Are all DM's control freaks?

[BrokenChord]

I think it's generally just good form not to check your phone at the gaming table, it's sort of annoying if a player consistently rolls the dice off the table and makes somebody get up to retrieve them, and at the very least I do tell my players not to look at one another's character sheets without that player's permission, though I don't personally care if they all decide that right after their characters meet, they want to pass their sheet around the table as a substitute for telling them everything about themselves. Players at my tables do reserve the right not to share their sheet if, for example, they're actively hiding something like possession of a certain item or even what their entire class combination is (for example, I once had a game with a Rogue/Cloistered Cleric with the domain(s?) that give the Cleric class bunches of Rogue skills including Hide and a Dragon Magazine feat that stacks cleric levels with Rogue levels for determining Sneak Attack damage, and he was basically pulling a farce of being a pure Rogue for plot reasons, which would've had a way less effective reveal if the other players had known) or even if they're just passively not revealing something, like parts of their backstory.

Other than that, I agree, the stuff you listed is quite ridiculous.

[azoetia]

Goodness, guys...
Fallen asleep? I sympathise (I work long hours and our games are necessarily in the evening). This is a social activity that's intended to be fun, not a primary school class.

Sleeping isn't a social activity. If someone would prefer to sleep than game then he or she should stay home and sleep.

If it happens once in a while it's not a big deal; an overworked person can accidentally fall asleep at the table despite having every intention of participating fully. I have a problem with habitual sleepers and will DM-smite them.

[Jay R]

Quick pause to add the results and I'm back onto what I was doing before.

Exactly. Your contribution to the complex game in front of us has been reduced to a "quick pause to add the results", so you can get back onto what you were doing before, which clearly is not the social game the rest of us are doing.

[Nagash]

I'm colorblind, so when I GM, I ask the players to not use certain dice. No player has ever had an issue with this, because most of them collect dice and the few who don't, borrow. Does sound like you've had some awful GM experiences. Usually those GMs get that way from trying to compensate for awful players.

Also, to agree with Knaight: What if I was on a basketball team, and took out my phone and started texting right there on the court, just because I didn't have the ball? Sure, it sounds silly, but it isn't any different. You're either engaged in a team activity, or you aren't.

its not like basketball at all. Over the years I've had plenty of players that as soon as the party hits town declare "i'm going to the bar to get drunk and hit on all the women" we dont need to play that out. so the other players who might actually be doing something interesting get the spotlight. and bar guy? go ahead, text away.

Because the right analogy is actually football. Sometimes your team has the ball and your up, other times your sitting on the bench watching anyway. So who cares what your doing on the bench?

[Amphetryon]

its not like basketball at all. Over the years I've had plenty of players that as soon as the party hits town declare "i'm going to the bar to get drunk and hit on all the women" we dont need to play that out. so the other players who might actually be doing something interesting get the spotlight. and bar guy? go ahead, text away.

Because the right analogy is actually football. Sometimes your team has the ball and your up, other times your sitting on the bench watching anyway. So who cares what your doing on the bench?

It matters because you're always on the offense when the rest of the people in your group are on offense (and on defense when the rest of your group is on defense), unless you're commonly splitting the party. If your character concept truly is "bench warmer," then you're not likely to be what most around here consider a team player.

[Aedilred]

Because the right analogy is actually football. Sometimes your team has the ball and your up, other times your sitting on the bench watching anyway. So who cares what your doing on the bench?

I expect most coaches worth their salt, not to mention the rest of the players, would rather someone on the bench was engaged in what's going on in front of them and paying attention, at least to the extent of knowing the game situation and having made his own assessments of the opponents' capabilities, so that he's ready to go when called upon, rather than needing it all explained to him every time he comes on and off. Rather than texting, or reading a newspaper, or watching cat videos.

[melquisedeq]

I expect most coaches worth their salt, not to mention the rest of the players, would rather someone on the bench was engaged in what's going on in front of them and paying attention, at least to the extent of knowing the game situation and having made his own assessments of the opponents' capabilities, so that he's ready to go when called upon, rather than needing it all explained to him every time he comes on and off. Rather than texting, or reading a newspaper, or watching cat videos.

Anyone who's ever even just passively watched a sport, ever (yes, even while texting) will have noticed that bench players focus 100% on the game, will cheer and suffer through their mates' ups and downs, and often even get emotionally involved to the point of actually getting physically involved and risking serious penalties for it. This goes for any team sport, anywhere, it's common etiquette.

Failing to observe and display this basic etiquette always elicits outrage from everyone else involved in the game (from colleagues to commentators to fans), and I've never seen it done out of genuine disregard or obliviousness or non-malicious disinterest, it is ALWAYS a "penis move" from a player deliberately and unequivocally trying to let his displeasure be known. Displeasure specifically directed at his teammates, or his coach, or something else on his side of the game, mind you, not the opposition.

So yeah, it's undeniably accurate to say that not paying attention to the game is a couple of middle-fingers raised to your fellow players.

[Exediron]

Because the right analogy is actually football. Sometimes your team has the ball and your up, other times your sitting on the bench watching anyway. So who cares what your doing on the bench?

It's a perfectly fine analogy, but it just underlines how disrespectful your position here is. When you stop paying attention the moment you're not directly involved it sends a distinct message of disrespect to everyone else at the table. Unless they're equally selfish, then it probably bothers them that people aren't paying any attention to the effort they're putting into planning, playing their character, or whatever other activity that they believe is interesting they're partaking in. Most people aren't doing it purely for themselves.

And to take the football analogy a step further, one of the big reasons players on the bench do pay attention is because they might be called on to rejoin the action any time; likewise as a player, you might join the action any time, and when you do if you've been paying attention you'll know what's going on and you won't slow down the game for everyone who was actually a part of it.

[Jay R]

Because the right analogy is actually football. Sometimes your team has the ball and your up, other times your sitting on the bench watching anyway. So who cares what your doing on the bench?

If you have a full-time coach whose job is to tell you what to do each play, and you are not supposed to be involved with the planning, that makes sense. (Although a competent coach ignores the guy on the bench who doesn't focus on the field, and puts in the substitute who is invested in the game.)

Really - watch the guys on the bench some time. They are studying plays, talking to the coaches, coordinating with each other. They aren't playing with their smart phones.

If you are in charge of what your character does, and you're part of the team making long-term strategic plans for the party, then not paying attention is forfeiting one of your responsibilities.

[The Insanity]

If you have a full-time coach whose job is to tell you what to do each play, and you are not supposed to be involved with the planning, that makes sense. (Although a competent coach ignores the guy on the bench who doesn't focus on the field, and puts in the substitute who is invested in the game.)

Really - watch the guys on the bench some time. They are studying plays, talking to the coaches, coordinating with each other. They aren't playing with their smart phones.

If you are in charge of what your character does, and you're part of the team making long-term strategic plans for the party, then not paying attention is forfeiting one of your responsibilities.

The problem with that analogy is that one is a job while the other is just a hobby.

[Jay R]

The problem with that analogy is that one is a job while the other is just a hobby.

Nonsense. It's equally true in high school games or amateur leagues.

Yes, it's a hobby. But the hobby involves making group decisions. If you aren't gathering all the data, you're forfeiting the responsibility to be ready to help make group decisions.

[Alejandro]

I appreciate the support. :) I hadn't even considered the bench analogy, but it's an excellent one. When I used the basketball example, I wasn't even thinking of that; I was just considering the players who are actually on the court. Yes, only one of them has the ball at any given moment, but that doesn't mean the others aren't doing anything...far from it. Same with a group of PCs/players. Even if only one character is currently 'doing something', that doesn't mean the other players should just disengage entirely. What if that PC suddenly needs help? What if the GM realizes 'hey, I am making everyone else sit there while Dirk Flexface resolves this, time to throw in a complication that shakes things up?' As others noted, if you were paying attention, you can immediately react, and not have that dazed "I was looking at my phone" expression.

A basketball game and a roleplaying group are both hobbies. (American) culture just so far sees fit to pay people to play basketball or football and watch it on TV, more than a tabletop game. However, things are changing...as a partial example, video games are basically the national sport of South Korea now.

[Knaight]

Nonsense. It's equally true in high school games or amateur leagues.

Yes, it's a hobby. But the hobby involves making group decisions. If you aren't gathering all the data, you're forfeiting the responsibility to be ready to help make group decisions.

Heck, it's true in pickup games. You've got a group of people who have gathered to go do a thing. As such, they should do the thing. If they want to spectate, then they should be a spectator. In a ball game setting, that means not being a player. In an RPG setting that also means not being a player.

[xroads]

So, I have been trying to find a new game group and have tried several and this has been the first time I have been a PC for a number of years, and I am shocked to find out how many inane rules my fellow DM's have...

Wow. No, I can't say I have DMs that bad. The biggest "control freak" member of my current group would be me. And my only rule is don't play video games or watch video on your tablet while I'm running the game. That's only because it's distracting for me and other players.

But here are some of my suggested responses to your DMs...

• Telling players what color / style of dice to use and how to roll them.
  Respond by saying "That's a great color! And can you make sure to wrap them with a nice bow when you buy them for me?"
• Refusing to let players add up the numbers on their own character sheets
  Tape a calculator/table around your arm like a shield, jump onto the table, and start shouting "Libertas enim aequationes! Sit math libera!"
• Refusing to let the players look at the rule books (even their own) without permission
  Disguise your book to look like "Fahrenheit 451". Then when the DM makes mistake, say to him "But on page 101, Ray Bradbury says..."

No but seriously, most DM's aren't that bad. But if you keep finding the bad ones, just remember that there are always other options. Even if it's just to go home and blast zombies on your console of choice.

[Talakeal]

On the topic of phone emergencies, while it isn't a matter of life and death, I have had plenty of times when someone needed to take a call during a game and it was important enough to pause or even end the game for. They aren't matters of life or death, but I have had plenty of occasions where someone's family members needed to get ahold of them for a minor emergency like a flooded basement, a lost dog, a broke down car, a forgotten appointment, or the like. All things that are every bit as important as playing a game. I remember one time when a player's best friend's boyfriend had just broken up with her and she just needed someone to talk to, and I made the call to end the game session early so he could go home to see her in person.

That's something that bothered me with Talakeal's response - if the game has you just rolling dice without explanation, with everything taken for granted, something's gone horribly wrong with the game. You've stopped Roleplaying, and have started ProgressQuesting.

Care to elaborate on that? Do you get the impression that we aren't describing our actions in a narrative sense, or do you think we are not speaking to each other at all and just each playing our own little game out in our heads?

Neither of those quite accurate, but I am not sure how to elaborate on the situation without a little more detail as to what is bothering you.

[Aedilred]

On the topic of phone emergencies, while it isn't a matter of life and death, I have had plenty of times when someone needed to take a call during a game and it was important enough to pause or even end the game for. They aren't matters of life or death, but I have had plenty of occasions where someone's family members needed to get ahold of them for a minor emergency like a flooded basement, a lost dog, a broke down car, a forgotten appointment, or the like. All things that are every bit as important as playing a game. I remember one time when a player's best friend's boyfriend had just broken up with her and she just needed someone to talk to, and I made the call to end the game session early so he could go home to see her in person.

Precisely. This is why I think any policy that bans phone use entirely, let alone confiscation and dismantling of phones, is unreasonable. Emergencies can happen and they're not predictable. Almost all of them are more important than the game. And while people might voluntarily choose to put themselves in a position where they're effectively unreachable, the key point is that that's their decision, not anyone else's. Obliging someone to do that where it isn't necessary is just a jerk move.

Equally, I think sitting there on the phone during any kind of face-to-face social interaction browsing your phone, texting, etc. is pretty damn rude. I had dinner with a couple tonight who came to physical (though non-serious) confrontation over this very issue.

I pretty much agree with melquisedeq's post on the subject in its entirety.

[Nagash]

It matters because you're always on the offense when the rest of the people in your group are on offense (and on defense when the rest of your group is on defense), unless you're commonly splitting the party. If your character concept truly is "bench warmer," then you're not likely to be what most around here consider a team player.

Thats really not at all true. Parties split up all the time, especially in town to do things like follow different clues or shop in different places. Some characters might have a home or business in town they go to check on and others just flop at the tavern.

I expect most coaches worth their salt, not to mention the rest of the players, would rather someone on the bench was engaged in what's going on in front of them and paying attention, at least to the extent of knowing the game situation and having made his own assessments of the opponents' capabilities, so that he's ready to go when called upon, rather than needing it all explained to him every time he comes on and off. Rather than texting, or reading a newspaper, or watching cat videos.

Nope, because see if your a defensive back then what the other teams safeties and line are doing have absolutely zero affect on your play.

Your not playing against them, your playing against the other teams offense. Which is on the other bench at the same time as you, waiting, just like you.

If you actually watch some sports, especially pro you'll notice those guys on the sidelines are usually doing something totally un-related to the game. Or at best they are reading over a play book or chatting with one of the coaches.

Hell if your party is split you really SHOULDNT be paying attention to the other players turns since your character isnt there and doesnt know whats going on.

[Sartharina]

Care to elaborate on that? Do you get the impression that we aren't describing our actions in a narrative sense, or do you think we are not speaking to each other at all and just each playing our own little game out in our heads?

The former - not having time to state your abilities made me think of a bunch of people staring at a board, rolling dice quickly and watching the numbers hawkishly, everyone knowing what's going on... with dice flying too fast for people to get a word in about what they mean edgewise.

On the topic of phone emergencies, while it isn't a matter of life and death, I have had plenty of times when someone needed to take a call during a game and it was important enough to pause or even end the game for. They aren't matters of life or death, but I have had plenty of occasions where someone's family members needed to get ahold of them for a minor emergency like a flooded basement, a lost dog, a broke down car, a forgotten appointment, or the like. All things that are every bit as important as playing a game. I remember one time when a player's best friend's boyfriend had just broken up with her and she just needed someone to talk to, and I made the call to end the game session early so he could go home to see her in person.

I can understand this, which is why I don't see phone dismantling as reasonable. However, confiscation may be in order (But emergencies can still get through) because there are a LOT of people with no phone discipline who will vehemently deny it even while trying to furiously text and not pay attention to what's going on.

[Aedilred]

Nope, because see if your a defensive back then what the other teams safeties and line are doing have absolutely zero affect on your play.

Your not playing against them, your playing against the other teams offense. Which is on the other bench at the same time as you, waiting, just like you.

If you actually watch some sports, especially pro you'll notice those guys on the sidelines are usually doing something totally un-related to the game. Or at best they are reading over a play book or chatting with one of the coaches.

I watch a lot of cricket, and have seen a fair amount of (association) football, to say nothing of other sports. For many players, there is a lot of sitting-around involved in both games, and even in cricket where players can be sitting around doing nothing for literally days they are still more often than not on the balcony watching the play, and many coaches expect that. Likewise in football there are usually nine or ten guys who know that in all likelihood they will not be playing, and they are expected to be - and are - still fully engaged in the match along with the coaching staff. Players have actually been dropped over disrespectful conduct while on the bench. I would honestly be surprised if any of the players had their phones with them, let alone get them out and play around with them during the game, whether on the field or not. I've certainly never seen it.

[Svata]

Well, first off, based on what you've said about him, your friend sounds like a self-righteous jerk. I'd take his opinions with a massive grain of salt to begin with. But snark aside...

My opinion on those house rules:



I could understand telling players WHERE to roll their dice (on the table, floor is reroll), but what color/style seems a little much.



Not giving them XP they didn't earn because they weren't there? Sure, that's fair. Removing XP they've already earned? Bad form.



Use all the meta terms you want OOC. No mentioning stuff like hit points IC. Forcing people who aren't comfortable with RPing their character to stay solely IC is not cool.



This entirely depends on the game and mood the group is trying to set. In beer and pretzel games it's ridiculous, in intrigue heavy games it's practically necessary.

-Refusing to let players take their character sheets home

I hold on to the master copy of my player's sheets when I GM solely so I can take their abilities into consideration when planning the next session. Plus, my players asked me to hold onto them. Outright refusing to let a player hold onto their sheet is uncool.



I... what? I can understand wanting to go over their numbers (especially if the player in question is bad at math), but refusing to let them do it themselves is a level of narcissistic control I (thankfully) haven't seen before.



I know the above isn't as much of a problem for me at the moment (I GM Savage Worlds primarily, there's not much in the way of rules or books to look at), but having played plenty of 3.5, abilities can get complicated. If you want to rules lawyer I'm going to put my foot down, but if you need to confirm how your character works I'm not going to disallow you. Within a reasonable time frame, obviously.



Beyond keeping first dibs on where I want/need to sit, I've never had to do anything like this. If I had two players that couldn't be sat next to each other, then they're either going to work their stuff out or one/both of them are no longer invited. I have no desire to play with people who can't act like grownups.



I have something similar to this rule. If I have to tell you multiple times to stop playing with your phone, it goes in the hat on top of the fridge for the rest of the session. If it rings, feel free to answer it, but I'm not putting up with you disrespecting me or the other players and killing the immersion.



Banning character options to help achieve the theme or setting of the campaign? Sure, I've done it. Refusing to provide any reasons for what you've banned? Bad form.



Making a rules call is a major part of what the GM is there for. Actively changing the rules during play, on the other hand, is a good indicator to stop playing with that GM. ESPECIALLY if they refuse to provide a reason, or are doing so in a vindictive manner.



The whole point of passive abilities is that they don't need to be declared. You want to use an active ability, you'd best let me know before the dice roll. Stuff that the book doesn't say you need to declare? Yeah, you don't have to. Special exception goes to Power Attack, which in my common experience is "On, unless otherwise declared."

All these are pretty much what I think as well, though dice color might be necessitated by someone using dice that are difficult to read. But so long as I can tell what it says and its on the table, its good.

[Amphetryon]

Thats really not at all true. Parties split up all the time, especially in town to do things like follow different clues or shop in different places. Some characters might have a home or business in town they go to check on and others just flop at the tavern.

If these things take up more time at the table than adventuring as a group, you're talking about a play experience so far removed from what my experience and reading tells me is 'typical' for gaming that we may as well be discussing different hobbies.

[comicshorse]

If these things take up more time at the table than adventuring as a group, you're talking about a play experience so far removed from what my experience and reading tells me is 'typical' for gaming that we may as well be discussing different hobbies.

I'd say that depends on the game you're playing. Certainly my experience would put individual RP'ing as taken up as much time as 'adventuring' as being the standard for the groups I game with

[Amphetryon]

I'd say that depends on the game you're playing. Certainly my experience would put individual RP'ing as taken up as much time as 'adventuring' as being the standard for the groups I game with

Is it then your contention that RPGs are not, as a majority, a group activity? If so, how would you classify them instead, and what specific RPGs are you referencing to reach that particular conclusion? If not, then what, precisely, are you disagreeing with regarding the point that RPGs are a group activity?

[The Insanity]

Is it then your contention that RPGs are not, as a majority, a group activity? If so, how would you classify them instead, and what specific RPGs are you referencing to reach that particular conclusion? If not, then what, precisely, are you disagreeing with regarding the point that RPGs are a group activity?

{{scrubbed}}

[LaserFace]

Even the most atrocious DMs I've had weren't the sort of control freaks we're discussing in this thread. I'd say their biggest faults were that they were Just Stupid.

I've never had the urge to ban phones or books or whatever at the table. I don't really establish "rules", apart from encouraging the players to approach the game as a group activity. Work together. Don't metagame. Don't be an annoying prick. There isn't much to it, beyond that. If I do something that departs from a previous ruling, I explain my thoughts (maybe we actually got it wrong last time). If I think something is dumb, and don't want it in the campaign, I ask the players how they'd feel about it being absent (ie the Dragonborn race).

I DM because I want to give my friends a good time, and spare them the really ****ty D&D experiences I've had as a player. I approach it honestly and with some deal of effort, and I think it prevents most of the need for really controlling anything, because it seems the players want to work with me whenever they can. Overall, I think D&D goes very well at our table because we all trust each other and want to contribute to a group experience, as friends. I consider myself very fortunate to be part of my current group.

I think some DMs might be controlling when they feel other players aren't giving the game respect; maybe their first thoughts aren't about how their game fails to draw the appeal they want it to (and that lack of appeal invites distraction or poor attitude), but rather they focus on how obnoxious the players are. I know when I was young and new to DMing, the idea of controlling my players was much more appealing, because they were a bunch of knobs. But, while they were knobs, I was also just a bad DM, so, I don't think there was much helpful encouragement going either direction.

For those of you who are unfortunately encountering these situations, I recommend trying to communicate your honest feelings or find better parties. Although, sadly, I find communication will only work with some people, certainly not with DMs who are Just Stupid.

So, my advice is play with friends, or people who you can befriend.

[comicshorse]

Is it then your contention that RPGs are not, as a majority, a group activity?

It isn't, I just feel it isn't necessary for all the P.C.s to be involved in the action for every second of every session and neither does anyone I currently game with, or gamed with in the recent past (roughly 20 or so people).
RP'ing involving just one (or two or three) of the group pursuing their own goals is important (IMHO) to help develop both their characters and the world in more depth

If so, how would you classify them instead, and what specific RPGs are you referencing to reach that particular conclusion?

This holds true for every game I play or GM ( and have played in the recent past) Vampire, Cyberpunk, Changeling, Warhammer, Victorianna, Serenity etc

If not, then what, precisely, are you disagreeing with regarding the point that RPGs are a group activity?

I wasn't

[Amphetryon]

{{scrubbed the original}}

I'm unsure why I was quoted in order to generate this response, as it has no bearing on the statement I made which you quoted.

[Talakeal]

The former - not having time to state your abilities made me think of a bunch of people staring at a board, rolling dice quickly and watching the numbers hawkishly, everyone knowing what's going on... with dice flying too fast for people to get a word in about what they mean edgewise. .

I normally RP quite a bit in combat, although I will admit that in the middle of a vey long combat I do sometimes get low on energy and switch into tactical wargame mode. When I DM I normally narrate everything at the start and end of combats, have named NPCs banter with their opponents, and during the middle of combat only narrate unusual tactics or especially good / bad rolls. I have been told that I actually give too much detail, as some groups I DM for don't know what clues are relevant vs. background dressing.

As for the other PCs, it varies by person. Some RP quite a bit, other's not at all, and some of them can't go more than 30 seconds without cracking a joke. There is also at least one person who fails at basic math or coordination or who is just plain indecisive and their turn takes longer than everyone else's combined, so I wouldn't worry about the game going too fast.

I can understand this, which is why I don't see phone dismantling as reasonable. However, confiscation may be in order (But emergencies can still get through) because there are a LOT of people with no phone discipline who will vehemently deny it even while trying to furiously text and not pay attention to what's going on.

Yeah, but I don't feel that I have the authority to make those kinds of demands of my friends. I request that they not text or play games or browse the internet, and they generally grumble and get defensive but end up complying in the end. I have yet to have someone so addicted to their phone that either of us really needed to force the issue. Also, if you confiscate the phone, how do they know whether or not an incoming call is an emergency or not?

[draken50]

See the reason I have my no-phone rules was because of a player who would compulsively mess around on his phone.

A lot people may not realize this, but it's fairly common for people who would otherwise be invested and engaged with a game or other social activity to get distracted by their phone. Much as I appreciate the baseless accusations that if anyone is looking at their phone it's because I run a boring game, there are people who are not good at putting away other distractions. Comparatively, you might look at the kind of people who when on vacation still must compulsively check and respond to emails... on their phone, and find it difficult to separate themselves from said piece of technology.

So my player, and good friend, would be engaged in the game, then receive a text, check it respond to it, and start messing around on his phone, losing track of the game ect. As a result of that and the disruptions it regularly caused. I.E. Multiple times a session. I had to instigate a no phone rule. I will say, if you find the game so boring that you need other avenues of entertainment, then find another game. I have watched a player in a game I was not running get very defensive that he should be able to play WOW during the game, because he was just farming, and this kind of bull reminds of just that kind of entitled behavior.

[Sartharina]

Yeah, but I don't feel that I have the authority to make those kinds of demands of my friends. I request that they not text or play games or browse the internet, and they generally grumble and get defensive but end up complying in the end. I have yet to have someone so addicted to their phone that either of us really needed to force the issue. Also, if you confiscate the phone, how do they know whether or not an incoming call is an emergency or not?

They can take it if it rings. They have to hand it over to the "Confiscated Phone Shelf" so they don't grab and start browsing on it (And I give my phone to someone else because Grepolis can be addicting) without an incoming call/text.

As a DM and game host, I derive my authority from consent of the governed. All rules in place are the will of the table, and enforced by the DM.