D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Zardnaar]

Ok so if Matt Mercer was my dm and said we are running what is essentially Bg3 I’m all in

My previous dm was always restrictive in his homebrew world. There were no gnomes tiefling or Dragonborn and we usually always run a low magic item world plus most of our campaigns end around level 12
I would love this world. To be honest I think I’ve literally only gotten a kiss in a campaign (might have been a pay for brothel once)and even that’s rare and I’ve been playing a long time
I do wish goblin had been an option (fingers crossed) it’s a dlc
There are so many things I would add and will add into future encounters/house rules

What I normally do is phb only plus a few spotlighted races.

If I do cut any they're replaced by another.

Think Darksun. Athasian Half Giants and Kreen stick out. They wouldn’t if it's anything goes.

And BG3 for example includes a lot of lore about the Gith and Netheril for example and ties it to side quests.

 

[MarkB]

It convinced me that bonus action potions are probably a good idea.

And I'll be introducing Elixirs with until-long-rest durations into my campaign. They make an excellent middle ground between short-duration spells or potions and permanent-effect magic items.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean, it’s not like there haven’t been those discussions here on enworld, hell, ive been part of some of them (though on the side of curation)

And then they pull out “But why couldn’t I be an X in your world? It’s fantasy right? It’d be so easy for you to just slip in a village right over here or they could be from overseas..., don’t you want me to have any fun in your campaign?” and it makes you sound like the unreasonable one when you tell them no, you can’t be one of those, there aren’t going to be any in my setting, please pick something from the list I provided of actually included options

But like has been said, that’s online in forums not IRL

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.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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.

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.

 

[mamba]

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

So what this boils down to is the DM does not like a race and you insist on playing it regardless. I am not sure why you think you are any more right here than the DM is. You are also not compromising, you are just trying to make it more palatable for the DM. I assume you could find a cool concept that does fit the DM's world, why not do that?

 

[Minigiant]

I think we'd see some problems with the content of the campaign itself. Have you ever seen a thirstier D&D campaign where almost every important NPC is set on nailing the PC? In Act 1 of the BG, you come across a bugbear raw dogging an ogress which is something I can scarcely imagine happening in a published D&D adventure these days. Would any D&D campaign today make it a viable option to kill the Tieflings and destroy the Druid's Grove? That pretty much goes for any of the evil stuff you can do to advance the plot.

Published no.

But my unpublished starter campaign contains a random encounter that displays the importance of armor when you happen upon some high HD nude hobgoblins either swimming (PG groups) or being naughty (nonPG groups). The party can kill them while they are naked or help them slaughter who they were sent to attack.

Minigiant: Roll to not throw up.

 

[Oofta]

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.

If you feel so strongly about allowing any race, run your own game.

 

[Fifinjir]

I mean, yeah. Look at all that inter party conflict, few DMs would allow that much. And the tadpole plot hook is so forceful many would call it railroading.

 

[MGibster]

I mean, yeah. Look at all that inter party conflict, few DMs would allow that much. And the tadpole plot hook is so forceful many would call it railroading.

This one I'm going to say wouldn't be an example of railroading as it's simply the premise of the campaign. "You're all going to be infected with a Mindflayer parasite and have to figure out a way to deal with it." Players of BG3 have a surprisingly number of ways to deal with the parasite in their head. In my current playthrough, I've never used the parasite's powers nor have I used the parasite's found on the bodies of my enemies to increase my character's powers.

I would expect such a D&D campaign to come with a content warning about body horror. Failure to do so would result in much upset on the internet.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So what this boils down to is the DM does not like a race and you insist on playing it regardless. I am not sure why you think you are any more right here than the DM is

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

You are also not compromising, you are just trying to make it more palatable for the DM.

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

I assume you could find a cool concept that does fit the DM's world, why not do that?

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.

If you feel so strongly about allowing any race, run your own game.

Yes, because that is SO USEFUL for getting to PLAY something, isn't it?

I'd like Consciously Useless Advice for 1000, Alex.