D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Neonchameleon]

I've said in the past that Entitled DMs are far more of a problem than Entitled Players. And as a DM in 5e my ban list consists of precisely two things: Twilight Clerics and Chronurgy Wizards. (It's going to have OG Moon Druids added precisely as soon as we see finalised 2024 Moon Druids without an overcoat of Temp HP). And on races if I think Tabaxi are silly as a GM I don't have to play one.

As for moon druids turning into dinosaurs, I make dinosaurs low key moon druid treasure.

But no, the rules that would cause us to riot aren't "You can be anything from the big list". They're "You can take a short rest at any time twice per long rest and you can take a long rest pretty much whenever as long as you have supplies" and "most non-combat spells are rituals and can be cast freely"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's worth noting, my "I find that extremely unlikely" was literally proven true later in that very same post. Elves, dwarves, halflings, and magic are all present in the game described. Exactly as I had predicted.

Just because that wasn't the case in this instance didn't make you "unlikely" comment correct. In a historical campaign, I would say that it was more likely than not that there would be only human PCs. You lucky guess was lucky.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just because that wasn't the case in this instance didn't make you "unlikely" comment correct. In a historical campaign, I would say that it was more likely than not that there would be only human PCs. You lucky guess was lucky.

My experience suggests otherwise. Grandfathered exceptions for "whatever was in <insert edition here>" are by far the norm. Particularly from folks who are eager to ban things.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Given the way people talk about it around here? Yeah, I really do believe most GMs who "curate" things are basically just kicking out the stuff they don't like.

In a sense, yes. The reasons they "do not like" something are probably more nuanced though. They might not like the concept in general, or they might just feel it is not fit to that particular setting. In either case it makes perfect sense to not include it.

I have yet to see a single person articulate actually good, serious reasons why things have to be diamond-perfect exactly their vision and nothing else. And yes, I am thinking of actual users on this very forum who have explicitly said that their "vision" is much more important than player choices.

Ultimately setting creation is an artistic endeavour. And I don't think an artist should compromise on their vision. Players will get plenty of choice in any case; in this our world of humans we have eight billion unique individuals. That you must make your choices within what exists in the world doesn't mean that you get no choice, there still is virtually infinite amount of character concepts you can play. The potential players should listen the GM's campaign pitch, and then they can decide whether it is something they find interesting. But if they decide to join the game, then they should accept the premise and work with it, and not be the guy who insists playing a jedi in Star Trek.

 

[Oofta]

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.


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


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.


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

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

"I want to play what I want or I'm not playing!" is not compromise. It's a demand. I'm also not offering advice per se, just stating the facts. The DM makes the final call because they're the ones running the game and establishing the world. If that doesn't work for you, then that game is not for you.

Given the way people talk about it around here? Yeah, I really do believe most GMs who "curate" things are basically just kicking out the stuff they don't like.

I have yet to see a single person articulate actually good, serious reasons why things have to be diamond-perfect exactly their vision and nothing else. And yes, I am thinking of actual users on this very forum who have explicitly said that their "vision" is much more important than player choices.

Plenty of people have given reasons. You just don't accept any answer other than "Whatever I want to play, whether it fits into the DM's campaign vision [e.g. ancient Greece] must exist!"

I limit races because I've run things in the same campaign world for decades. I know how the different races interact with each other, there's a long history of how the world works. If tortles suddenly started showed up it would be odd. But it's not just tortles, if I make exceptions for every player then I'd likely have dozens of races because once a race is established as existing it continues to exist from one campaign to the next. Everything the players do in my campaign world continues to exist, even if it's a different group of players.

I have no problem with different species. I think a few are dumb, shardminds (walking, talking sentient floating rocks from 4E) pop to mind but it's not that the races I use are any "better" than others. It's that I think campaign worlds like Forgotten Realms that has every race under the sun lack coherence and logic. If you have a ton or races, they all start to lack identity and meaning other than a handful of stats for me. If I had a crossroads campaign world where different species pop in from anywhere then any race is fine. But in a world that makes sense to me? A multitude of intelligent races just doesn't work.
That's true for the "monstrous" races as well for what it's worth.

If you really want some feature from a different race, we'll talk and figure out if there's something I can do to make it work. But the result has to look and, for all practical purposes, be one of the existing races. So yes, I've had Devas and Aasimaar in my game because they are just humans with unique features and backstories. But no, I will never have a Tabaxi even if I played one in someone else's campaign.

 

[Hussar]

The OP did say such a curated game would get you crucified on online forums rather than in the real world. When I ran Curse of Strahd both times I restricted the players to the races available in the PHB without nary a complaint.

The problem is, the OP has misconstrued the reason for push back on things like curated lists.

A dm who simply bars things because the dm happens not to like them is where the pushback comes. A dm who refuses to compromise with the player is where the pushback comes. A dm who insists that his or her “vision” must be the only one taken into consideration is where the pushback comes.

Curated lists? They’re not the problem.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The problem is, the OP has misconstrued the reason for push back on things like curated lists.

A dm who simply bars things because the dm happens not to like them is where the pushback comes. A dm who refuses to compromise with the player is where the pushback comes. A dm who insists that his or her “vision” must be the only one taken into consideration is where the pushback comes.

Curated lists? They’re not the problem.

Of course, good luck getting anyone to actually hear that message. As demonstrated by this very thread: simply asking for a chance to discuss things, to provide and hear alternatives, to consider compromises or reworkings, gets you branded as a subversive element actively trying to destroy the game.

 

[mamba]

Of course, good luck getting anyone to actually hear that message. As demonstrated by this very thread: simply asking for a chance to discuss things, to provide and hear alternatives, to consider compromises or reworkings, gets you branded as a subversive element actively trying to destroy the game.

yeah, because that is exactly what everyone did

That there was one reply that you can arguably stretch that far if you want to, does not prove your case

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Literally characterizing me as a terrorist bomber. How is that not painting me as an extremist before we even begin?

Right. I characterised you as a terrorist bomber. Literally.

I think if you want to have a meaningful discussion with someone, you need to find yourself a better way of going about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're not just whistling Dixie, my friend. One of the things I really like about BG3 is all the choices I have not only with what I do but how I do it. How many D&D computer games have we had where some of the minor spells like Charm Person actually did any good? But the inclusion of slavery in D&D is something of a hot topic these days with some vehemently opposed to it in any form. 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.

And yet it's presence in BG3 perhaps indicates that this controversy is more artificial than the IP holders think it is, and that plenty of gamers have no.problem with its inclusion.