D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Hussar]

I mean, my next campaign is going to be extremely limited. But I’m also pretty up front in my reasons. For example there will be no full casters (except possibly warlocks) because I’ve now run back to back campaigns with a LOT of full casters and I’m really tired of it. So this is one spot I won’t compromise on.

Other stuff? I’m probably going to be willing to talk. But no full casters - mostly because I want a much simpler, faster and light campaign is not up for discussion.

There’s nothing wrong with curated lists. But when the dm starts insisting that nothing is open for discussion and even suggesting that a discussion happens is considered bad, well, that’s generally where I start looking for a new group.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I made the mistake of commenting on a Reddit thread concerning detrimental status effects (petrification, paralyzation, and so one), where a few posters were arguing that they should never be used against characters because that might mean (gasp!) the affected players would be unable to play the game for a round or two. I was really surprised at the insistence on absolute player agency by those posters, where the DM is merely there to fulfill the players' whims and not inhibit them in any way.

I guess Reddit is part of @EzekielRaiden 's .001%.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

So what? If you want something and the DM doesn't, why must the player always get their way, regardless of reason? How is, "we go back and forth, but in the endvthe player gets what they want" a compromise? The DM is giving up a restriction they wanted to impose in the game they're running. What is the player giving up?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

You did so. You (quite obviously) did not mean that I was, physically, a terrorist bomber. But that is--literally--the wording you used. How else am I supposed to interpret "blow up" except in the context of destructive explosions?

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

I am quite happy to discuss things with people who do not immediately characterize me as a crazy extremist simply because I asked to have a discussion.

Because I actually did that. Repeatedly:

Spoiler

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.

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.

Do you think I don't run a game? Because I do. Admittedly, it's Dungeon World and not D&D, but close enough. (Indeed, I feel like I barely talk about anything else around here. I'm almost certain we've both posted in threads where I've mentioned how I run devils in my game.)

Doing so has made me even more convinced that it is vital beyond words for DMs to actively and passionately cultivate genuine, sincere player enthusiasm at every stage of play, and that by far the best way to do that is to be as supportive as possible for their ideas, particularly when it comes to baseline "what am I allowed to be?" and "what am I allowed to attempt?" stuff. I still expect my players to sell me on it (that's part of the process of supporting genuine and sincere enthusiasm, not abusive, coercive, or exploitative behavior), but my players know for absolute, 100% fact that if they have a reasonable request, I will find a way to make it work, though it may take on new forms or new interpretations before things are settled and ready.

(And, though it should go without saying, just because they can attempt a thing does not mean they will succeed--but I will never, absolutely genuinely never, tell them that they can try something and then play games to ensure that their success chance is effectively zero. If they can attempt it, it has a fair chance of success. If it's an "effectively zero" chance, I'll tell them that--but "effectively zero" means maybe it can be improved to be "unlikely but achievable," if they can succeed at other things first. The difference between mostly dead and all dead and such.)

Also, I love how "I just really like X, can we talk about ways to make that happen?" is now "[my] need to be the one setting rules."

Do you not see how hilarious that turn is? How you have vilified even the questioning, even the attempt at discussion (to say nothing of compromise)? You have literally painted me as some insane control freak simply because I want to sit down and talk with the DM about some limits to see if there's something we can work out. I would genuinely think you were having a laugh if I didn't know better, and it makes me sad that you are completely serious.


Because I have never--not once--"signed up for" playing only one specific thing. Literally every time I have ever played a game, it has been, "Hey, you wanna do some D&D? We can talk about character stuff" or someone posting a proposal online and, because they aren't foolish, not massively limiting what things people are allowed to play.

Because it turns out having adult conversations with people is actually really important if you want people to play in your games. As opposed to declaring that your word is law and those who question that are dangerous, subversive elements that must be exiled posthaste.

Unredacted posts. And when I gave examples of how I might try to meet a DM in the middle, I was instantly dismissed as a destructive, dangerous element, totally unwilling to compromise or engage in any way.

I'm not the one who doesn't want to have a conversation here. I'm not the one who won't even open a dialogue. Yet I am characterized as doing so, repeatedly, rather than even attempting to actually discuss the point at hand.

So what? If you want something and the DM doesn't, why must the player always get their way, regardless of reason? How is, "we go back and forth, but in the endvthe player gets what they want" a compromise? The DM is giving up a restriction they wanted to impose in the game they're running. What is the player giving up?

Did I ever say that? Did I ever even imply that?

Point to a single post in this thread where I said anything of the kind. As opposed to, y'know, the multiple times I explicitly said I want a dialogue, where I spoke from a DM's perspective (because I am one) about what I expect from my players.

I welcome your response. Because I'm quite confident you won't find what you're claiming I've said. Other than--and this is pretty vital--that I think BOTH the player AND the DM will get what they want, if they actually have an adult conversation about it, rather than one side stamping their feet and petulantly crying "no! You do it MY way!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

It's not compromise if only one side is changing what they want. It's capitulation.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

You did so. You (quite obviously) did not mean that I was, physically, a terrorist bomber. But that is--literally--the wording you used. How else am I supposed to interpret "blow up" except in the context of destructive explosions?

I am quite happy to discuss things with people who do not immediately characterize me as a crazy extremist simply because I asked to have a discussion.

Because I actually did that. Repeatedly:

Unredacted posts. And when I gave examples of how I might try to meet a DM in the middle, I was instantly dismissed as a destructive, dangerous element, totally unwilling to compromise or engage in any way.

I'm not the one who doesn't want to have a conversation here. I'm not the one who won't even open a dialogue. Yet I am characterized as doing so, repeatedly, rather than even attempting to actually discuss the point at hand.

Your definition of engaging in a meaningful discussion leaves something to be desired. I've tried to meet you in the middle twice. That was your last chance. Enjoy the rest of this thread.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You did so. You (quite obviously) did not mean that I was, physically, a terrorist bomber. But that is--literally--the wording you used. How else am I supposed to interpret "blow up" except in the context of destructive explosions?


I am quite happy to discuss things with people who do not immediately characterize me as a crazy extremist simply because I asked to have a discussion.

Because I actually did that. Repeatedly:

Unredacted posts. And when I gave examples of how I might try to meet a DM in the middle, I was instantly dismissed as a destructive, dangerous element, totally unwilling to compromise or engage in any way.

I'm not the one who doesn't want to have a conversation here. I'm not the one who won't even open a dialogue. Yet I am characterized as doing so, repeatedly, rather than even attempting to actually discuss the point at hand.


Did I ever say that? Did I ever even imply that?

Point to a single post in this thread where I said anything of the kind. As opposed to, y'know, the multiple times I explicitly said I want a dialogue, where I spoke from a DM's perspective (because I am one) about what I expect from my players.

I welcome your response. Because I'm quite confident you won't find what you're claiming I've said. Other than--and this is pretty vital--that I think BOTH the player AND the DM will get what they want, if they actually have an adult conversation about it, rather than one side stamping their feet and petulantly crying "no! You do it MY way!"

Are you ok with having that dialogue, but in the end you don't get to play the race you want? Would you still participate in that game?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Are you ok with having that dialogue, but in the end you don't get to play the race you want? Would you still participate in that game?

Depends on exactly how it ends up. I might instead just say that it's not a game for me and bow out.

And--notice--that what is required by what you've said here is that, instead, the DM always gets what they want. Can't be a dialogue if it isn't actually a two-way street. If I'm expected to give, I expect give in return. I refuse to accept a dialogue where one person's side is, "Well, you can either get nothing at all of what you want, or you can stop wanting that and choose to want something else instead." And that applies to players just as much as DMs.

Diplomacy cannot begin with, "You can have any color you want as long as the color you want is black."

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

It's not compromise if only one side is changing what they want. It's capitulation.

To be fair, I don't think that's what @EzekielRaiden is suggesting. He seems to be saying that he wants at least accommodations from both sides. Which is a reasonable request, frankly. As long as it's a request, mind you, not a demand.

To your point, the impression I'm getting is that he thinks getting a hard no from the DM is something serious and indicative of a problematic individual, probably deserving hellfire, or at least lengthy multi-quotes, laced with hyperbole. Sometimes what a player asks really doesn't fit into the campaign world, as much as the DM would genuinely like to accommodate that request.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To be fair, I don't think that's what @EzekielRaiden is suggesting. He seems to be saying that he wants at least accommodations from both sides. Which is a reasonable request, frankly. As long as it's a request, mind you, not a demand.

Correct. And, if you look back at what I said, I explicitly did that. I spoke of requests, and of offering a litany of tweaks, alternatives, or reinterpretations--with the expectation that counter-offers would be supplied in kind. I can't predict what counter-offers might be made, so I can't speak for the other side.

To your point, the impression I'm getting is that he thinks getting a hard no from the DM is something serious and indicative of a problematic individual, probably deserving hellfire, or at least lengthy multi-quotes, laced with hyperbole. Sometimes what a player asks really doesn't fit into the campaign world, as much as the DM would genuinely like to accommodate that request.

Getting a hard no without even the possibility of discussion--indeed, treating the very suggestion of discussion as something suspicious, even dangerous--is what I think indicates a serious problem, yes. And if you look at this thread, that has happened. I explicitly described offering alternatives; I was characterized as trying to destroy others' joy. What else am I supposed to think, but that the very attempt at discussion is being vilified?

And yes, @Micah Sweet, I completely agree that expecting only one side to change what they want is capitulation.

Only one group is asking for that here. Because I'm not saying player preferences are sacrosanct. I said as much in describing how I GM.

But some people here are describing certain preferences as sacrosanct. It's not the people talking about player preferences. Player preferences are the ones expected to bend in every case, always, no matter what. That is demanding player capitulation, by your own definition.