Help with an Overly Controlling DM?

[jpruzi]

Sorry for length

Hello fellow Roleplayers,
So i've been playing with this DM for a while now and I realize that he's being what I perceive as overly controlling. Now, to be fair, it isn't overly controlling, but he won't listen to anything I, or for that matter, any player characters suggest. Luckily enough, this group manipulation hasn't rolled over into the game.

The first time I felt he was being controlling was during our 5E campaign and I wanted to make a Wild magic Sorcerer. He wouldn't let me because he thought it would "create too much chaos and get PCs killed." (At this point you can skip to the next paragraph, otherwise read on for more examples) Another time was when I asked in our group-chat for opinions on whether or not I should bring my battle mat; because it has been said more than once that we need some sort of map to help visualize things, as settings can get very complex. Anyway, as soon as I asked for opinions, he immediately responds with "No." Even though I was just asking for opinions on it, and not declaring I was bringing it or forcing him to make use of it. Also, if myself or another person suggests another system, even just to try, he usually says something along the lines of "I don't want to DM a/an (insert game name here) campaign."

So I know its important for the DM to be having fun too and that he/she should be comfortable. But shouldn't the players also have a say in how the group operates? It just seems as if he has complete and absolute power over the group and can veto anything the players come up with, even if we all agree upon it.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[Cluedrew]

Sorry for length

Are you new here? (Length is fine in my opinion.)

More seriously:

The GM should not have absolute power over a group, overriding one player is one thing, but if the GM has actually vetoed an otherwise unanimous agreement, it is probably time to kick the GM.

You should check to see how the rest of the group feels about this first. If they are of the same opinion, try swapping out GMs. Which does mean someone else will have to step up, but one of you can do that (the GM however, can't become a group of N players). Perhaps try one of the other systems you wanted to.

I could go on, but I think that is a start.

[jpruzi]

Yes, Im new here. I'll talk to the other players 1 on 1 to get their stances. Thanks!

[Darth Ultron]

The good news is: your DM is not overly controlling.

1.Limiting classes or races or anything else for a game is an accepted part of any DMs job, and even the ''crazy players'' will say so. A player can't expect anything they want to be approved.

2.The mat is a little odd.....but maybe you could have asked him first?

3.A DM likes or dislikes things, and you can't expect them to run a game for something they don't like. Would you want to play in a game you did not like? Of course not.

In a general sense the DM can ''out vote'' the players, but then the players vote with there feet.

[Mr Blobby]

Agree with Darth. It's the DM's playpit - they reserve the right to do what they wish. I for example loathe the whole 'prophecy' trope and will instantly flame any player who even thinks of wanting such a character. However, I will explain why to the players for this policy - it's a lazy & blatant DM crutch for railroading and deus ex machina. There are other things which I am very wary of but don't instantly ban; from vampire-mages to drow.

I'd say this; if they say no, ask why politely. They may have reasons for said no which you may be able to assure won't happen with you. I'd also say do this in private, 'cos some people get real touchy about being 'questioned in public'.

But as said before, you cannot simply expect them to DM a game which said DM does not like one bit. How does it feel for you to play a PC you don't like? Real killer of motivation, isn't it? A DM has to put in I'd guess at least 3 times the amount of effort as you do. An unmotivated DM is a crap DM.

[Kalashak]

When your group suggests another system have any of you offered to run the game? I can see why he would say no if he's expected to run a game he isn't interested in. The mat thing isn't that odd either, you asked for opinions and he gave you his.
It wouldn't sit well with me if a DM told me I couldn't play a subclass out of nowhere though. Since you asked I assume he hadn't laid out any setting specific reasons you couldn't be a wild mage. I can live with a DM banning things because they don't fit the setting they want, but if a DM is changing things without warning it usually raises a red flag for me.

[OldTrees1]

The person in question said
1)No, that class option is unavailable in games I run because I don't want to handle the friendly fire it can cause.
2)No, I am not planning on using a battlemap in the game I run therefore you do not need to bring your battlemap.
3)No, I do not want to DM that RPG.

All 3 of these are fairly reasonable statements. The person was politely turning down a request you directly or indirectly made of them(DM a class/battlemap/RPG for you).

The people choose who, among the volunteers, will DM.
That DM decides the game they will run.
The other Players decide the roles they will run.
Each of these decisions is ongoing and can change if circumstances change.
This is the way that prevents anyone from being forced to play a game they do not enjoy.

Perhaps you might want to run a game in the near future?

[tensai_oni]

Examples given sound perfectly reasonable. The DM has a right to ban a class, especially one like the Wild Mage because the part where he said it would create too much chaos and unpredictability on the battlefield? That was true. As for the battle mat, there are DMing styles and games where you don't need or even want an exact grid to grid positioning of the game, it's enough to know where more or less everyone is so a mat is redundant.

As for the last part, like others suggested: if the DM doesn't want to run other games, maybe try to run one yourself? He's the DM so it's his decision on what kind of game he wants or doesn't want to run.

[Andrewmoreton]

All of those sound perfectly reasonable.

As a GM I will often ban classes/character options which I consider Silly/Disruptive/overpowered. This has yet to be a problem in a game I run as there are very few times I have needed to use this ban, something like wild magic is one of the things I can see a GM banning(although as I am not familiar with 5th ed I cannot say if I would allow it)

Using a battlemap has advantages and disadvantages the GM may well consider that it does not fit his style of gaming and may later change his mind . It does tend to slow things down and some feel it encourages a 'wargaming' approach to a game instead of a narrative roleplaying approach. There is also the issue that depending on the venue it may be difficult or inconvenient to use a map. I find that for most encounters a map is too much effort but for some more complicated encounters where precise understanding of positions is important then it can be a good idea.

As to running games in another system. This is you the player being ridiculous. Running a game is time consuming and requires effort you need to have a game concept you like, be familiar with the rules and have an interest in that concept and the mechanics to implement it. If you really want a game based on a concept and system offer to run it, then the group can decide what to play Game X run by you or Game Y run by current GM (Or one now and one later or two groups etc)

[Boci]

The person in question said
1)No, that class option is unavailable in games I run because I don't want to handle the friendly fire it can cause.

That seems like an overreaction though. Like he heard wildmagic and just assumed it causes you to friendly fire half the time, where as in reality, there are 3: fire ball centred on yourself, 1d10 necrotic damage to all creatures within 30ft and you and all creatures within 30ft gain vulnerability to piercing for 1 minutes. Each of those options has a 2% chance to trigger, so a total of 6%.

Its not a big problem, but it sounds like an overreaction from someone who hasn't properly crunched the numbers.

[Keltest]

That seems like an overreaction though. Like he heard wildmagic and just assumed it causes you to friendly fire half the time, where as in reality, there are 3: fire ball centred on yourself, 1d10 necrotic damage to all creatures within 30ft and you and all creatures within 30ft gain vulnerability to piercing for 1 minutes. Each of those options has a 2% chance to trigger, so a total of 6%.

Its not a big problem, but it sounds like an overreaction from someone who hasn't properly crunched the numbers.

Even without affecting other players, the wild mage has a fairly significant element of "oops, our wizard is suddenly a squirrel" involved. Speaking from experience, it can be a pain to make sessions where at any moment one player can suddenly stop being helpful, especially a powerful spellcaster.

[Boci]

Even without affecting other players, the wild mage has a fairly significant element of "oops, our wizard is suddenly a squirrel" involved.

No it doesn't. Its 3 options, so 6% 8% again, which can hardly be called a significant element: missing 1 turn from being in the astral plane, confusion cast on self, and being unable to speak for a minute, which indeed is devastating, though possible to mitigate through spell and metamagic selection.
Okay, I missed the sheep one. Which, yes is devastating if you fail the save, but it happens 2% of the time levels 1-13 and 0.004% of the time from level 14+, so still not enough to call it a "significant element".

This is what I'm getting. People seem to hear "Wild Magic" and imagine something much worse than what the rules actually say it is. Beyond the 14% 12% chance of something bad happening (and even then, the friendly fire can also hit enemies, so its not all bad, especially since the party can be prepared to exploit the piercing vulnerability), the DM decides how often wild magic is triggered.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Self-harm aside, the Wild Mage is just... tonally inappropriate for a lot of games. I ban it too; I despise "lolrandom" humor and find its uncontrolled magic doesn't fit with normal D&D expectations for how magic works.

the DM decides how often wild magic is triggered.

Which is a valid reason to ban it in and of itself-- it's pretty reasonable to say that you don't want PCs that are going to make that sort of extra work for you.

[hymer]

I'm with Keltest here. I don't even much care what the numbers are (though 8% sounds pretty significant to me; once every 12,5 times? How many wild magic rolls do you get per session?). Adding the risk of failure just because is not suitable in every campaign, and the inherent comedy in the mechanic is outright cringeworthy when the timing fails. Like someone farting loudly at a funeral. It's great in certain types of game, but it's facepalm-inducing in others. Seems a fine reason why the DM could say no.

Edit: Grod said it better than me.

[Boci]

Self-harm aside, the Wild Mage is just... tonally inappropriate for a lot of games.

That is a completely reasonable stance. A significant portion of the wild magic results are indeed lol random, and I understand that. But citing the self harm aspects of wild magic as a reason to ban it implies to me a knee jerk reaction to the concept without checking the numbers.

Which is a valid reason to ban it in and of itself-- it's pretty reasonable to say that you don't want PCs that are going to make that sort of extra work for you.

Its not really extra work though. When the sorcerer casts a spell, the DM can choose to have a chance for wild magic, or grantee it if tide of chaos is spent. That...tell the player to remind you and it is literally no extra work what so ever.

Or always decide that it doesn't trigger, then its also no extra work. Now obviously the DM should check that the player is okay playing a wild mage without wild magic, but I don't think thats as dum as it may sound at first. Without wildmagic or splat, all sorcerors are draon blooded. It could be the wild sorceror player in fact wants to be a not-dragon sorceror, and is fine with no actual wild magic. Or maybe they like the class features, tide of chaos even just 1/long rest, bend luck and ultimatly bombardment for high high numbers.

I'm with Keltest here. I don't even much care what the numbers are (though 8% sounds pretty significant to me; once every 12,5 times? How many wild magic rolls do you get per session?).

As I said in a previous post, its up to the DM. Can be 0, X-1 where X is the number of times the sorcerer casts a non-cantrip spell.

[hymer]

As I said in a previous post, its up to the DM. Can be 0, X-1 where X is the number of times the sorcerer casts a non-cantrip spell.

Technically correct, but would you play a wild magic sorcerer if the DM said there would be no surges? Would you think it fair if the DM didn't announce it, but simply had no surges? Wouldn't it be better to simply be upfront and ban the thing?

[Boci]

Technically correct, but would you play a wild magic sorcerer if the DM said there would be no surges? Would you think it fair if the DM didn't announce it, but simply had no surges? Wouldn't it be better to simply be upfront and ban the thing?

Its literally there in the post you quoted:

"I don't think thats (a wild magic sorceror without any wild magic) as dum as it may sound at first. Without wildmagic or splat, all sorcerors are draon blooded. It could be the wild sorceror player in fact wants to be a not-dragon sorceror, and is fine with no actual wild magic. Or maybe they like the class features, tide of chaos even just 1/long rest, bend luck and ultimatly bombardment for high high numbers."

[hymer]

Its literally there in the post you quoted:

"I don't think thats (a wild magic sorceror without any wild magic) as dum as it may sound at first. Without wildmagic or splat, all sorcerors are draon blooded. It could be the wild sorceror player in fact wants to be a not-dragon sorceror, and is fine with no actual wild magic. Or maybe they like the class features, tide of chaos even just 1/long rest, bend luck and ultimatly bombardment for high high numbers."

Sorry, I was reading the part that seemed adressed to me. But I see now that we have very different expectations of a game.

[Boci]

Sorry, I was reading the part that seemed adressed to me. But I see now that we have very different expectations of a game.

How so? All I'm saying is that without wildmagic or splat, all sorcerors are dragon-blooded, to the point that they develop scaly skin. That might not be what someone wants from the class, so an alternate origin is probably a good idea. Wild magic without surges is an option for the players. That can only be a benefit and is at worst neutral as an option the player doesn't take. The DM just needs to be open and communicate with the player. And at the very least a DM who bans wild magic in an otherwise all core game should probably consider the storm origin, unless he wants all sorcery to be the result of dragons.

How do we have different expectations of the game? What are my expectations vs. yours?

[AvatarVecna]

In regards to the Chaos Sorcerer, I know that the numbers on average tend to come out in your favor, but I've got bad juju from playing with them IRL. A Chaos Sorcerer is fine past lvl 6 or so, in my eyes - but before then, they're a ticking time bomb lulling you into a false sense of security by presenting itself as statistically player-friendly. One of my earliest 5e games was an AL adventure, and one of the other lvl 1 PCs was a Chaos Sorcerer. Our very first combat, his very first spell, he rolled a nat-1, and went to roll on the table...and got a 2, the "roll on this table every round for the next minute" result. We kinda laughed it off and kept fighting, because most of the effects were either harmless or positive, what's the worst that could happen?

08, Fireball. All PCs and most enemies are dying/dead.
65, Lightning Strikes. The rest of the conscious enemies are taken out.
41, Potted Plant. Sorcerer is already below 0 HP, we weren't sure what should happen, but figure he couldn't act anyway so it didn't matter.
83, Necrotic Wave. Killed off most of the PCs and re-dying'd the one dude who'd made his death save.
54, Sorcerers corpse became immune to intoxication. Yippee.

Everyone was dead at this point, so we just rolled next 5 real quick to see if the sorcerer could maybe get the reincarnate result; I don't remember exactly what those rolls were, but it wasn't that one, and I think that would've been the DM fiating something anyway. Okay, so that went about as badly as it could possibly go: it came within an inch of a TPK on the first round, and the remaining rounds guaranteed it. But hey, at least that "smiting from heaven" took out the enemies too!

So, about a month later, my more regular "at a friends house" game started up - also at 1st level - and one of the others wanted to play a Chaos Sorcerer. I had flashbacks, but figured "nobody can get so unlucky twice in a row". And to be fair, we didn't get quite that unlucky. No, we were just all trying to get past a puzzle door, and the Sorcerer got the bright idea to use Comprehend Languages to try and make sense of the weird writing around the door. Oops, 1, time to roll on the chart! ...fireball. Oh, but it gets even better: not only did he roll a nat 1 in the first session, not only was the result of it a Fireball centered on himself and affecting the whole party, but he rolled over 40 damage, and not one of the seven people in our party made their freaking save.

Our group has a standing rule about Chaos Sorcerers now, which we argued about for a little while: it's banned prior to being the level you actually pick up Fireball, and even then the Sorcerer has to warn everybody before they cast a spell, and stay away from the party when adventuring in case they need to cast a Feather Fall all of a sudden. It hasn't been a problem, though, because nobody has wanted to so much as play a non-Chaos Sorcerer for fear of that terrible luck following us.

I understand that this is anecdotal evidence, and I know that the numbers indicate it comes out in your favor in the long run, and I know that it gets easier to deal with as you level up...but I won't touch it, not without a nice big pile of hit points and Resilient Dexterity.

[hymer]

All I'm saying is that without wildmagic or splat, all sorcerors are dragon-blooded, to the point that they develop scaly skin.

There's also refluff (have it be an always on, resource free mage armor, or just have the scales be unnoticeable) and homebrew. And possibly UA, depending on what you include under splat or homebrew.

How do we have different expectations of the game? What are my expectations vs. yours?

Does it matter? For what it's worth: Playing a wild mage without the wild magic seems entirely self-contradictory to me. Much like playing a rogue with Expertise in thieves' tools, but there are no actual traps in the campaign s/he can disarm. You still have other stuff you can do, but this is the thing you took the class for. This ability is central to the concept, and it's been that way since the concept was first introduced. A refluffed wild magic sorcerer, with no actual mention of wild magic? I could live with that, but I'd put something in instead of the surges as DM, and wouldn't touch with a barge pole as a player. Sorcerers need a buff more than a nerf.
I agree, by the way, that the subclasses for sorcerers are too few, and both may be unsuitable for a given campaign. But I don't see that as a reason to chain wild magic.

[Boci]

There's also refluff (have it be an always on, resource free mage armor, or just have the scales be unnoticeable) and homebrew. And possibly UA, depending on what you include under splat or homebrew.

Homebrew sure, refluff? Kinda, but it will be awkward. You also have energy resistant unrelated to dragons, wings unrelated to dragons, that dragon ability frightening presence unrelated to dragons and expertise with social skills when interacting with dragons, completly unrelated to dragons. It...would be a hard sell.

Does it matter? For what it's worth: Playing a wild mage without the wild magic seems entirely self-contradictory to me.

I never said ever player will totally be happy with this, I'm sure many won't be interested in a wild magic sorceror without the wild magic. But they can just say no thanks. They are no worse off than they would be if the origin was flat out banned, and there could be some who would take the option, so there is literally nothing to lose by offering it.

[hymer]

Homebrew sure, refluff? Kinda, but it will be awkward. You also have energy resistant unrelated to dragons, wings unrelated to dragons, that dragon ability frightening presence unrelated to dragons and expertise with social skills when interacting with dragons, completly unrelated to dragons. It...would be a hard sell.

You seemed to dislike the scales specifically, and they themselves would be easy to refluff. I didn't relize it was the dragon entire you disliked. So make it an elemental sorcerer, and have the social stuff be primordial and for elementals.

I never said ever player will totally be happy with this, I'm sure many won't be interested in a wild magic sorceror without the wild magic. But they can just say no thanks. They are no worse off than they would be if the origin was flat out banned, and there could be some who would take the option, so there is literally nothing to lose by offering it.

It seems you're assuming a player who already knows the class well, and probably all the classes. After reading over the exception, they would indeed have wasted little time and effort. At any rate, I'd rather the DM ban wild magic than do it badly. Certain classes could bear under it, but the sorcerer isn't one of them IMO.

[Boci]

You seemed to dislike the scales specifically, and they themselves would be easy to refluff. I didn't relize it was the dragon entire you disliked. So make it an elemental sorcerer, and have the social stuff be primordial and for elementals.

"It could be the wild sorceror player in fact wants to be a not-dragon sorceror"

Also, I dislike the dragon entire? You're reading WAY too much into my posts here. I like the dragon origin. The one time I played the sorceror class, I played a dragon sorceror. I just think there should be options for players who don't want a dragon sorceror, and without homebrew or splat, there is none if you remove wild magic.

[hymer]

I dislike the dragon entire? You're reading WAY too much into my posts here.

Likewise.

[Boci]

Likewise.

Such as? I have made 0 assumptions about what your posts mean beyond the fact that we would deal with this specific example differently.

You think flat out banning wild magic is okay, I think the DM should offer a compromise first. That's it. I'm not reading anything else from your posts.

[hymer]

You think flat out banning wild magic is okay, I think the DM should offer a compromise first. That's it. I'm not reading anything else from your posts.

Okay, you understood everything perfectly.

[Boci]

I think I did. If I didn't, free free to correct me. My understanding is you feel it is pointless to offer wild magic origin without wild magic, which I agree sounds weird, but I highlighted two circumstances in which I feel it could be valid choice (wild origin magic class features and doesn't want to be a dragon sorcerer where wild is the only other option), with the reasoning that worst case scenario they aren't interested, and then they are no worse off than if wild magic had simply been banned.

That is it, I drew no further conclusion, but you seemed to think that based on our differing opinion on the matter, we have widely different expectations of the game, which I found weird because I'd personally struggle to extrapolate anyone's broader game expectations based on how they deal with this one issue. You also seemed to think I was objecting to the dragons origin, when I wasn't, merely stating a desire that it not be the only option. So yeah, I am a little confused as to why you would then say I was reading too much into your post, since you don't actually seem to have gotten that impression.

[Keltest]

One of the more common problems that seems to crop up on these forums is when a DM decides that they don't like such and such feature, item or ability and decides to remove it without actually banning it. They make it worthless, or theoretically possible but functionally inaccessible, or some other unnecessarily complicated way of saying "no" without actually using the word "no". As a DM, you have the right to say No to something you don't want to deal with. Putting obstacles in the way of accessing it or otherwise rendering it useless is just disrespectful to the players.

If a player doesn't like the existing fluff options, they can either work with the DM to create an alternative, or play something else. Well, I guess they could suck it up and play it anyway, but that doesn't seem like a good solution. Without the wild magic surges, a Wild Mage sorcerer is, well... boring. Its the 'nerf to oblivion" method of saying no without using the word.

[Boci]

If a player doesn't like the existing fluff options, they can either work with the DM to create an alternative, or play something else. Well, I guess they could suck it up and play it anyway, but that doesn't seem like a good solution. Without the wild magic surges, a Wild Mage sorcerer is, well... boring. Its the 'nerf to oblivion" method of saying no without using the word.

"The Wild Magic table doesn't fit the the kind of theme I want for this game, so I will never use it. Do you still want to play a wild magic origin sorceror, or are you not interested if there's no wild magic surges?"

How is that going to end badly? What kind of player is going to be mortally offended by the above, but be fine with being told outright that wild magic is banned? Its not a stealth nerf if you are open about it.