• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

Status
Not open for further replies.

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
no, not really, I don't think it ever really was. It started with how we would hate all the restrictions, and it still is about that
This, at least, I can fully agree on. It was never really about BG3. It was about complaining about how whiny and demanding modern players are. I mean, the very first sentence is, "Over the years I have noticed a phrase 'player entitlement' thrown around." BG3 was simply a vehicle for starting a conversation about how horrible the "player entitlement" boogeyman is.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
So...you genuinely just want to be a witness for the story your DM feels like telling?

Seems like it would be a much more efficient use of your time to play a video game (if the interactivity part matters) or read a book (if it doesn't.)
Not playing a race that the DM doesn't want in their campaign is not the same as being a witness for the story your DM feels like telling. Players make decisions for their PCs even in games that don't have dragonborn.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
This, at least, I can fully agree on. It was never really about BG3. It was about complaining about how whiny and demanding modern players are. I mean, the very first sentence is, "Over the years I have noticed a phrase 'player entitlement' thrown around." BG3 was simply a vehicle for starting a conversation about how horrible the "player entitlement" boogeyman is.
Just as horrible as the "tyrant DM" bogeyman, to my mind.
 

"One side can just say 'no, screw you, we do it my way" is not acceptable. Period. Neither side gets license for that.


I do not know how to explain it any simpler or differently.

If the DM can, at any time, unilaterally reject anything and everything the player says, regardless of reason or sense, then they are the only one who actually has any agency or control. The players are simply present for the experience. If the DM happens to feel like granting something, it has literally nothing to do with their responsibility to listen to requests. It has, only and exclusively, to do with them deciding what to do with their unilateral ability to declare what is and isn't. The player request is a grace note, nothing more.

If the DM is required to listen to any reasonable request, and to do what they can in context to fulfill those requests, then (by definition) there must occasionally be times where the DM would rather not do a thing (or do a different thing), but they are obliged to do so because the player has a reasonable request that can be fulfilled in context. Likewise, if the player is obliged to keep their requests reasonable and to adjust within reasonable limits to that game's context, then there must (by definition) occasionally be times where the player would rather not do a thing (or do a different thing), but they are obliged to do so because the request isn't reasonable or cannot be fulfilled in context.

Neither side gets a get-out-of-discussion-free card. Neither side gets to dictate terms to the other. Both must recognize reasonable limits and both must accept that they might be obliged to do something other than what they would prefer. Rendering default judgment solely because someone is DM (or player, or whatever) is declaring that the other side must, always, put up or shut up, unless the dictating person is so gracious as to not raise a stink about it.

Being dependent exclusively on someone else's graciousness to get anything at all that you want is not a discussion, nor does it mean requests matter. It means you are acting purely on that person's positive feelings, and the instant those feelings are gone, you get nothing.

Who defines what is "reasonable request?" How is any of this is enforced? Who is forcing these people play this game?

Like if you say that you want to play a centaur and I say that I considered it but it is still a no as I don't think they fit the feel of this setting and I am allergic to the centaurs anyway, then what? How will you force me to run a game with centaurs in it? How will I force you to play in a game without centaurs in it? Why is this even desirable?
 

Zardnaar

Legend
"One side can just say 'no, screw you, we do it my way" is not acceptable. Period. Neither side gets license for that.


I do not know how to explain it any simpler or differently.

If the DM can, at any time, unilaterally reject anything and everything the player says, regardless of reason or sense, then they are the only one who actually has any agency or control. The players are simply present for the experience. If the DM happens to feel like granting something, it has literally nothing to do with their responsibility to listen to requests. It has, only and exclusively, to do with them deciding what to do with their unilateral ability to declare what is and isn't. The player request is a grace note, nothing more.

If the DM is required to listen to any reasonable request, and to do what they can in context to fulfill those requests, then (by definition) there must occasionally be times where the DM would rather not do a thing (or do a different thing), but they are obliged to do so because the player has a reasonable request that can be fulfilled in context. Likewise, if the player is obliged to keep their requests reasonable and to adjust within reasonable limits to that game's context, then there must (by definition) occasionally be times where the player would rather not do a thing (or do a different thing), but they are obliged to do so because the request isn't reasonable or cannot be fulfilled in context.

Neither side gets a get-out-of-discussion-free card. Neither side gets to dictate terms to the other. Both must recognize reasonable limits and both must accept that they might be obliged to do something other than what they would prefer. Rendering default judgment solely because someone is DM (or player, or whatever) is declaring that the other side must, always, put up or shut up, unless the dictating person is so gracious as to not raise a stink about it.

Being dependent exclusively on someone else's graciousness to get anything at all that you want is not a discussion, nor does it mean requests matter. It means you are acting purely on that person's positive feelings, and the instant those feelings are gone, you get nothing.

You can ask no one's saying you can't.

DM can say no and one should respect that.

Hell literally the first thing I ask a DM is what they allow.

DM saying no isn't unreasonable them not specifying what they allow then power tripping and saying no to everything you ask for is something different.

Example maybe I want a bit of outer planar stuff. PHB races, Gith, Aasimar, Genasi are fine.

If I miss anything planar related I'll probably say yes. Anything else is a maybe.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
This, at least, I can fully agree on. It was never really about BG3. It was about complaining about how whiny and demanding modern players are. I mean, the very first sentence is, "Over the years I have noticed a phrase 'player entitlement' thrown around." BG3 was simply a vehicle for starting a conversation about how horrible the "player entitlement" boogeyman is.

More an example of curated campaign.

Replace Gith with 1-3 races DMs choice and they build a campaign around how those races interact perhaps drawing on established lore sounds like a fun campaign.

Darksun curated phb races add a few new ones. That setting oozes flavour.
 

This, at least, I can fully agree on. It was never really about BG3. It was about complaining about how whiny and demanding modern players are. I mean, the very first sentence is, "Over the years I have noticed a phrase 'player entitlement' thrown around." BG3 was simply a vehicle for starting a conversation about how horrible the "player entitlement" boogeyman is.
Entitled players who want to do their own thing irrespective of the style of game exist, but are a tiny minority, as are dictatorial DMs who want players to act out roles in their story. And both are easily dealt with by the simple expedient of not playing with such people.

As for BG3, there was a huge amount of forum whining about how terrible it was during early access. But it was a small number of people making a heck of a lot of noise. Larian had the courage to ignore them, and the rest is history.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
My curated Norse campaign.

PHB+Xanathars+this.
20240101_225432.jpg

20240101_225551.jpg

Cost me 200 bucks usd to ship 3 books over here. Kinda like using them and they played Midgard August 2019-Covid.
 

Attachments

  • 20240101_225432.jpg
    20240101_225432.jpg
    2.3 MB · Views: 29

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
you have the right to ask for your extra options to be included and to discuss it with your GM in every campaign.

what you do not have is the right for is for the answer to be 'yes, of course you can play that' every time.

after the discussion 'no' is still a viable answer for the GM to end up deciding on.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
you have the right to ask for your extra options to be included and to discuss it with your GM in every campaign.

what you do not have is the right for is for the answer to be 'yes, of course you can play that' every time.

after the discussion 'no' is still a viable answer for the GM to end up deciding on.

This that toxic power gamer would ask me 2-3 times per session. Rolled stats said no to power gamer combo. Also comboed with 3pp race.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top