backgrounds.

[Vella_Malachite]

For instance, how much character creation would be theirs to do? Will they choose their own character classes and feats to start with? Again taking myself for an example, I would have to be very confident that you're going to give me a good story before I would want to play a character I didn't at least choose my class and starting feats on. But if I can pick those basic mechanics and you've given me a good campaign or two before, I wouldn't mind playing with unknown backgrounds.

I'm only taking away the character backgrounds and such; they can choose class, race, feats, skills, everything else (although it will be made clear that their characters won't know these things they've chosen). I'd like to think that my players trust me to make it interesting; they've expressed nothing but satisfaction with the plot I'm giving them at the moment, and all my adventures are very plot-based, so if they don't like the plot, there's really very little I can do right :smalltongue:.

[Gabe the Bard]

The scenario with the lost city sounds like it would be fun to play.

I think whatever you do with character creation is fine as long as you give the players freedom to interpret their characters in whatever situation they fine themselves in. They may have different ideas of what it means to be a wizard-made poppet. Some of them may want to follow their creator's command to the letter, others may try to break free and find their own purpose in life. It wouldn't be fun if I wanted play the latter but the DM told me that I couldn't because my poppet traits don't give me any free will.

[Vella_Malachite]

The scenario with the lost city sounds like it would be fun to play.

I think whatever you do with character creation is fine as long as you give the players freedom to interpret their characters in whatever situation they fine themselves in. They may have different ideas of what it means to be a wizard-made poppet. Some of them may want to follow their creator's command to the letter, others may try to break free and find their own purpose in life. It wouldn't be fun if I wanted play the latter but the DM told me that I couldn't because my poppet traits don't give me any free will.

This is an incredibly valid point, and something that I'm quite paranoid about it, after the railroadiness of my first campaign. The way I envisaged it, all I'm telling them is what they start off the campaign with; what happens to them after that is up to them. What I meant by 'poppet traits' was more like they don't bleed when they get cut, when they go to sleep, instead of dreaming, they see through the eyes of the actual dolls on the wizard's wall, that sort of thing. Of course, disobeying their master might be difficult, but it's unlikely to be impossible.

[Coidzor]

Generally, when you have to ask, that's a sign of going on the far side.

If you think your players would enjoy it, go for it.

But if your players would enjoy it, but want confirmation, why not just ask them?

[Totally Guy]

This is about player buy in.

You tell the group about the campaign you have in mind and if the players are all bought in then you have no trouble.

There's nothing wrong with doing this.

Be wary of keeping things like the campaign premise a secret. It turns your game pitch into a bait and switch and they tend to suck as players buy into one situation and then are presented with another which they are not bought into.

[Knaight]

But if your players would enjoy it, but want confirmation, why not just ask them?

At character creation in particular, this is a must. Run the general concept by the players, if they like it, go with that one, if they don't move to the next.

[GolemsVoice]

As long as I get to pick the character I'm playing, and get to have general free will, I'd be ok with most things, provided you asked the players beforehand and gave a rough outline of what you have planned. If I knew you and knew you were a fair DM and a good storyteller, I'd give you more leeway, of course, since I would trust you to still make the game enjoyable. As others have said, anything your players agree to is fine, and since you're asking here, you seem to be the type of DM that would tone it down if she finds out the players don't enjoy the game.

Generally, I'm ok with the DM having a lot of control, but I'm very touchy when it comes to my character, since it is the only thing I have power over, while the DM gets to run everything else. I'm quite averse to a DM forcing his story on me, I've had a WoD Storyteller where I had the feeling that he just wanted to tell a story, but instead of writing it down, he pushed the PCs around like chess pieces. Very fitting for a Vampire game, but still frustrating, since the adventures often consisted of running from one Cool-NPC-the-DM-wants-to-use to the next, all the while being fed secrets whose true significance only the DM could appreciate.

[Totally Guy]

Generally, I'm ok with the DM having a lot of control, but I'm very touchy when it comes to my character, since it is the only thing I have power over, while the DM gets to run everything else.

You have far more control than you realise. By making your goals explicit you can ask for the act of pursuing them to be part of the game. The GM can then work in your priorities straight in. Essentially you can control direction through being pro-active and communicating your priorities.

[Vella_Malachite]

Thanks for the responses, guys. I was always planning on checking if the players were OK playing backstory-less characters, it was just if other people who could know the whole story thought I was going too far. Generally, I like to believe that if I make my players happy, the campaign is more fun.

So, thanks for the answers, good to know I'm at least on the right track for a still-entertaining campaign.

[Victoria]

I might sound redundant at this point, but if you can find players who will find your campaign concept fun, then it doesn't matter what the content is, since if the players and DM all like it, that's all that matters.

Of course, that's conventional wisdom rather unrelated to your specific question. It might sound simplistic, but one could summarize it as, "How do you think the average player might find X campaign concept interesting?"

To think about it that way, in the case of your concept presented, I personally sound like it could be fun. Probably a minority (though a fairly large minority, I'm estimating rather out of nowhere about 40%) of players would potentially agree with me though.

[Reluctance]

When you're pitching a campaign, you have infinite ability to control the premise. Players can then go for it or not, and if people want different things, you can try to be inclusive or compromise.

The two pitfalls you want to avoid are being too controlling during the course of the game, and giving too weak an initial idea. (Starting a campaign with nothing more than "everybody show up with a character" is one of the best ways to guarantee imbalance and lack of cohesion.) Having a limiting campaign pitch works better when you've proven that you're good enough and that you're not just trying to use limitations to make your campaign "unique". Still, giving an idea what people should expect before marking up a character sheet isn't overly controlling. It's good DMing.

[DiBastet]

As most said, it's about having fun. If you say it's a campaign about samurai clans of rokugan, where everybody is samurai, people will understand it's about samurai. It's a different campaign from a campaign that is simply on rokugan, so all classes are okay.

It depends on the group, but for D&D I understand most players are okay if the restrictions are given in context and beforehand. I don't see this being the case with hardcore WoD players (try saying "it's a story with these three tribes / tradition / monster species / clans, so you can only be of these three", and you'll have a lot of groans around with most WoD players), but DnD tend to be more reasonable.

[TriForce]

Normally, id say the amount of control a DM should have is "as least as possible" since its more fun if the players feel like they have a lot of freedom. however, with character creation, i am of the opinion that its ok for a DM to pose SOME restrictions if they are thematically appropriate. in a world where all the orc were killed for instance, its not really normal to play one. on the other hand, telling them flat out "no" isnt something id normally do. if the group is experienced, id just warn them about the setting, and if they still wanted to play it, id just allow it.

[Jay R]

If the plot works that way, and the players accept it, it's fine. There's no one level of control that is "right" in all circumstances.

In the last game I ran, each character was required to start as a servant to a high-level wandering hero, thousands of miles from home and cut off from any social structure except the heroes they each served. (In the first adventure, the seven great heroes met for the first time in decades to prevent a major problem, and were soon all killed together, leaving a bunch of first levels to complete the quest.)

In my next game, I'm going to tell everyone, "You can play the background you choose. If you want to be the last remaining dwarf, out to get revenge on the genocidal ogres, fine - there will be no other dwarves. You're still first levels, and if you want to be the son of a king, then the king was deposed and you'll have to win back the kingdom when you're high enough level, but first you design the characters, and then I'll build the world's backstory to make it fit."

I'm doing it primarily because I've always designed the world first and forced the characters to be consistent with it. I want to see what happens I do it the other way around.

How much control over how the players create their characters should a DM have, and how much can the plot control their creation choices?
The plot never has too much control over the players. Or too little. It always has exactly as much as control as the DM intends.

[Hyudra]

I think restrictions, boundaries, can actually heighten creativity, up to a point.

It's like... you tell an artist to create anything, in any medium and that artist may well struggle to produce something. Especially if he or she knows that peers are going to judge it.

But tell that artist to work within a certain theme, or with certain materials, and ideas may abound, depending.

So I think that some restrictions on a D&D game are fine. Tell your players they're members of a small orc tribe struggling to survive on the periphery of a civilization, and I'd bet they have a lot of ideas on who they might be in that tribe and what their role was.

This only works up to a point, though. If you're stifling ideas players have, beyond establishing a basic framework, you might have an issue.

[Knaight]

So I think that some restrictions on a D&D game are fine. Tell your players they're members of a small orc tribe struggling to survive on the periphery of a civilization, and I'd bet they have a lot of ideas on who they might be in that tribe and what their role was.

Or rather, propose this to them. "Next game, you are members of a small orc tribe struggling to survive on the periphery of civilization" is a bit heavy handed. However, "One of the possible concepts is to play as members of a small orc tribe struggling to survive on the periphery of civilization; is everyone alright with that?" is absolutely fine.

[Talyn]

No such thing as too much control, so long as everyone knows about it going in - telling them you are going for a very free form game and THEN setting severe limits isn't kosher, but after warning them in advance, pretty much any agreed-upon restrictions are fair game.

Remember - while you do share your game environment with your players, you as the GM have the greatest responsibility towards crafting the world. More control means you are better able to tell the story you want to tell.

[Dingle]

I've played quite a few games where I had 0 control over my initial charachter. (all pregenerated by the GM, and I was just handed one)
The games were all fun.

I think that any amount of restrictions on initial charachters are fine; it's restrictions of actions during the game that you might have a problem with.

[valadil]

I agree with everyone that this is all about how you pitch it. Tell the players your premise. Tell them the themes they'll encounter. Then tell them to make a character who can work with that.

Different characters fit different adventures. I once played a cult leader in a Mage game. The GM didn't know what to do with a cult leader so he threw me in prison every episode. It was kind of cute as a running gag except that I only participated in a quarter of the game, and that's on a good day. I'd much rather he rejected the character and said it didn't fit. Better still would be if he told me what to sort of game it was ahead of time.

One thing you always want to avoid is bait and switch. It's okay to surprise the players, but it's not okay to remove the things they're emotionally invested in. I think you're at a point where your game could be a bait and switch, but if you set it up right it will be a cool surprise instead.

[Shadowknight12]

There is no blanket answer. Each player has their own threshold and you really have to talk to them beforehand to give them a chance to bow out of the game if they don't agree with the level of control you're having over their characters.

I, for example, have very, very little tolerance for DM control over my character, and I would very much like to get a chance to bow out before the game begins if that's going to be an issue.

[prufock]

Q1: How much control over how the players create their characters should a DM have

Short answer: None.
Long answer: None, but...

The "but" covers exceptional circumstances, which should be infrequent and limited duration. Certain spells can override the players' control of their characters, for example. Your premise doesn't sound like something I would be interested in playing, but it also depends on your players. They should know what they're getting into. If they agree then no problem.

Q2: how much can the plot control their creation choices
Short answer: None.
Long answer: None, but...

The "but" in this case covers the idea that SETTING can control their choices. I don't think plot should, as the players won't really know the plot, but they should be informed about the setting. In some settings, certain things just aren't available. If they are okay with these restrictions, no problem. Just make sure they are open to the setting beforehand.

Personal opinion: I'm absolutely fine with making character choices within a setting, if I like the setting. However, I have very little time for a GM making character decisions FOR me, outside of temporary effects. I would be VERY hesitant to play a game where I was given no opportunity to craft my own back story, personality, and memory. These things help me identify with a character. Fine for a one-shot, or a published module that isn't expected to last long, but not good for a long-term campaign.

[Yora]

I always plan campaigns in a way that the players have only limited choices of races and classes to chose from and can not just use anything that has ever been printed.

Ever time there is going to be a new campaign, I first ask all the players, what kind of game they would like to play, in what kind of environment with what types of characters and with which themes.
And even though I started about 10 campaigns and played with about 20 people, never, not even once, did I get any reply but "We don't care, do whatever you want."

All I can do is ask them. If they refuse to name any preferences they have, then I will set the parameters as I see fit. So far, nobody has ever complained.

[molten_dragon]

Generally I've found that D&D works best when the DM and players work together to create a fun game. So the best thing to do here would just be to explain the idea behind the campaign to the players, and say "in order to do this the way I want to, I'm going to have to restrict you in ways x, y, and z at character creation, is that going to work alright with everyone?" If so, then you're fine, if not, then maybe you need to come up with something else.

Personally? I'd probably give the puppet game a shot. I'm usually too lazy to write much of a backstory anyway.