D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Maxperson]

I'm with Mecheon here. I mean, what does "look like monsters" even mean? What do monsters look like? Is it the absence of hair?

They look like known monsters and the unknown. The latter is the important part of a unique dragon man walking into town. Monsters have been killing people for thousands of years. People are not going to be welcoming of strange and unknown creatures with open arms. Hell, being welcoming often doesn't happen in the real world and we are all human.

 

[CleverNickName]

Big problem with Dragonborn. Mechanically they suck.

I changed their breath weapon from (1/rest) to (Recharge 6). That seemed to help considerably.

I also let players who don't want a breath weapon to swap it out for three Natural Weapons instead: Bite (1d6 Piercing), Claws (1d6 Slashing), and Tail (1d6 Bludgeoning, Reach).

 

[pemerton]

They look like known monsters and the unknown. The latter is the important part of a unique dragon man walking into town. Monsters have been killing people for thousands of years. People are not going to be welcoming of strange and unknown creatures with open arms. Hell, being welcoming often doesn't happen in the real world and we are all human.

But D&D dragons don't all kill people: some are quite nice to people. And nor are D&D dragons particularly unknown. This was part of @Mecheon's point.

 

[Maggan]

I agree with @ECMO3 that the GM can make up (within some pretty elastic limits) whatever they want about how people react to the dragonborn, without creating implausibility or a lack of realism.

Have I said otherwise?

No, I haven't. I have given an example of how I could handle dragonborn in one campaign, and given other examples of how I could handle dragonborn in other campaigns. While I have mentioned verisimilitude (which is very dependent on the group), I have nowhere called on realism as a goal.

Yes, the GM can make things up and decide what happens in her campaign. It's what I've been saying.

I'll quote myself from earlier in the thread. Note the use of the word "could" instead of the words "have to".

So introducing a dragonborn could potentially change the entire dynamic of the campaign and I find it perfectly understandable if a DM doesn't want to deal with that, or put in another way, would not have fun dealing with it. And I also understand that a DM could hand-wave it and just have everyone react to the dragonborn just lika any other PC, but that could put a strain on the feeling of verisimilitude of the DM and the other players. And there are of course other ways of handling it, not all DMs or games are the same or have to be the same. My fun is not everone's fun

I can also see a fabulous campaign where all this happens, but from another perspective as a DM I'd be loathe to let one single player have that amount of spotlight at the detriment of the other players, unless they are all comfortable with the dragonborn being the center of attention and a driver of how the campaign develops. Maybe everyone plays a dragonborn?

Also, the above example presupposes that exotic races (e.g. dragonborn, tieflings, owlin, loxodon, aaracokra, tortle) are rare. If the Mos Eisley cantina is default in a setting, a dragonborn wouldn't even register as being out of the ordinary, but I'd wager a guess that several DMs who are limiting e.g. dragonborn aren't big on other exotic races being part of the campaign either.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I thought the absence of Gnomes from 4e D&D was supposed to be one explanation for some people's dislike of it. If that's true, presumably the same thing could be true if Gnomes are absent not due to a publication decision but due to a worldbuilding decision.

There are so many better explanations for any given person to dislike 4e than a temporary lack of gnomes.

 

[Zardnaar]

There are so many better explanations for any given person to dislike 4e than a temporary lack of gnomes.

I'm not a big Gnone fan but don't want them cut from the game.

Midgard they're somewhat interesting. Devil followers iirc.

 

[ezo]

The fact that DMs can define the parameters for the other players but are unrestricted themselves is a power dynamics issue masquerading as an aesthetic one. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think it's fair to be honest about it.

Frankly, I'm not sure how the focus became so much about aesthetics...

The DM has been (and always will be) the ultimately authority in their own D&D game/world. The inclusion or exclusion of anything, for any reason, is their right to me. Even aesthetics is purely a matter of taste, so are reasons based on theme, power issues, or whatever. So, for me, the reason is immaterial. I respect DM's enough to abide by whatever restrictions they are placing on their own game. It is one thing to make a request and see of a DM will accomodate it, but if they say "no", I drop it and accept that decision.

Yes, DM is a social thing, too. But for me it is like being invited to someone's place for dinner. They lay out the food, etc. and I have to choose from what they're offering. It would be rude of me to ask for something after they've gone through the trouble of setting it up, cooking and such. Now, I can ask beforehand if there is something I'd really like, but I can't and won't fault them if they don't want to accomodate me.

Others might feel more comfortable about making requests, which is fine, and other DMs (as hosts) might want to be more accomodating to players' requests, but that simply isn't my style. I don't even consider it power dynamics.

I changed their breath weapon from (1/rest) to (Recharge 6). That seemed to help considerably.

We did this as well. It makes more sense IMO.

 

[Mecheon]

But D&D dragons don't all kill people: some are quite nice to people. And nor are D&D dragons particularly unknown. This was part of @Mecheon's point.

Plus if there's a China equivilent in your setting, there'd probably be myths from out that way about how they're handled there. And for extra fun, dragonborn out that way absolutely would not be hated over that end, but instead basically be a celebrity, with all of the expected drama of 'yo, come visit here for good luck' and being dragged into political wheeling and dealing, the drama of being confused for basically a member of an important political faction, and how you handle the fallout if said faction shows up to investigate a possible rogue member running about

the spicy drama

 

[Oofta]

This. Even with my so-called unpalatable restrictions, I keep having a full table (though more of a VTT now than physical) and very, very few player's quit until the campaign is done. I'm starting to think I might be running a good game after all.

Tell me about it! Obviously I have some psionic ability I'm not even aware of that forces people to smile and seem like they're enjoying themselves when I DM despite the fact that they can't play a tabaxi.

Just because I have them look deeply into the following before my game, I'm sure it's just a coincidence!

Spoiler: Hidden so I don't accidentally hypnotize everyone!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I really don't think this is an issue which usually exists in the real world. People tend to understand that games have premises and be fine with it. They don't try to play jedis in Star Trek, tortles in an Arthurian game or norse dwarves in a wuxia game, and they don't think that accepting the premise is some sort of unfair imposition.