D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[EzekielRaiden]

New players with new plots on new territories are considered the same game?

I guess Marvel only released one movie over the past two decades.

It isn't new territories. It's the same territories. That was the whole point.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I just started a new game, it happens to be with the same people that wrapped up the last campaign and some of them are playing children of a PC from that old campaign so we're calling it our Next Gen campaign. But the campaign from before I moved? Set in a different region, different players other than my wife. Campaign before that? Set in the same region as my current campaigns. I also DM another group (again, totally different people other than my wife) that's occurring at roughly the same time as the Next Gen campaign. We haven't done much yet, but one of the NPCs from the Next Gen predecessor has made an appearance because of a thread left dangling from that campaign.

They are not the same game any more than every game set in the Forgotten Realms is the same game. As far as newbies, I was a newbie once as well. We quickly made decisions back then about what was allowed or not allowed (we tried evil PCs, it lasted 1 session IIRC), but since then I've use the same basic campaign world.

Whether or not it is common to start brand new campaign worlds is also irrelevant. If a DM has put thought and care into building their world, I'm perfectly fine with what they came up with. If the DM says dwarves are extinct, I won't ask to play a dwarf.

The whole point here is, you have preserved one singular setting. It's not new. It's recapitulated.

The thread, as a whole, has been quite clearly about something new. Something that ISN'T "this is one single setting with a dozen years of IRL history."

Using that as a reason for why every DM should be absolutely adamant about a bunch of limitations is like saying that because Barsoom had Tharks, every single author in the history of science fiction must have Tharks. Sure, for Barsoom, there should be Tharks and not Elves. The vast majority of campaigns do not have the history that Barsoom has. The vast majority of campaigns don't have any IRL history at all. The point is irrelevant for the vast majority of actual instances where someone would be coming to the table hoping to play some particular thing.

 

[Oofta]

The whole point here is, you have preserved one singular setting. It's not new. It's recapitulated.

The thread, as a whole, has been quite clearly about something new. Something that ISN'T "this is one single setting with a dozen years of IRL history."

Using that as a reason for why every DM should be absolutely adamant about a bunch of limitations is like saying that because Barsoom had Tharks, every single author in the history of science fiction must have Tharks. Sure, for Barsoom, there should be Tharks and not Elves. The vast majority of campaigns do not have the history that Barsoom has. The vast majority of campaigns don't have any IRL history at all. The point is irrelevant for the vast majority of actual instances where someone would be coming to the table hoping to play some particular thing.

Sometimes a DM may create a new setting for a game, sometimes they don't. Most people only play a campaign for a year or so, that's plenty of time to create a setting even for people new to the game (I created the basis for my campaign world after playing for a year or so). Maybe it's a setting the DM has been noodling about for years, maybe it's inspired by a favorite set of novels or movies, maybe it's something they came up with after eating too many burritos. It's still the DM's creation and I'm going to abide by their final decision, and no they don't have to explain it.

It's also irrelevant. So keep this simple and answer a related question you've never answered. A DM says no evil PCs. The DM is the one running the game, there really is no compromise here. You want to play an evil PC. What happens?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'll need to stress again that I don't curate my D&D list of acceptable races save for not allowing creatures that fly naturally. For me, this just isn't an issue that comes up when I run D&D games and is more likely to happen in other games. I've long been of the opinion that what race you pick in D&D doesn't make much of a difference one way or the other. That said, working with the player doesn't necessarily mean they get what they want. If dwarves are extinct in the setting, I'm not going to allow anyone to play a dwarf character. I'll ask them what it is about the dwarf they like so much and see if we can incorporate those traits into a character, but no dwarf.

But isn't that the kind of thing EzekielRaiden is talking about?

You don't say: "Dwarves are extinct, end of discussion!" You say: "Dwarves are extinct. What interests you in a dwarf, maybe we can do something about it without changing the world too much?"

What that ends up with might be up to you and the player(s).
There are many ways that could go and where you might to find common ground:
"Hey, everyone thought Dwarves were extinct, but they actually still exist on this remote island / isolated valley / demi-plane and someone made their way to (non-dwarfen) civilization"
"Maybe my dwarf was turned to stone by a Hydra centuries ago and a wizard returned him to flesh?"
"You're not a Dwarf, just use your Dwarf mechanics and take the Mountain-Rager prestige class and the Ancestral Destiny at the appropriate levels."
"You're still an ordinary human, but you come from a clan of humans from the mountain regions that tried to adopt and preserve the dwarven customs"
"I could be just a human of small stature that believes he's a dwarf and read lots of things about them."
"Just play a Gnome, they do pretty much the same stuff in my campaign. You can make him a bit bulkier than most..."
"Oh, if this campaign isn't doing as much underground stuff as our last one, I think I'd rather do something else, don't want another situation like Pete's Pirate-Ranger in that one!"

 

[bedir than]

It isn't new territories. It's the same territories. That was the whole point.

Are you saying that I'm lying about my own games?

How would you know? Though I game in public I don't think you've been there. This is really bizarre.

 

[mamba]

It isn't new territories. It's the same territories. That was the whole point.

no it wasn’t, same world, different time or area are all ok. You are just not understanding what the others are saying

The thread, as a whole, has been quite clearly about something new.

also, no it hasn’t, you yet again fail to understand what everyone else is saying. Same world, new campaign.

Heck, even if it were an all new world I came up with, why would that mean I have to accommodate your choice that is explicitly outside of what I told you the world is…

I find it amazing how you always say there should be a discussion and both sides should be ok with the result, yet every time you end up playing exactly what you wanted. Even worse, you state that you see no reason why the DM would ever reject a player request, so you do not even really want a discussion that is more than the DM saying ‘sure, go ahead’

 

[mamba]

You don't say: "Dwarves are extinct, end of discussion!" You say: "Dwarves are extinct. What interests you in a dwarf, maybe we can do something about it without changing the world too much?

that is what they claim to be talking about, yet every such discussion they show here ends with them playing the race they wanted from the very start and explicitly stating that they see no reason why a DM should ever reject a player choice

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sometimes a DM may create a new setting for a game, sometimes they don't. Most people only play a campaign for a year or so, that's plenty of time to create a setting even for people new to the game (I created the basis for my campaign world after playing for a year or so). Maybe it's a setting the DM has been noodling about for years, maybe it's inspired by a favorite set of novels or movies, maybe it's something they came up with after eating too many burritos. It's still the DM's creation and I'm going to abide by their final decision, and no they don't have to explain it.

It's also irrelevant. So keep this simple and answer a related question you've never answered. A DM says no evil PCs. The DM is the one running the game, there really is no compromise here. You want to play an evil PC. What happens?

My guess, you talk about it.
Why does the GM not want evil PCs? What does evil mean in his campaign?
Why does the player want an evil PC? How does he think will it affect the campaign?

Say, the GM says he doesn't want evil PCs because they want the characters to be motivated into action simply because it's the right thing to do.
The player says he wants his character to ignore people in need, burn he poor, steal from the party and murder anyone that objects, eat the occassional child and maybe even steal a lolly from a baby.
That might genuinely not work out for the campaign. Maybe it's really time to shelve the idea for another time, or go seperate ways.

Maybe the player says he wants to play a criminal that did bad stuff, and he believes he must be evil to justify this back story. But he doesn't need the character to actually still be doing all that.
So maybe the compromise is that the character maybe was evil once, or just neutral and thought his actions were acceptable or necessary to the manipulation of others. But he realized it wasn't okay and is now trying to atone.

Maybe the player wants to be a necromancer, summoning the dead, and that is by RAW evil. Maybe it doesn't have to be in this campaign, maybe there is some deal with the death goddess that some necromancers have that allows doing so without harming souls or the cosmic order, but it might come at a prize later.
Or maybe he doesn't need it to be necromancy, maybe he just likes some mechanical features like being surrounded by minions, and a reskinning of the spells into summoning spells or creating shadow illusions from corpses.
Maybe the player character used to be a necromancer but realized he harmed people, and tries something new - but he still got the necromancer specialization until he can retrain it with a good story explanation (or because whatever the game's necromancy feature is, keeps it because it doesn't really involve creating undead)

The thing is, peole like to state that this DM/player conflict is an immovable object against unstoppable force. But likely the extremes aren't as hard, and there is a way to find common ground for a compromise than can work for both. It's almost never that extreme..

 

[mamba]

The thing is, peole like to state that this DM/player conflict is an immovable object against unstoppable force. But likely the extremes aren't as hard, and there is a way to find common ground for a compromise than can work for both. It's almost never that extreme..

pretty much no one here was stating that, we are pushing back against a ‘the player is always right’ narrative that is dressed up as ‘the DM always shoots everything down’

 

[Maggan]

that as a reason for why every DM should be absolutely adamant about a bunch of limitations is like saying that because Barsoom had Tharks, every single author in the history of science fiction must have Tharks.

How so? I don't follow that logic at all.

I parse it as a DM having limitations means that not all campaign worlds must have tharks.