D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Micah Sweet]

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.

And yet if you tell your GM you want to play a thark, there is no acceptable reason for the DM to deny that request? Why even have the discussion? So the DM can feel better about capitulation to your demands?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Are you serious?

This is literally what I said I wanted. From the very beginning. I've never changed even a single part of that. And it's been a constant litany of people telling me that what you say here is what actually happens.

But as soon as someone gives me even the tiniest shred of benefit of the doubt, look at what happens. I literally JUST did the thing you claim I refuse to do. How can you possibly square that?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And yet if you tell your GM you want to play a thark, there is no acceptable reason for the DM to deny that request? Why even have the discussion? So the DM can feel better about capitulation to your demands?

I eagerly await you pointing to the spot where I said that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Because it is saying that, because some fictional worlds have IRL history, meaning, some fictional worlds have been around awhile with longstanding IRL patterns and traditions, absolutely every world must work like ones that do, and must be treated perfectly identically--if something is traditional for fiction, then it must be traditional for all of fiction.

It's patently ridiculous to claim that just because Sam the DM decided to run a game last week, and personally doesn't like gnomes, that means we should treat that perfectly identically to the claim that because something is in Barsoom, it doesn't have gnomes. The "but this world has IRL history" excuse only applies to worlds that, y'know, actually have IRL history. Which the vast majority of campaigns don't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I eagerly await you pointing to the spot where I said that.

Ok. Give me what you would consider an acceptable reason then. And maybe answer @Oofta 'S oft-repeated question about evil PCs too.

 

[mamba]

Are you serious?

yes. You always end up saying you see no reason why the player should not get what they want or call you ending up playing the race you wanted all along (and the DM did not) a compromise. So I call BS on you claiming that all you want is an open ended discussion

Don't you think the DM should ever "get their way"?

Yes? I just think players should too. Because that's extremely achievable. As in, essentially all of the time.

 

[Oofta]

I eagerly await you pointing to the spot where I said that.

You've stated repeatedly that no one has ever given a good reason to say no. When people explain what they do and why you ignore it or don't address it. Instead you say it doesn't matter because "it never happens". Except obviously it does (multiple posters have stated it's what they do) and I'd guess the majority of games use a pre-established world, although many start based on FR or other published settings.

It's an interesting trick, claiming you're the beleaguered put upon person who only wants to have a conversation, but the DM has to justify their decision and .... wait for it ... there's never a good enough justification. Instead you make up statistics that have no basis in fact, deflect and ignore questions that you don't want to answer no matter how many times asked.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because it is saying that, because some fictional worlds have IRL history, meaning, some fictional worlds have been around awhile with longstanding IRL patterns and traditions, absolutely every world must work like ones that do, and must be treated perfectly identically--if something is traditional for fiction, then it must be traditional for all of fiction.

It is you who is saying this. You want every world to include everything D&D traditionally had.

It's patently ridiculous to claim that just because Sam the DM decided to run a game last week, and personally doesn't like gnomes, that means we should treat that perfectly identically to the claim that because something is in Barsoom, it doesn't have gnomes.

I'd wager most people spend a bit more than a week for their homebrew worlds. I started planning Artra probably a year or so before we had the session zero, and it is by no means a detailed setting. Also, as this time I wanted to create something intentionally different than the usual medieval European fantasy pastiche of D&D, it in many ways is defined by what it doesn't have.

(Incidentally Barsoom is one of my inspirations for Artra, and Artran orcs are rather similar to the tharks.)

 

[Oofta]

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..

I don't want evil PCs because it's not a game I would enjoy running. If you want to play an evil PC, find a different group because I'm not interested in playing in games where they're allowed either. I don't care what your backstory is, a redeemed villain an be interesting but you will not continue to play the villain if I'm DM. You can't play a necromancer in my game because I consider it evil, as would all of the NPCs. If you want to summon the spirits of the ancestors, there's a barbarian class for that. I'm okay with some homebrew and changing the description of spells but it only goes so far. You can put lipstick on a pig, I still won't want to kiss it.

Dress it up any way you want, you aren't talking about compromise. It's the player getting what they want and the DM has no say.

 

[Maggan]

Because it is saying that, because some fictional worlds have IRL history, meaning, some fictional worlds have been around awhile with longstanding IRL patterns and traditions, absolutely every world must work like ones that do, and must be treated perfectly identically--if something is traditional for fiction, then it must be traditional for all of fiction.

It's patently ridiculous to claim that just because Sam the DM decided to run a game last week, and personally doesn't like gnomes, that means we should treat that perfectly identically to the claim that because something is in Barsoom, it doesn't have gnomes. The "but this world has IRL history" excuse only applies to worlds that, y'know, actually have IRL history. Which the vast majority of campaigns don't.

I still don't get it. What has Sam the DM's dislike of gnomes to do with any other campaign world out there? Sam as a DM decides what goes in his campaign world, not in every campaign world in existance. Sometimes a DM runs a game without input from players on how the world works, sometimes with input from players. Some (I'd dare say many) DMs wouldn't think twice about accomodating a player's input, and some don't want it. And that is ok, not every game must be the same as all the other games.

But it's ok, no need to belabour the point. You believe you have a valid point, I can't for the life of me see what it is, so let's just leave it at that. Probably a failing of mine.