D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[EzekielRaiden]

Sorry, as a player I think that is a valid excuse for a DM. If they don’t like something they are not obliged to included it.

Now my DM is very inclusive and works with us to build the campaign world generally. However, I have no issue with having a campaign world that excludes any number of things. I can decided whether or not I want to play in it.

So: My-way-or-the-highway-ism. Screw compromise. Screw cooperation. Screw being respectful to one another. The DM is absolute master; be glad you even get to play in their game!

 

[MGibster]

So: My-way-or-the-highway-ism. Screw compromise. Screw cooperation. Screw being respectful to one another. The DM is absolute master; be glad you even get to play in their game!

In a way, kind of. I'm going to weigh things a bit more heavily in the DM's favor when it comes to preferences because they're the one who is actually running the game. As a DM, I'm generally willing to work with a player in order to make sure they can play the type of character they want to play so long as I think it'll fit within the parameters of the campaign.

 

[mamba]

I am not sure why anyone should be "any more right here" than anyone else.

agreed, no one is more right, but if neither one is willing to compromise, then I tend to side with the DM, it's their game after all

It should, instead, become a dialogue--people working out their differences respectfully, like adults, rather than anyone stamping their feet and declaring their way is the only possible way that things can happen.

ideally that would be the case

How is that not compromise? Seriously. How is it not? How could it POSSIBLY be anything else?

you still play the race you wanted all along and the DM does not want. That is not a compromise on your part to me. Find a race the DM is ok with and see if that can get whatever features your cool combo needed from the original race (or close to them), that would be a compromise.

Because I believe in adults actually communicating with one another and trying to meet in the middle, rather than always kowtowing to one person or another.

that is not what this story sounded like to me, you basically wanted the DM to give in without compromising, i.e. you still play your race, not anything else.

 

[Zardnaar]

Except that I find that, in the vast majority of cases, the reason given isn't, "Because I have a really cool concept I want to express through this campaign and including the thing you mentioned isn't really compatible with doing so. Could we talk it out and maybe find something that works for both of us?"

Instead, it is, in almost every instance, "I just think <X> are stupid, so I don't let people play them in my games." And when I propose all sorts of alternative options--not just "a village a short ways away," but things like being a one-off (e.g. someone mutated by magic or alchemy, or an alien trying to get back to their own people, or the result of someone's efforts to bring two opposing entities closer together, or coming from a parallel universe, or...) I am shut down, every single time. Not because any of those options are incompatible--it is, in nearly every case, because the person simply doesn't like them and thus nobody should ever get to play one in their games. "My preferences are simply more important."

And yes, I have had people say something essentially identical to that. More than once. Because the poor, beleaguered DM with absolute power and zero accountability slaves so hard for their group, while the players who literally can't do anything without DM approval are living large doing only the things they're allowed to do, going to the places they're allowed to go, and (all too often) misled into believing they have any real agency whatsoever.

Edit:
Hence why I said in another thread that I find the pattern today is one of avoiding accommodation as much as humanly possible. It is viking hat all the way, my-way-or-the-highway, "no, hell no, and never darken my door again" (something someone actually said about a request for something not explicitly approved in their games, on another forum.) All shall love DM Empowerment, and despair.

I don't like it is a perfectly valid reason for DM to exclude something.

Generally I use broader ban lists eg no flyers, no monsters.

Or soft Bans Eg ban the broken stuff, slightly OP stuff you can be but don't expect much mechanical support.

SM throwing their weight around eg banning all suggestions from the player is stupid.

Only time it's really been an issue was player wanting potential hexblade/paladin combo (rolled an 18 20 after racials casual group), and a potential player wanting to worship raven queen (in an Egyptian themed game).

So ban lists are mostly mechanical these days, spotlight list is players Guide on preferred stuff snd what to expect in magic items.

 

[Zardnaar]

So: My-way-or-the-highway-ism. Screw compromise. Screw cooperation. Screw being respectful to one another. The DM is absolute master; be glad you even get to play in their game!

Ultimately yes. Don't like it run your own game.

My current game is ancient Greece. If it wasn't available in 432BC its banned. Spotlighted races human, demihuman.

Anachronism exist but you have to go find them. Indirectly buffs exploration. Want full plate go find it. No you can't buy it.

Fate of Atlantis is the campaign name. Those Anachronism's are Atlantean stuff/gifts from the gods. Go find it.

Races allowed are the AD&D ones. I don't have any more in that game system anyway to pick from.

Theme actually came from newest player. Had a discussion with new potential player, picked up two and they seem to be loving it. Cooke of established players were keen for that theme and joined in.

 

[Leatherhead]

Damn Lawful types DM's. That BG one is brutal.

Wait till you hear about mods!

 

[Zardnaar]

Wait till you hear about mods!

I'm aware. Rarely use mods due to balance issues or stability issues.

 

[Charlaquin]

I knew it was a common houserule. Didn't know the source.

I mean, the source is people’s brains. Like, yeah, Critical Role uses it, but it’s not like someone needs to have seen CR to think of it. I remember people suggesting such a house rule all the way back in the D&DNext playtest.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean, the source is people’s brains. Like, yeah, Critical Role uses it, but it’s not like someone needs to have seen CR to think of it. I remember people suggesting such a house rule all the way back in the D&DNext playtest.

Probably. That and feat at lvl 1 is the most common house rules I'm aware of.

 

[cbwjm]

I feel this forum would be more welcoming of restrictions (though there are some from if I recall past threads correctly). If you really want pushback, Reddit is the place to go. People hated my suggestion that maybe, a druid can't turn into a dinosaur if they don't exist in my game world. Some people were like "everything in the books must be available!"