D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I was trying to imply that as long as everyone is on friendly terms, they will look for ways to compromise. "Giving the player what they want" is only one side of the discussion, and it isn't more important than the other side ("giving the DM what they want.") But if either side is unwilling to work with the other, the situation isn't going to stay friendly for long.

No one is pushing the narrative you're bringing up here though. There was one person who's definition of compromise appeared to be 'always cave in to what a singular player wants, at least to some degree, regardless of what the DM and the rest of the players at the table want' (or at least that person never tried to clarify that this wasn't their position, even when asked multiple times to do so). If a person approaches the table with that attitude, that is not much of a friend. That's the aspect of this very, very (very) long discussion that you might have missed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's always a compromise, if you're playing with friends. The key is to be flexible.

Something like this came up in my game a couple of years ago. One of my players really wanted to play a tortle, but there are no such creatures in my campaign.

The compromise we came up with? I "created" a new subrace of Elf, called the Lake Elf. I put "created" in quotes because I actually did very little work: it was a Tortle in every way except the name and description. Instead of a shell granting them a natural armor bonus and 'shell defense' ability, it was their preternatural agility that made them hard to hit, and made it impossible to benefit from armor. They could hold their breath and speak Aquan, and were proficient in Survival. Same bonuses to Strength and Wisdom. Etc.

Nobody noticed or cared that the "lake elf" was really just a tortle with different flavor text.

In that instance, the player clearly wanted the mechanical benefits of being a tortle; they didn't actually want to play a turtle-person. What if they did?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

In that instance, the player clearly wanted the mechanical benefits of being a tortle; they didn't actually want to play a turtle-person. What if they did?

That's a good point. @CleverNickName , how did the rest of the table feel about that? If there is a player who is asking for something strictly to get a mechanical advantage. I can see some tables where everyone is okay with that, but this kind of thing rubs a lot of folks the wrong way.

 

[CleverNickName]

In that instance, the player clearly wanted the mechanical benefits of being a tortle; they didn't actually want to play a turtle-person. What if they did?

I know I'm supposed to say something like "we fight about it until one side gets mad and the other side puts their foot down." But what if it had gone the way you describe? I would have probably offered to retool a dragonborn, and describe them as having descended from dragon turtles.

And since this is a game of what-ifs, the next question might be "What if I failed to convince the player to play something else?" It would then be my turn to compromise: I'd let the player play a tortle, but I wouldn't add the whole species to the campaign. I'd write the character as being from a small island far off the map, and the player's tortle would be the only one of his kind in the story. Interesting origin story about a shipwreck maybe, or a teleportation accident. NPCs reacting to him with all of the fascination and distrust that one would expect.

The next round of what-ifs might be "What if the player wants a huge, tortle-centric backstory? an extended tortle family and tortle-controlled territories? a tortle-based pantheon?" (I realize this is getting unhinged, but that's how what-ifs go.) In this increasingly-unlikely yarn, I'd try to find out why tortles--and tortles alone!--were so important to the player. I'd ask why turtle-people were needed so badly that I'm being asked to rework the entire campaign setting for them. And I'd endeavor to keep an open mind because who knows? Maybe they're right, and I've been missing out on the vast and colorful contributions that turtle-people could bring to our table.

There are more what-ifs, I'm sure. But what happened was, the player was only interested in tortle mechanics and so we found a way to make it happen to the satisfaction of all. That's the important part. Any what-ifs that come up are just steps in that process.

Obviously, other people have had different experiences. But I can't really speak for anyone else.

That's a good point. @CleverNickName , how did the rest of the table feel about that? If there is a player who is asking for something strictly to get a mechanical advantage. I can see some tables where everyone is okay with that, but this kind of thing rubs a lot of folks the wrong way.

Nobody seemed to mind. The player was still playing a Tortle, as-written by Wizards of the Coast, in every way except the name and descriptions. It wasn't a "tortle," it was a "lake elf." He didn't "retreat into his shell," he "went into a defensive stance." Nothing was added or removed, and none of the math or mechanics changed. He still couldn't benefit from armor, still had disadvantage on Dex saves when in his "defensive stance," all that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I know I'm supposed to say something like "we fight about it until one side gets mad and the other side puts their foot down." But what if it had gone the way you describe? I would have probably offered to retool a dragonborn or some other reptilian character race that's already in the campaign, and describe them as having descended from dragon turtles.

And since this is a game of what-ifs, the next question might be "What if I failed to convince the player to play something else?" It would then be my turn to compromise: I'd let the player play a tortle, but I wouldn't add the whole species to the campaign. I'd write the character as being from a small island far off the map, and the player's tortle would be the only one of his kind in the story. Interesting origin story about a shipwreck maybe, or a teleportation accident. NPCs reacting to him with all of the fascination and distrust that one would expect.

The next round of what-ifs might be "What if the player wants a huge, tortle-centric backstory? an extended tortle family and tortle-controlled territories? a tortle-based pantheon?" (I realize this is getting unhinged, but that's how what-ifs go.) In this increasingly-unlikely yarn, I'd try to find out why tortles--and tortles alone!--were so important to the player. I'd ask why turtle-people were needed so badly that I'm being asked to rework the entire campaign setting for them. And I'd endeavor to keep an open mind because who knows? Maybe they're right, and I've been missing out on the vast and colorful contributions that turtle-people could bring to our table.

There are more what-ifs, I'm sure. But what happened was, the player was only interested in tortle mechanics and so we found a way to make it happen to the satisfaction of all. That's the important part. Any what-ifs that come up are just steps in that process.

Obviously, other people have had different experiences. But I can't really speak for anyone else.


Nobody seemed to mind. The player was still playing a Tortle, as-written by Wizards of the Coast, in every way except the name and descriptions. It wasn't a "tortle," it was a "lake elf." He didn't "retreat into his shell," he "went into a defensive stance." Nothing was added or removed, and none of the math or mechanics changed. He still couldn't benefit from armor, still had disadvantage on Dex saves when in his "defensive stance," all that.

Ok, I'm glad that worked for you and your group. That's the most important thing.

But...

It does sound like ultimately you agree with @EzekielRaiden in that the DM should ultimately accommodate the player's request, to let them do what they want regardless, and the discussion is to find a way for the DM to do what the player wants in a way that the DM can live with. Actually having the answer ever be "no", no matter how much discussion is had, doesn't seem to be part of the equation.

Am I reading this correctly?

 

[CleverNickName]

Am I reading this correctly?

Another way to read it is that the player should ultimately accommodate the DMs request, to not add tortles to the campaign setting regardless, and the discussion is to find a way for the player to do what the DM wants in a way that the DM can live with. Actually having the answer still be "no tortles in this campaign," but in a way that doesn't shut the player down.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Another way to read it is that the player should ultimately accommodate the DMs request, to not add tortles to the campaign setting regardless, and the discussion is to find a way for the player to do what the DM wants in a way that the DM can live with. Actually having the answer still be "no tortles in this campaign," but in a way that doesn't shut the player down.

To be fair, these aren't the two sides of the argument. It's not a battle of wills between a player and a DM. It's a player making a request and having everyone (not just the DM) at the table be okay with it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Another way to read it is that the player should ultimately accommodate the DMs request, to not add tortles to the campaign setting regardless, and the discussion is to find a way for the player to do what the DM wants in a way that the DM can live with. Actually having the answer still be "no tortles in this campaign," but in a way that doesn't shut the player down.

One of your suggestions was to add tortles to your world, albeit in a far away place. How does that square with interpretation?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sometimes there simply isn't a compromise. If someone wants to play a dragonborn where dragonborn (or dragons even) don't exist then what possible "compromise" is there?

• You're an odd reptiloid no one has seen before, but happens to look exactly like that cool Dragonborn on that long-forgotten roleplaying game cover you found on the flea market.
• You're a cybernetics/magic/genetic/zeno experiment gone wrong/right.
• You fell through a portal from a world where your kind exists.
• You're member of a cult that worships fire or the god of fire, and that's why you can breate fire and use Dragonborn stats.
• You're a changling that assumed this form based on a description from a book of made-up animals, but got hit by lightning and can't end it now.
• You drank an unlabeled but probably spoiled potion and that's the result.

What the compromise could look exactly will depend on what makes sense to DM and the player (and possibly others in the group) in question. There is no universal answer. But there is much more likely to be an answer than it is that the DM's campaign and the player's character idea are 100 % incompatible and unmoveable.

 

[CleverNickName]

One of your suggestions was to add tortles to your world, albeit in a far away place. How does that square with interpretation?

It's a (hypothetical) compromise. I'm adding them to the background of one character--instead of flatly saying no, or writing tortles into the campaign alongside all other playable races. I have no idea if this would be acceptable to the player or not, because it didn't actually happen--but that's the intent.