D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Jaeger]

If a GM has a restrictive setting, that he springs upon his players, then there is a discussion to be had.

GM: "Let's play D&D!"

Players: "Sounds cool, We're there!"

Game Night:

GM: "Ok, so we're playing D&D, but in my setting of Acktuallia; No Tieflings, Dragonborn, or filthy Halflings!"

Players: "Whoa, Dude! You said that were were going to play D&D! What's with all this Acktuallia stuff, and the race restrictions??"

GM: "What!? I'm sure it was all in my email..."

Talking things out, and coming to some sort of compromise is the proper course here as expectations have been shifted.


But when a GM makes his game pitch first?

GM: "I want to run a game of D&D in my setting of Acktuallia; which does not have Tieflings, Dragonborn, or filthy Halflings!"

Players: "Sounds cool. We're there!"

Game Night:

GM: "Ok, so let's make some PC's to start your adventures in Acktuallia!"

That Player: "Umm... Hey, I have a really cool idea for a Tiefling PC!'

GM: "Bro, do you remember that I said Acktuallia does not have Tieflings, Dragonborn, or filthy Halflings?"

That Player: "Yeah, I do, Buttttttttt..."

When the setting and restrictions were agreed upon beforehand; There is no compromise to be had, because the Player wanting a 'compromise' has come to the gaming table in Bad Faith.

The time to voice concerns to the GM was when he first made his game pitch. Not when everyone is at the table getting ready to go.

Any discussion that leads to 'That Player' playing a PC of a formerly restricted race is not a 'compromise'; It's just the GM negotiating the terms of their capitulation.

If there were communication issues, then by all means; Talk it out, and try to come to some kind of compromise.

If the GM told you how it was going to be upfront, (You didn't voice any issues you might have), then you show up on game night and try to wrangle some exception..!?

Well, at that point you are: 'That Player'.

And the GM is well within their rights to tell you: "No."

 

[Vaalingrade]

You don’t “voluntell” someone else what to create.

This applies to DM too when players are creating their characters.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

It’s funny. I just always seem to be in groups that make it work.

I play with friends. Some of these discussions make me think I’m very fortunate.

 

[Kurotowa]

I was thinking about what it would take for me to add a race to my campaign world. There are some exceptions, races that can be just a subset of human such as Deva or Goliath like I mentioned.

As has often been pointed out in these discussions, there's a spectrum of responses for when a player wants to use a new or unusual race that hasn't already been stipulated as part of the setting.

At one end of the scale, the DM can try to insert them as a major part of the demographic, via retcon or major in-game event. This will please players who want to be part of an active culture, but asks the most of the DM when it comes to revising the world. In the middle of the scale, the DM can insert a populate as a tiny enclave, or put their homeland in a distant part of the world. This allows the PC to have grown up amongst kin and occasionally interact with them during the campaign, but demands fewer changes to the world. At the other end of the scale, the PC can have fallen through a gateway from another world, or be a unique result of a divine curse or magical accident. This often satisfies when the player is more interested in the aesthetic or mechanics of the race than the cultural background. And of course, there's always a flat rejection for when none of the above are satisfactory to both parties.

Really, the trick is for the DM and player to have a clear communication about what the player really wants by asking for a non-standard race. Then they can have the negotiation over if there's a way to achieve that without breaking the setting.

 

[Demetrios1453]

It’s funny. I just always seem to be in groups that make it work.

I play with friends. Some of these discussions make me think I’m very fortunate.

That's because 99% of the hypotheticals being bandied about in this thread will never happen in real life among even slightly reasonable people.

 

[Kurotowa]

That's because 99% of the hypotheticals being bandied about in this thread will never happen in real life among even slightly reasonable people.

True, but real life is often amazingly lacking in even slightly reasonable people. Depending on your social circles, I suppose. My experience is that drama prone and infrequently reasonable types attract one another. Or perhaps it's just that everyone else gets sick of their nonsense at some point.

Whatever the case, I expect it's a dynamic where a lot of folks are in groups of calm and reasonable friends who are good at working these things out politely. And then there's the demographic where every disagreement sees battle lines being drawn and maximalist positions becoming entrenched, and it all just feeds into the latest episode of The Drama. And when the two camps discuss their experiences online, it's like they're coming from entirely different worlds.

 

[pemerton]

Framing all this in terms of rights or entitlements or obligation seems weird to me.

No one has an obligation to play a RPG. Either people want to play a game, or they don't. How this actually plays out among a group of individuals is up to them.

 

[ezo]

That's because 99% of the hypotheticals being bandied about in this thread will never happen in real life among even slightly reasonable people.

FWIW, I've had a few players not agree to play because of ban on races or classes subclasses (which they knew about up front).

I've had maybe five or six not play or asked to leave because they wanted more "evil" or twisted games--which I don't run or play in.

I've left two groups when the DM wanted to run a game with themes I didn't want and included races and classes I didn't like either.

Now, this is over the course of 30+ years of gaming. So, while the stuff being banded about isn't really just hypothetical, it is probably 1 in 100 games that run into the issues to the point that someone or other leaves the game.

 

[Oofta]

As has often been pointed out in these discussions, there's a spectrum of responses for when a player wants to use a new or unusual race that hasn't already been stipulated as part of the setting.

At one end of the scale, the DM can try to insert them as a major part of the demographic, via retcon or major in-game event. This will please players who want to be part of an active culture, but asks the most of the DM when it comes to revising the world. In the middle of the scale, the DM can insert a populate as a tiny enclave, or put their homeland in a distant part of the world. This allows the PC to have grown up amongst kin and occasionally interact with them during the campaign, but demands fewer changes to the world. At the other end of the scale, the PC can have fallen through a gateway from another world, or be a unique result of a divine curse or magical accident. This often satisfies when the player is more interested in the aesthetic or mechanics of the race than the cultural background. And of course, there's always a flat rejection for when none of the above are satisfactory to both parties.

Really, the trick is for the DM and player to have a clear communication about what the player really wants by asking for a non-standard race. Then they can have the negotiation over if there's a way to achieve that without breaking the setting.

I'm always clear about what races and restrictions I have when I open up an invite. But no, I'm not going to have a small enclave in some hidden valley that no one has heard of. My campaign history goes back hundreds of years just based on previous campaigns. If I allow one hidden enclave I have to allow another and another. If all of these races start popping up that were never before seen, it just doesn't make sense. For me it would break the setting.

It would be different if I started from scratch for each campaign but I don't. Thing is, I have a hard time taking a Forgotten Realms game particularly seriously. The setting is just kind of silly to me for multiple reasons. I still play in FR but it will always be a not-serious popcorn game to me. Not that my games are particularly dark, but I do strive to make it believable and consistent.

But my restrictions have never really caused much of an issue. My retention rate of players unless they, or I, move is quite high. I had one guy quit because of my "No evil", and one or two because we just weren't a fit (it happens). But getting, and retaining, players is the least of my issues. My wife "volunteering" me to run yet another campaign ...

 

[Zardnaar]

what is ‘this’, some Midgard book?

Yeah that's Midgard. Has 50 odd subclasses iirc, new races, new feats etc.