D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[CleverNickName]

If, however, Jim struggles with being told 'no' and belabours the point... well, there's now a problem, and Jim is it. If that group is willing to accommodate this behaviour, that's up to them. For a significant segment of society, though, Jim's behaviour would be considered mildly irritating, if not outright anti-social.

I concede the point. I can imagine a scenario where a compromise between the player's vision for their character and the DM's vision for the campaign setting aren't compatible. And I don't have any insight or advice for that situation.

When a simple Yes or No doesn't fit, we're usually happy to try a "Yes and...", or a "No but..." Not everyone else will be, though, and I don't know what that says about my gaming group.

 

[CleverNickName]

This is no real 'compromise' to be found; it's all accommodation. The GM is really just accommodating the players request in a way that lets them sleep at night.

Because in each case, the player is getting what they want, without having to make any fundamental concessions.

That's how I see it.

You make this sound like a bad thing.

 

[pemerton]

The only issue I have with this a person who struggles with being told 'no'. Let's say Jim approaches the DM or group and says: 'I really want to make an aarakocra PC'. The DM says: 'Well, the game world has a set group of sentient races, and that's not one of them.' A couple of players pipe up that they're not happy with PC races with the ability to fly. The DM agrees: 'That does up the challenge of planning encounters, good point. Sorry Jim!'

If at this point Jim realises that his desire to play an aarakocra is going to intefere with the enjoyment of the game for two other people, not to mention creating additional work for the DM, and he backs down, good for Jim. If, however, Jim struggles with being told 'no' and belabours the point... well, there's now a problem, and Jim is it. If that group is willing to accommodate this behaviour, that's up to them. For a significant segment of society, though, Jim's behaviour would be considered mildly irritating, if not outright anti-social.

Though there are certainly plenty of anecdotal examples of gaming groups accommodating 'that player' just to avoid friction at the gaming table...

Suppose that everyone accommodates Jim's desire to play an aarakocra.

Or suppose that, as per @CleverNickName's example, some compromise is reached where (say) Jim gets the mechanics he wants while the GM (and perhaps others) get the fiction that they want.

How is this anyone else's business? Is Jim being anti-social? For all we know, Jim is the one who is always there to help everyone else move house, to bring snacks to sessions, to pick up relatives from the airport when his friends can't make it, etc.

I just don't see why we need normativity here.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You make this sound like a bad thing.

This. The DM gets to control almost every other aspect of the world, the plot, the NPC's, etc. That they can't suck it up and deal with one thing that, horror upon horror, isn't to their taste is a huge red flag. I wouldn't want to go out to eat with someone that insisted on having veto choice over my meal either.

 

[CleverNickName]

This. The DM gets to control almost every other aspect of the world, the plot, the NPC's, etc. That they can't suck it up and deal with one thing that, horror upon horror, isn't to their taste is a huge red flag. I wouldn't want to go out to eat with someone that insisted on having veto choice over my meal either.

Fair point, but that's a bit more extreme than I was getting at.

If you've found a way to (1) give the players what they want (2) without making fundamental concessions and (3) you can still enjoy the game ("sleep at night,") well... I'd give double finger-guns and say Mission Accomplished.

 

[ezo]

That they can't suck it up and deal with one thing that, horror upon horror, isn't to their taste is a huge red flag.

Ah, so we have yet another "The DM must always give way or they are badwrongfun!"...

Or, horror upon horror the player can just play something the DM already alows. Unless the DM is super-restrictive (JUST HUMANS!!! or something...), it is perfectly reasonable for the DM restrict anything in the game, for whatever reason.

Compromise is best, of course, but if none can be reached, it isn't for the DM to "suck it up" and give way all the time.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Suppose that everyone accommodates Jim's desire to play an aarakocra.

Or suppose that, as per @CleverNickName's example, some compromise is reached where (say) Jim gets the mechanics he wants while the GM (and perhaps others) get the fiction that they want.

I didn't say that wasn't possible. There are many possible outcomes here. I illustrated one in which there is friction between the happiness of one person and the happiness of several others. It's just as likely that Jim's suggestion is of no consequence to the group and doesn't impact their enjoyment of the game (at least not to a degree worth noting).

How is this anyone else's business? Is Jim being anti-social? For all we know, Jim is the one who is always there to help everyone else move house, to bring snacks to sessions, to pick up relatives from the airport when his friends can't make it, etc.

Insisting on a path when that path impacts the enjoyment of others is anti-social, yes. That is by definition, someone else's business! It puts one's desires ahead of everyone else's. I'm sure Jim is a lovely human being otherwise. I know I've mentioned this somewhere upthread, but one's freedom ends where another's begins. Part of being part of the social fabric is understanding this IMO. Do unto others, the golden rule, treat others as you yourself would like to be treated, etc., etc. It's about respecting those around you.

I just don't see why we need normativity here.

Putting your wants ahead of the wants of others, is normatively wrong IMO.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Ah, so we have yet another "The DM must always give way or they are badwrongfun!"...

Yes, when one person controls virtually everything, and can't suck it up on something based on taste, they're usually being selfish and petty.

 

[Oofta]

This. The DM gets to control almost every other aspect of the world, the plot, the NPC's, etc. That they can't suck it up and deal with one thing that, horror upon horror, isn't to their taste is a huge red flag. I wouldn't want to go out to eat with someone that insisted on having veto choice over my meal either.

No, it's telling people you are serving a meal and what you are able and willing to prepare. You can, and should, make reasonable accommodations but sometimes there's just no way to make it work.

What if the player wants to play and evil PC and really acts it up making the other players uncomfortable? Everyone should just "suck it up" so the one player gets what they want?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

No, it's telling people you are serving a meal and what you are able and willing to prepare. You can, and should, make reasonable accommodations but sometimes there's just no way to make it work.

What if the player wants to play and evil PC and really acts it up making the other players uncomfortable? Everyone should just "suck it up" so the one player gets what they want?

One person being an evil dirtbag usually impact the group. One person being a tortle or dragonborn doesnt. Next strawman?

Moreover, the entire group makes the dinner/campaign. So this IS like telling someone they can't bring something to the potluck you don't like the smell of.