D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Umbran]

That's not true at all.

Mod Note:

You apparently feel it is a appropriate to outright deny the existence of someone else's mental health challenges.

I am here to tell you that it is not appropriate. At all.

 

[MNblockhead]

So, I think we have said all we can about how accommodating we, especially DMs, need to be to each other's preferences. (Who am I kidding, we can beat this dead horse for another 88 pages.)

But what else, besides a curated list of PC races that doesn't include all WotC-published races, is in BG3 that you would not like in your tabletop D&D game?

I vote for jiggle physics for PC genitalia (https://kotaku.com/baldurs-gate-3-patch-5-jiggle-physics-dicks-balls-1851067236).

That's one unarmed attack I don't want my players trying with their PCs.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Wow... https://www.enworld.org/threads/we-would-hate-a-bg3-campaign.701844/post-9236685 I was genuinely trying to be helpful! But on re-reading that... that was terrible. Apologies to @EzekielRaiden ! I fired that off without going over it with enough care. All I meant to say was that you have more power than you think.

 

[CleverNickName]

I vote for jiggle physics for PC genitalia (https://kotaku.com/baldurs-gate-3-patch-5-jiggle-physics-dicks-balls-1851067236).

That's one unarmed attack I don't want my players trying with their PCs.

"I cast fireballs!"
"You mean fireball?"
(taking off pants) "I absolutely do not."

Scanlan Short-Halt has a lot to answer for.

On a more serious note, I use the Safety Tools from Monte Cook Games, and sexually explicit content has been given the Red Card by three of my seven players. So BG3's weird focus on genitalia isn't going to be added to my TTRPG games at all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You really haven’t

I mean, that's certainly how it seems from this side. "Nuh-uh" isn't exactly a meaningful response to the criticism, "So...you forbid players from using things you didn't specifically plan for, but you allow yourself to use things you didn't specifically plan for." Or, succinctly, "Rules for thee, not for me."

Does anyone think there should be no limitations?

Not to my knowledge. I have, repeatedly, said that I think there are reasonable limitations. I have given an example of one that applies to myself.

If not, what are we going on about? Dragon born? No one in my group as player or DM has expressed any interest in them…

If no one cops to no limits, then we are just arguing about a pet racial choice?

It would seem so. For being--allegedly--so unimportant, it sure seems like people get rather a bee in their bonnet about saying absolutely no not ever, no discussion, like it or leave it.

I'm just saying that, to me, a world in which polymorphing wizards and wild-shaping druids raise no eyebrows, it doesn't seem obvious that Dragonborn would do so.

Or illusionists, for that matter.

Who says those things don't raise eyebrows? Someone's making assumptions about other people's tables, and it's not me.

So you ban Druids? Classes with access to polymorph? The entire school of illusion?

Some things are explained one way, and other things in a different way.

I really wasn't expecting anyone to be so up-front about it being a double standard.

Not for you. But most of the time, I suspect, that DM can find a group of players who buy into the terms of the game the DM is running without needing to sea-lion the DM into having a discussion on a decided matter.

Not just "not for me." If the DM earnestly responds to any player's request for a reasonable, good-faith discussion about something they've said or done with "I'm too tired to talk about it, just do what I say or leave," they shouldn't be DMing. Period. They don't have the energy to do one of THE most important things a DM needs to do. If it's "let's do that later," that's one thing. But to just reject it, or pretend such a discussion will be forthcoming and then infinitely defer it? No. That's a clear sign this hypothetical person does not actually have the energy to do critical parts of the DM's role.

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

But it was one of the rallying cries against 4e--explicitly. People were really bent out of shape about it, and made a huge stink.

Oh and furthermore, even if the mechanics come with a default setting, it is still perfectly fine to use the mechanics for some other setting. In the past I've used White Wolf's Storyteller system for all sort of things. Never did people insist that they should be allowed to play a vampire or a solar exalted in a game that was not about those things, even though we used the same system.

I should think there would be rather a big difference between, "We are using this system, which happens to share the absolute rock-bottom underlying mechanics, but only one particular splat" and "Well, we're actually using the exact same book as everyone else using this system, and most of the same contents, but I'm picking and choosing which ones in that book, and I refuse to ever even slightly entertain a moment's discussion about why I picked some and not others."

I don't think there is always a compromise.

Perhaps not always--but it is very close to being so. Accommodation is almost always possible, so long as everyone is willing to make, and work with, good-faith discussion and compromise. (I repeat, everyone, all persons, each individual participant, every player and every DM, genuinely actually all sapient intelligences involved, hopefully that's specific enough so that I won't be told yet again that I'm somehow only talking about DMs when I say that even though I've literally never said anything other than "everybody needs to play ball" and "nobody gets a free pass.")

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wow... https://www.enworld.org/threads/we-would-hate-a-bg3-campaign.701844/post-9236685 I was genuinely trying to be helpful! But on re-reading that... that was terrible. Apologies to @EzekielRaiden ! I fired that off without going over it with enough care. All I meant to say was that you have more power than you think.

Apology accepted; no hard feelings.

 

[MNblockhead]

On a more serious note, I use the Safety Tools from Monte Cook Games, and sexually explicit content has been given the Red Card by three of my seven players. So BG3's weird focus on genitalia isn't going to be added to my TTRPG games at all.

To be fair, BG3 chargen makes it so you kinda have to go a bit out of your way to get to and view the results of these settings. You really have to opt into it.

As for X/Red card mechanics in videos games, I guess that would be skipping dialog and cut scenes and some settings.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

On a more serious note, I use the Safety Tools from Monte Cook Games, and sexually explicit content has been given the Red Card by three of my seven players. So BG3's weird focus on genitalia isn't going to be added to my TTRPG games at all.

Well, that's a shame, because it sounds like your crew is going to be missing out on some top-notch yuks from their DM.

Although...

I'm no prude, but I can see myself red-carding because there is a difference between being amusing and just being creepy. Occasional jokes because the opportunity is just too good to pass up vs. making that type of your comment your main method of interaction with the group.

 

[Maggan]

But what else, besides a curated list of PC races that doesn't include all WotC-published races, is in BG3 that you would not like in your tabletop D&D game?

A tadpole entering my brain through my eye.

It's enough of a horror for me that I stay away from playing BG3. I would probably not play in a tabletop D&D game using that premise. But that's just me, I guess, given the success of BG3.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

For me I would weigh out the reasons and the importance of wish lists and decisions made.

I believe in occasionally taking one for the team as player and DM.

If a race is not available and the DM explains its exclusion really is important for the tone of their long running campaign, I am probably going o pick an alternate.

If I am DM and someone really wants to play a sentient fruit person…too late. Already said yes and used pixie stats for PCs! Flight included…

Part of me being agreeable is knowing it’s not forever. Different DMs and different campaigns are there for a reason. You get to try different things different places! I don’t always have to play a warlock! (Though that seems to be the case 80% of the time…)

I am not having fruit people in my campaign with my pals…probably.

I will say that I believe it’s best if we can all play what we prefer but if it’s not hyper focused that will usually happen. In fact, I hate the fact I will never play all the warlock pacts and boon combinations…

And on cue “debating” D&D has left me wanting to play much more than work…think I need to try a duergar psi warrior! Well, if I can find a consenting DM of course