So, I'll call myself an experienced DM. I've DMed three campaigns, one of which unfortunately failed (twice, the second time was because I tried to renew it, but that could have been a bad decision on my part, but anyhow.)
I seem to have an issue with finding players that take their characters... seriously. I'm a bit of a roleplay junkie myself, and I've always told my players that I love roleplay and expect decent backstories with potential and growth. I don't think that's too hard to ask of, as long as you like that style of game. Three players- all three from seperate games- are the culprits of this. There will always be humorous moments, and there will always be a stupid choice- but actively making your character's name to be pronounced like Barbie Tits isn't appropriate, nor is it mature. I just got a message from one of my oneshot players asking if they can make their name Dr. Doof. The rest of my players are fine, and they make fun characters with weird traits, but they have developed and become people- not just characters in a game.
I've asked these people multiple times if they can just sit down and make a normal character, and they do- but they always come crawling back, begging if they can make this character- minmaxed and all. The problem mostly is the other party members enjoy it, and I don't want to take that fun away from them, and even if I did have their approval to ask the player to leave, (granting the situation would be worse if I had asked them to leave at that point), we would be down a player and I would be unable to run an efficient game.
Constructive criticism and advice is whole-heartedly welcomed.
First, remember that your fun is just as important as the rest of the group. You should absolutely talk with everyone and come to a common understanding as far as how silly versus serious your game will be. It's one thing to have silly names, or funny characters, but the tone of the campaign is very important for all of you to agree on.
Beyond that...never underestimate the capacity of silly characters to have serious moments. You have a right to ask for a certain level of maturity, especially if it will help your comfort level. However just because these players prefer humor and silly does not mean they won't dive into RP when offered to them. Give them a few sessions where they interact with an NPC who enjoys their antics and brings them more silly joy....then put that NPC in danger and I bet you'll see the serious faces turn on.
You'd also be surprised how quickly a silly name just becomes "normal". In one of my games there's a barbarian named Quarlton Tanks and a wizard named Jonathan the MagiMuscular. Those names are just names for me now, and as silly as they sound when I throw dark or serious stories at them, they rise to the occasion time and time again. <3
While I agree with you that any name that makes any sort of sexual innuendo is appropriate I wouldn't worry too much about "silly" names. If you look at our own world we have had our fair share of "silly" names become pretty normalized...Chad Ocho Cinco, Metta World Peace, Dweezil (sp?) Zappa, and John Smith all come to mind. I would worry a lot less about what they name their character or any other silly trait they try to give it during the generation phase and wait to see if this sort of behavior becomes disruptive during actual gaming sessions. If they step up and play their characters well during the game and aren't a disruption or a distraction to the other players then there is no harm, no foul and eventually there character will be the member of the band with the strange name ala Sting, Bono or Flea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
You're not a bad DM, and they are not bad Players. A Play style is a play style.
What you may be is incompatible. Different people have different kinds of fun, and that leads to different optimum style of play.
You and your Players just might be looking to have different kinds of fun, and both you and they might be better suited to finding Players/a DM more in line with their preferences.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Hmm. Life can be hard for people with funny names. If they insist on Barbie Tits. Make sure everyone in Ye Olde Adventurers Bar finds about about it. Roll play that to the school yard bully max.
I've very little tolerance for people that just want to be silly and disrupt the game. Their characters don't last long.
As far as players not role playing, put them in situations they can't fight their way out of. They either talk/interact or they don't move forward.
Forcing players to role play is bad form. People play for many different reasons, and there are many different playstyles. I've played a campaign in which one player took over a real year before they did much more than order a drink or a battle cry as they launched themselves into the fray. They were introverted and had a speech impediment, which made them self-conscious about speaking in general, much less role playing. But they enjoyed the game, camaraderieship, and the mutual trust of the group. When their barbarian died, their next character was a skald, who would speak in rhyme, all the time, and with other characters, like Fezzik with Inigo. It was a shock to the table, which soon turned to hilarity, and they rarely went OOC at the table, which was quite frankly, awesome.
Now with the feel good stuff out of the way:
If it bothers YOU so much, then YOU are the problem. If it bothers everyone else, but YOU, then YOU are the problem. It is only a table/game/group problem if it bothers more than one person at the table.
Folks should really work on overcoming their own reaction to their own prejudices and work to stop discriminating against others who are different. Folks can apply it in games and who knows, maybe it will bleed over into their interactions with the entire world.
There is no "boss" in a DnD group. Don't like a name, put it to group vote. It still passes, well then as DM you get to decide the reactions to the name for the entire rest of the world.
OP, are you providing a world/campaign setting guide, which would include allowed/banned races, classes, cultures, and table rules? These would then be discussed and voted on either before or at session 0. Perhaps you need to include a list of names for the regions, races, classes which fit for the world.
I have provided them with a setting and a world that they've asked many questions about and I'm quite happy that I have curious players. The third bit you posted there definitely makes sense with the problem only bothering me, I think I definitely needed that. Anything from the books is allowed for me, and homebrew + UA is a review by me before I give it a thumbs up or down (like Caesar in Gladiator).
To the couple of people who suggested having NPC's or even monsters have reactions to these characters, thank you, if the situation comes up again, I'll allow the name and let everyone else see the reaction. Characters are still people after all, so it would make sense for people to have reactions to different things.
Thanks to everyone who gave a response! Much appreciated!
If it bothers YOU so much, then YOU are the problem. If it bothers everyone else, but YOU, then YOU are the problem. It is only a table/game/group problem if it bothers more than one person at the table.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with this on two fronts.
First, if something is very much bothering one player at the table, then the group needs to find a way to prevent this. Are we a group of friends at the table or not? If we are, then the idea that it's only a problem if more than one person is upset, goes out the window. Because the alternative, that someone at the table is constantly being bothered by something, can lead to only one thing: the group breaking up. Because we can imagine that one thing, say ribald humor, might be bothering Bob, but something else, say a thief constantly stealing from her character because "it's what my character would do," bothers Sally. And maybe the silly names bother the DM. Now you have 3 different things, each "only bothering one person", but 3 people at the table are unhappy. Game groups have permanently broken up over a lot less.
Secondly, if something bothers the DM badly enough, it is a major problem. Because the DM has to be enjoying himself or else no one at the table is going to have fun. More to the point, eventually (and because of human nature, I suspect not very eventually but rather, quite soon), the DM is going to lose his or her motivation to keep doing all the work of DMing, if the players are not letting him also enjoy himself. DMs do work, yes, but it's supposed to be fun work, enjoyable work. If you are miserable, you stop DMing. That's just human nature.
So the position that something is only a problem if multiple people at the table are bothered by it is, in my point of view, a recipe for trouble, if not outright disaster.
Folks should really work on overcoming their own reaction to their own prejudices and work to stop discriminating against others who are different. Folks can apply it in games and who knows, maybe it will bleed over into their interactions with the entire world.
This sentence is completely true but I'm not sure how it applies to the OP's case. Wanting serious rather than silly names is not a "prejudice;" it is a preference. Silly names have a place in a comical campaign. They may not have their place in the campaign the DM has in mind. And although the DM does have an obligation to make his players happy, the DM also needs to have a world that makes sense and people can believe in or the game will suffer. I, for one, would not be happy with players naming their characters "Dr. Doof." I don't judge silly campaigns or names like this to be bad in an objective sense -- lots of people have fun like this. But not me. I prefer my RPG sessions to have a serious tone most of the time. Again, that is preference -- not prejudice.
There is no "boss" in a DnD group. Don't like a name, put it to group vote. It still passes, well then as DM you get to decide the reactions to the name for the entire rest of the world.
OP, are you providing a world/campaign setting guide, which would include allowed/banned races, classes, cultures, and table rules? These would then be discussed and voted on either before or at session 0. Perhaps you need to include a list of names for the regions, races, classes which fit for the world.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with the sentiment that a D&D table should be run like a democracy. I think it makes sense to talk about things and reach a group consensus, but this is not the same thing as taking a vote and the majority wins. Instead the group needs to come to an agreement that everyone is happy with or at least can live with.
For example, in my group, someone else was going to DM, and was doing something in Sword Coast. Then he had some personal issues. But he didn't want to cancel D&D because he felt like everyone was counting on him. To take the pressure off, I said I would DM. But, I do not do Forgotten Realms (don't like the setting). So... I came up with a couple of campaign ideas in front of the group. All but one person was there. The people present all chose to do a Roman Empire setting. But I still then contacted the other guy, showed him both settings, and got his input. If he had hated Rome, we would have had to have another meeting to talk about what we wanted to do -- because we needed a consensus that everyone was going to be happy with. You can't have a possibly multi-year long campaign in a setting one of the players hates just because the others out-voted him. He'll leave... and you'll be down a player.
My approach to the silly names or people not taking the setting seriously would be similar. I would sit people down and say, these are things I am really not happy with as a DM. If this continues I am not sure I can DM for you guys. Would you be willing to tone it down and be more serious, or would you rather have someone else DM? We come to a group consensus, and then move along with that.
But voting... and the group saying, effectively, sorry DM, we all want silly you are outvoted -- no... That's not a good idea, IMO.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I'll call myself an experienced DM. I've DMed three campaigns, one of which unfortunately failed (twice, the second time was because I tried to renew it, but that could have been a bad decision on my part, but anyhow.)
I seem to have an issue with finding players that take their characters... seriously. I'm a bit of a roleplay junkie myself, and I've always told my players that I love roleplay and expect decent backstories with potential and growth. I don't think that's too hard to ask of, as long as you like that style of game. Three players- all three from seperate games- are the culprits of this. There will always be humorous moments, and there will always be a stupid choice- but actively making your character's name to be pronounced like Barbie Tits isn't appropriate, nor is it mature. I just got a message from one of my oneshot players asking if they can make their name Dr. Doof. The rest of my players are fine, and they make fun characters with weird traits, but they have developed and become people- not just characters in a game.
I've asked these people multiple times if they can just sit down and make a normal character, and they do- but they always come crawling back, begging if they can make this character- minmaxed and all. The problem mostly is the other party members enjoy it, and I don't want to take that fun away from them, and even if I did have their approval to ask the player to leave, (granting the situation would be worse if I had asked them to leave at that point), we would be down a player and I would be unable to run an efficient game.
Constructive criticism and advice is whole-heartedly welcomed.
First, remember that your fun is just as important as the rest of the group. You should absolutely talk with everyone and come to a common understanding as far as how silly versus serious your game will be. It's one thing to have silly names, or funny characters, but the tone of the campaign is very important for all of you to agree on.
Beyond that...never underestimate the capacity of silly characters to have serious moments. You have a right to ask for a certain level of maturity, especially if it will help your comfort level. However just because these players prefer humor and silly does not mean they won't dive into RP when offered to them. Give them a few sessions where they interact with an NPC who enjoys their antics and brings them more silly joy....then put that NPC in danger and I bet you'll see the serious faces turn on.
You'd also be surprised how quickly a silly name just becomes "normal". In one of my games there's a barbarian named Quarlton Tanks and a wizard named Jonathan the MagiMuscular. Those names are just names for me now, and as silly as they sound when I throw dark or serious stories at them, they rise to the occasion time and time again. <3
Find me on Twitter: @OboeLauren
While I agree with you that any name that makes any sort of sexual innuendo is appropriate I wouldn't worry too much about "silly" names. If you look at our own world we have had our fair share of "silly" names become pretty normalized...Chad Ocho Cinco, Metta World Peace, Dweezil (sp?) Zappa, and John Smith all come to mind. I would worry a lot less about what they name their character or any other silly trait they try to give it during the generation phase and wait to see if this sort of behavior becomes disruptive during actual gaming sessions. If they step up and play their characters well during the game and aren't a disruption or a distraction to the other players then there is no harm, no foul and eventually there character will be the member of the band with the strange name ala Sting, Bono or Flea.
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
And Manic8b is considered a normal name?
playing since 1986
There is a person walking around this world IRL whose name is North West.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You're not a bad DM, and they are not bad Players. A Play style is a play style.
What you may be is incompatible. Different people have different kinds of fun, and that leads to different optimum style of play.
You and your Players just might be looking to have different kinds of fun, and both you and they might be better suited to finding Players/a DM more in line with their preferences.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I've had this problem when I DM'd for a local game store. Zero backstory for any character, and one new PC was a rogue named... Robin Banks...
Talk with them. If you're not having fun, don't let them know it's not working out and leave before you drive yourself insane.
Hmm. Life can be hard for people with funny names. If they insist on Barbie Tits. Make sure everyone in Ye Olde Adventurers Bar finds about about it. Roll play that to the school yard bully max.
I've very little tolerance for people that just want to be silly and disrupt the game. Their characters don't last long.
As far as players not role playing, put them in situations they can't fight their way out of. They either talk/interact or they don't move forward.
Forcing players to role play is bad form. People play for many different reasons, and there are many different playstyles. I've played a campaign in which one player took over a real year before they did much more than order a drink or a battle cry as they launched themselves into the fray. They were introverted and had a speech impediment, which made them self-conscious about speaking in general, much less role playing. But they enjoyed the game, camaraderieship, and the mutual trust of the group. When their barbarian died, their next character was a skald, who would speak in rhyme, all the time, and with other characters, like Fezzik with Inigo. It was a shock to the table, which soon turned to hilarity, and they rarely went OOC at the table, which was quite frankly, awesome.
Now with the feel good stuff out of the way:
If it bothers YOU so much, then YOU are the problem. If it bothers everyone else, but YOU, then YOU are the problem. It is only a table/game/group problem if it bothers more than one person at the table.
Folks should really work on overcoming their own reaction to their own prejudices and work to stop discriminating against others who are different. Folks can apply it in games and who knows, maybe it will bleed over into their interactions with the entire world.
There is no "boss" in a DnD group. Don't like a name, put it to group vote. It still passes, well then as DM you get to decide the reactions to the name for the entire rest of the world.
OP, are you providing a world/campaign setting guide, which would include allowed/banned races, classes, cultures, and table rules? These would then be discussed and voted on either before or at session 0. Perhaps you need to include a list of names for the regions, races, classes which fit for the world.
It's only a username. I'd hope no one IRL has a number in their name.
I have provided them with a setting and a world that they've asked many questions about and I'm quite happy that I have curious players. The third bit you posted there definitely makes sense with the problem only bothering me, I think I definitely needed that. Anything from the books is allowed for me, and homebrew + UA is a review by me before I give it a thumbs up or down (like Caesar in Gladiator).
To the couple of people who suggested having NPC's or even monsters have reactions to these characters, thank you, if the situation comes up again, I'll allow the name and let everyone else see the reaction. Characters are still people after all, so it would make sense for people to have reactions to different things.
Thanks to everyone who gave a response! Much appreciated!
I'm going to respectfully disagree with this on two fronts.
First, if something is very much bothering one player at the table, then the group needs to find a way to prevent this. Are we a group of friends at the table or not? If we are, then the idea that it's only a problem if more than one person is upset, goes out the window. Because the alternative, that someone at the table is constantly being bothered by something, can lead to only one thing: the group breaking up. Because we can imagine that one thing, say ribald humor, might be bothering Bob, but something else, say a thief constantly stealing from her character because "it's what my character would do," bothers Sally. And maybe the silly names bother the DM. Now you have 3 different things, each "only bothering one person", but 3 people at the table are unhappy. Game groups have permanently broken up over a lot less.
Secondly, if something bothers the DM badly enough, it is a major problem. Because the DM has to be enjoying himself or else no one at the table is going to have fun. More to the point, eventually (and because of human nature, I suspect not very eventually but rather, quite soon), the DM is going to lose his or her motivation to keep doing all the work of DMing, if the players are not letting him also enjoy himself. DMs do work, yes, but it's supposed to be fun work, enjoyable work. If you are miserable, you stop DMing. That's just human nature.
So the position that something is only a problem if multiple people at the table are bothered by it is, in my point of view, a recipe for trouble, if not outright disaster.
This sentence is completely true but I'm not sure how it applies to the OP's case. Wanting serious rather than silly names is not a "prejudice;" it is a preference. Silly names have a place in a comical campaign. They may not have their place in the campaign the DM has in mind. And although the DM does have an obligation to make his players happy, the DM also needs to have a world that makes sense and people can believe in or the game will suffer. I, for one, would not be happy with players naming their characters "Dr. Doof." I don't judge silly campaigns or names like this to be bad in an objective sense -- lots of people have fun like this. But not me. I prefer my RPG sessions to have a serious tone most of the time. Again, that is preference -- not prejudice.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with the sentiment that a D&D table should be run like a democracy. I think it makes sense to talk about things and reach a group consensus, but this is not the same thing as taking a vote and the majority wins. Instead the group needs to come to an agreement that everyone is happy with or at least can live with.
For example, in my group, someone else was going to DM, and was doing something in Sword Coast. Then he had some personal issues. But he didn't want to cancel D&D because he felt like everyone was counting on him. To take the pressure off, I said I would DM. But, I do not do Forgotten Realms (don't like the setting). So... I came up with a couple of campaign ideas in front of the group. All but one person was there. The people present all chose to do a Roman Empire setting. But I still then contacted the other guy, showed him both settings, and got his input. If he had hated Rome, we would have had to have another meeting to talk about what we wanted to do -- because we needed a consensus that everyone was going to be happy with. You can't have a possibly multi-year long campaign in a setting one of the players hates just because the others out-voted him. He'll leave... and you'll be down a player.
My approach to the silly names or people not taking the setting seriously would be similar. I would sit people down and say, these are things I am really not happy with as a DM. If this continues I am not sure I can DM for you guys. Would you be willing to tone it down and be more serious, or would you rather have someone else DM? We come to a group consensus, and then move along with that.
But voting... and the group saying, effectively, sorry DM, we all want silly you are outvoted -- no... That's not a good idea, IMO.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.