D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Depends on (a) the group and (b) the response. Hitting triggers and then stopping is very different from hitting triggers and just charging straight over the lines.

I have no triggers. I respect that others do though. I am always curious about how these are discussed, handled at the table, then processed by those with triggers.

 

[mamba]

....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.

ok, explain to me how you imagine this to work then

1) you propose something
2) the DM rejects it outright and is not willing to compromise

How do you get from this to you not capitulating based on your interpretation of ‘capitulating’?

 

[Jack Daniel]

Over the years I have noticed a phrase "player entitlement" thrown around.

I have too. And it's usually vague to the point of meaninglessness.

Players are entitled . . . to whatever the group playing the game decides they're entitled to. It's up to the group, not to WotC or a population of forum-goers or the hobby as a whole. Y'all don't get a vote on what the players I run games for are owed. And I don't get a vote on what your players are owed. These dozens-of-pages-long arguments might see cooler heads prevailing if some of the more indignant-at-how-other-people-play persons remembered that.

At my table, I owe my players the freedom to explore my campaign milieu, to go whither they will in the time and manner that they see fit, and the agency to do what they will and not have their decisions negated by extradiegetic subtleties and manipulations. I don't feel that I owe my players the right to play whatever character concept they can dream up or the right to bring whatever customization options they please to the table, because I do run world-exploration games but I don't run character-building/customizing games. And I'm clear about that up front. Any player who sits down at my table knows within the first two minutes that I'm all about facilitating in-game choice, but I'm not about indulging out-of-game options.

But here's the key takeaway: my table doesn't have to be like anyone else's table. I don't expect anyone else's to be like mine. It's really just that simple.

 

[ezo]

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.

I'm not, for one thing. If you can't tell the difference, drop it.

Your statements seemed to imply that the players didn't even have the right to ask for a variation/adjustment/addition to the DM's game/world or that the DM simply flat-out says "no" without offering any reasoning whatsoever. You say you didn't include more of my post in your reply above, but you excluded the part before it which justifies the rest. People often do that to try to sway others, so you're not alone...

As for what the DM "doles out to them", I have a surprise for you: THAT is pretty much everything in the game. The DM decides the adventure options, the opponents, the magic items, the availablity of stuff in towns, etc. Whether they do that by simply making the decision or rolling randomly (in which case the DM is still setting the odds), the DM decides.

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.

What may appear a whim to those players, or yourself, is a matter of opinion. For me, I don't even ask a DM why they are doing something if I find it odd or off-putting. It is their game to run, so I go with it 9 times out of 10. If I really object, I bow out.

 

[occam]

Controversial to say the least, it would never happen these days.



Which is interesting and sad, that the potential of the medium, the art form if you will, is so shackled due to social media.

It isn't social media (or at least, not just social media), it's age targeting. BG3 is marketed and rated as being unsuitable for children, while D&D adventures include children and adults in their audience. I may not personally have a problem with certain content, but as a parent, I'd be fairly upset at some of the things mentioned in this thread popping up in a D&D book.

D&D is a mass-market product, and the primary gateway to introducing children into the TTRPG hobby. Complaining about it shying away from certain topics is akin to wondering why Pixar's next movie isn't a blood-soaked, drug-fueled, orgiastic trip through a postapocalyptic hellscape. You're looking for that content in the wrong place.

 

[Scribe]

It isn't social media (or at least, not just social media), it's age targeting.

Nah. The various changes and errata are not age driven.

 

[Demetrios1453]

@EzekielRaiden:

I will run my games the way I and my players see fit. You, and any other outsider, have no say on that. In attempting to do so, you are attempting to limit my group's agency to do as it wills.

(I suggest everyone answer his objections this way. There's no need to justify to others how you play your game, nor should others request that you justify it, and vice versa. In all cases, it's "you do you". The ultimate agency isn't player agency, nor DM agency, but group agency - every group is allowed to play the game as the group sees fit, free from how others think they should play it.)

 

[occam]

Nah. The various changes and errata are not age driven.

This is a non sequitur. I don't know why you brought up rule changes, but the comment about age targeting was in reference to things like this:

And in BG3 we have slavery and the PCs can make some horrendous decisions regarding the treatment of those people. If such things were options in a campaign released by WotC today, it would be controversial.

 

[Scribe]

I don't know why you brought up rule changes, but the comment about age targeting was in reference to things like this:

Who said anything about rules?

The tone, the art style, the text. These things have changed over the life of 5e, and it has nothing to do with being age appropriate.

 

[ezo]

@EzekielRaiden:

I will run my games the way I and my players see fit. You, and any other outsider, have no say on that. In attempting to do so, you are attempting to limit my group's agency to do as it wills.

(I suggest everyone answer his objections this way. There's no need to justify to others how you play your game, nor should others request that you justify it, and vice versa. In all cases, it's "you do you". The ultimate agency isn't player agency, nor DM agency, but group agency - every group is allowed to play the game as the group sees fit, free from how others think they should play it.)

I don't believe @EzekielRaiden really has an issue with running your game how you (and your group) want to, but more about understanding why some DMs would deny player agency for what he might consider trivial reasons.

And for some of us (myself anyway), it is not about "group" agency, either. It is ultimately about DM's running the type of game they want to run. As a DM (and all the DM's I've played with), DMs do a lot more work and have much more responsibility towards creating and running an enjoyable game for the entire group (the DM included!), not just for the players.

If a player want so play a certain race, or use features from a certain book, I (as DM) have the right to veto that choice--for whatever reason. Some might find those reasons trivial or whims, others might not. But, regardless of the reason, if I feel those choices will greatly lessen the enjoyment I have from running the game, I won't allow them. If the requests are not as big an issue (they might bug me, but I can live with it), then I'll allow them. But, in the long run, I am running the game and ultimately it is my decision.

Now, if a player doesn't feel I am being fair, or ruining their game, they can voice their concerns. If we can't reach a middle-ground of some sort, they can go or stay as they want. If they stay and begin to ruin the fun for others, I won't invite them back.

However, I (as a PLAYER) will abide by whatever rules, limitations, etc. the DMs I play with choose. My enjoyment as a player (given how little time I put into it before hand) is not limited by my choices of races, rules, or whatever. I can always find something I'll like. However, if (after playing a few times) I realize the DM's style (yes, italics are great...) don't appeal to me, I will thank them for the game, but bow out and move on--even if they are friends. (And fortunately, we can remain friends despite our differences. )

I won't ever tell others how to play. I might ask so I understand, but their game is up to them. If I like it, awesome, if not, such is life.