D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[mamba]

If restricting races is not restricting what someone does then everyone should be able to do it.

nonsense. It does not restrict what the PC does in game, these are apples and oranges

Why is it that the "DMs are God and should use their power however they want" side never actually likes looking in a mirror?

where does the ‘should use however they want’ come from?

All I said is that compromise is preferred, but you cannot force the DM to accept something, just like the player cannot be forced to, even if that means one of the two has to walk

 

[Neonchameleon]

That is a situation that can and often happens. There's a big difference between the scenario you described and what's being outlined here though. You're talking about the DM having a singular view that's objectionable to the entire table. The discussion here is about a single player creating a situation potentially disruptive to the rest of the table.

@EzekielRaiden and @Neonchameleon ... thoughts on this? How does this line up with what you're saying?

I am currently a near perma-GM who has run open tables for years. I've learned from some really good GMs and some not so good GMs. I'd say that despite having run open table for literal years and only having experience of about a dozen GMs I've run into four actual serious problem GMs in that time, and only three problem players (plus two I worked out of being problems). And in every case if a problem (including the GM who saddled us with one DMPC for each member of the party) the fundamental problem has been a preciousness the GM had over their world and an unwillingness to let things happen in ways that didn't fit their vision.

And none of the GMs I have considered superb ones (despite being very different) have tried to restrict and control races, instead presenting the vision, meanwhile it's been a red flag whenever someone does. Not all the bad GMs have and one of the mediocre ones has. But it's always been a red flag.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The DM does not need to - but every time the DM feels they are required to reject something that someone requests and that the basic rules would allow then that is a failure by the DM. Whether one of sharing their vision or one of being overcontrolling. Or just imbalance and bad game design.

The players' desires don't always have to be accommodated - but where they aren't then something has failed. If it's on balance grounds then the designers have failed. (Twilight Clerics being the main 5e example). If it is to fit the tone and theme and the DM has been clear then the DM should then reflect on why their pitch and communication has failed and where they could have done better.

How is that not what I said? "If the DM doesn't accommodate the player, and it isn't a balance issue, then the DM has failed"? How is that any less objectionable than @EzekielRaiden 's claims that's it's always the opposite?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

What they said squares pretty well with my perspective, though your summary is somewhat biased.

What I said was not biased at all, but I'm not taking any offense.

That is, @Mustrum_Ridcully makes clear that advocating for one's preferences is not "selfish" for any participant, DM or player alike. As they said, "That isn't a disrespect or selfishness. DMs and players like what you like, and if they want to play together, they are going to have to find common ground. Maybe sometimes DM and player interests are too far apart, but I think most of the time they can work something out."

Sweet!

Framing it as "one disruptive player, everyone else totally fine" or "DM disruptive, every other player against them" is needless. It's just different people advocating for their interests. That isn't disrespectful nor selfish--indeed, it very often comes from a place of wanting to have fun alongside everyone else.

Not needless. That's the way the argument was being framed in the first place, so that's how it was responded to.

I fundamentally disagree that it is all that common for player and DM preferences to be that far apart. As a GM, I have found that in nearly all cases--all but one or two exceptions in several years of GMing--it is eminently possible to drill down, find what the player truly values, and make that happen in a way that all parties enthusiastically support. And the only exceptions I can think of came from players who were, as I have said previously, being abusive, coercive, or exploitative, hence why I call those things out.

Good!

So...I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not here. But you do realize that that's literally not actually anything, right? You're literally saying that the player gets only whatever the DM doles out to them. You haven't disputed any part of what I said.

Not what's being said at all.

Whereas I find--based on the testimony of people on this very forum, including participants in this very thread--that they drop the hammer frequently and for light and transient reasons, often little better than whim.

That's only your perspective. That really isn't happening.

....if the DM has the right to never compromise, then you are explicitly saying that the player has the duty to always capitulate. That is the nature of rights--every right has an equal and opposite duty. And yes, I consider "leave the game" a form of capitulation.

I'm not sure why you keep framing that disagreement so harshly.

The thread at large has made quite clear that they expect players to meekly accept whatever DMs hand down to them.

Again, you are really misreading what people are telling you.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The players' desires don't always have to be accommodated - but where they aren't then something has failed. If it's on balance grounds then the designers have failed. (Twilight Clerics being the main 5e example). If it is to fit the tone and theme and the DM has been clear then the DM should then reflect on why their pitch and communication has failed and where they could have done better.

Or the player has failed to read the table and is causing issues for everyone else. Then the player has failed. Be fair in your responses please.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am currently a near perma-GM who has run open tables for years. I've learned from some really good GMs and some not so good GMs. I'd say that despite having run open table for literal years and only having experience of about a dozen GMs I've run into four actual serious problem GMs in that time, and only three problem players (plus two I worked out of being problems). And in every case if a problem (including the GM who saddled us with one DMPC for each member of the party) the fundamental problem has been a preciousness the GM had over their world and an unwillingness to let things happen in ways that didn't fit their vision.

And none of the GMs I have considered superb ones (despite being very different) have tried to restrict and control races, instead presenting the vision, meanwhile it's been a red flag whenever someone does. Not all the bad GMs have and one of the mediocre ones has. But it's always been a red flag.

Well, all any of us can do is go with our experiences, but it sure seems to me that yours aren't universal.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I think, like so much that is discussed on enworld, is a table-by-table situation. I think Matt Colville had a video about that, that we can't really talk about playing D&D because it varies so wildly table by table, you're not comparing it the same way as you might compare playing Fallout 4.

As far as limiting character options, I've never had a problem with it. Usually it's tied to the campaign pitch. I'm thinking of Thirteenth Warrior as a D&D campaign. Clearly, it was pitched as a Viking gameworld, and either the DM said 'and I'd like to explore the culture, so I'll allow up to one non-Viking if we can make it fit and overcome the language' or a player wanted to be an outsider and explore the culture.

A lot of tables I've been at would've devolved then into who's the outsider. 'Well, he's an Arab poet... how about I play a Greek priest and I'm his translator' and then someone wants to be an English longbowman and it spirals. Sometimes, it gets tiring yes-anding and trying to find a way to work these ideas in that really aren't so much a roleplaying thing as 'Oh, I just discovered Sorlocks and I want to try it'

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I am currently a near perma-GM who has run open tables for years. I've learned from some really good GMs and some not so good GMs. I'd say that despite having run open table for literal years and only having experience of about a dozen GMs I've run into four actual serious problem GMs in that time, and only three problem players (plus two I worked out of being problems).

Awesome! Probably the case for most of us to be honest. Problem players and DMs are fun to talk about, but they don't really pop up that often.

And in every case if a problem (including the GM who saddled us with one DMPC for each member of the party) the fundamental problem has been a preciousness the GM had over their world and an unwillingness to let things happen in ways that didn't fit their vision.

And none of the GMs I have considered superb ones (despite being very different) have tried to restrict and control races, instead presenting the vision, meanwhile it's been a red flag whenever someone does. Not all the bad GMs have and one of the mediocre ones has. But it's always been a red flag.

But in the greater world, outside of your personal experiences, this seems to not be the case. Are you 100% positive you're not letting personal prejudices colour your viewpoint?

 

[Neonchameleon]

How is that not what I said? "If the DM doesn't accommodate the player, and it isn't a balance issue, then the DM has failed"? How is that any less objectionable than @EzekielRaiden 's claims that's it's always the opposite?

To quote Uncle Ben with great power comes great responsibility. The DM has the power to do a lot of things - including just saying "Rocks fall and everyone dies". But if they ever do that something has gone badly wrong somewhere.

But in the greater world, outside of your personal experiences, this seems to not be the case. Are you 100% positive you're not letting personal prejudices colour your viewpoint?

Are you sure? Because the normal result of a bad player is that they get pitched out - but a common result of bad DMs is players not coming back. Understanding the actual situation is one of many problems with D&D being such a fragmented community.

 

[mamba]

Whereas I find--based on the testimony of people on this very forum, including participants in this very thread--that they drop the hammer frequently and for light and transient reasons, often little better than whim.

you mean the same whim as you insisting on playing a dragonborn and nothing else?

....if the DM has the right to never compromise, then you are explicitly saying that the player has the duty to always capitulate. That is the nature of rights--every right has an equal and opposite duty. And yes, I consider "leave the game" a form of capitulation.

if you want to read it that way and walking away also is capitulation, then yes. Not sure what you think the alternative is, to me the only way would be for the player to be able to force their will onto the DM, which is a worse transgression than the DM not compromising