D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Many campaign settings are not, in fact, designed by committee. Let's try to be respectful of how different groups run their tables.

 

[ezo]

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.

Ok, a new game.:

DM invites people to play, informs everyone during session 0 that only PHB races are allowed, along with some other house-rules, etc. This campaign will take place in an established game world the DM created. The players agree.

But then at the first game session one player brings an Aasimar PC. They tell the DM, "Well, I don't like Tieflings, but I wanted a PC with ties to an outer-planar heritage."

Now, the DM can handle this several ways:

A) The DM just allows it, despite that the player didn't respect the DM enough to play by the restrictions based on their established world. Now the DM and/or player has to come up with a reason why this never-before-seen race exists. It sets a bad tone because the player agreed to abide by the DM's conditions and first play session bucked against them.

B) The DM offers a compromise: the player can "reskin" the Tiefling as having a celestial heritage instead of fiendish. The player might agree, but more likely "moans and groans" because they wanted the features of an Aasimar.

C) The DM refuses and tells the player to change the PC's race to something from the PHB. The DM suggests maybe a variant human with the Magic Initiate feat, taking Sacred Flame and Thaumaturgy to represent the character's connection to the celestials. Again, the player more likely "moans and groans".

How is the DM being "selfish and petty" instead of the player?

One person being a tortle or dragonborn doesnt. Next strawman?

Saying "next strawman" doesn't make the argument a strawman just because you say so.

 

[Vaalingrade]

A) The DM just allows it, despite that the player didn't respect the DM enough to play by the restrictions based on their established world. Now the DM and/or player has to come up with a reason why this never-before-seen race exists. It sets a bad tone because the player agreed to abide by the DM's conditions and first play session bucked against them.

The Dm allows it because their friend's fun is more important than their 'established world', and doesn't have to explain why one weirdo exists in a fantasy world.

It sets a good tone because the DM actually values their players more than aesthetics or some weird authority they might think they have.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Of course, I think we’re forgetting the ultimate ‘yes except no’ answer to ‘can i play [curated option]?’

“Certainly, in the campaign after this one”

 

[ezo]

The Dm allows it because their friend's fun is more important than their 'established world', and doesn't have to explain why one weirdo exists in a fantasy world.

First, not everyone who plays is "friends". Most of the people I play with now aren't friends of mine, but simply fellow hobbyists. When I was a kid, sure we were all friends then. Of course, new people I meet through gaming might become friends, but then those players respect my "weird authority".

It sets a good tone because the DM actually values their players

It sets the tone that the DM should give way on anything the players want so they can have fun, but I guess that means the DM can't have fun...

If the player valued their DM, they would be ok with honouring the DM's conditions when the game is established.

 

[pemerton]

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

But this is exactly what a GM who won't change their fiction, or players who reject a flying PC, are doing!

I mean, we're talking about a voluntary leisure activity. It's wants all the way down!

It's those who don't take no for an answer, or who insist on things that are clearly upsetting to others that I'm taking issue with.

I mean, how is playing a dragonborn, or an aarakocra, upsetting to anyone?

 

[Doc_Klueless]

The Dm allows it because their friend's fun is more important than their 'established world', and doesn't have to explain why one weirdo exists in a fantasy world.

It sets a good tone because the DM actually values their players more than aesthetics or some weird authority they might think they have.

Huh. My friends would actually follow the limitations we all agreed on when they said they wanted to play in my established world. Because my friends value the work I put into the campaign. Because... well... they're my friends.

 

[CreamCloud0]

But this is exactly what a GM who won't change their fiction, or players who reject a flying PC, are doing!

I mean, we're talking about a voluntary leisure activity. It's wants all the way down!

It might be voluntary activity for both, and the GM may of taken that position by choice, the player might even be contributing with collaborative world building but out of the two of them the GM is the one putting in vastly more work to make it run, so I’d say their preferences get slightly more weight to them

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Go to www.startplaying.games if you can't find a group irl!

Thank you. Sincerely.

Even if the thread at large has been maddening at best, if this is even remotely helpful I will habe benefitted from participating.

Also, thank you @CleverNickName.

 

[pemerton]

We need to set out our standards to try to avoid confusion. Because we want to be clear where we are coming from when we express our opinion, so that others will hopefully correctly understand our point of view.

Most posts in this thread are in the third person, not the first person.

I'm also not sure that I buy that standards is the right word. As opposed to preferences.

A few years ago I wrote up PCs for a LotR/Middle Earth game, using my fantasy adaption of Marvel Heroic RP. One of them was Gandalf. The player who chose Gandalf asked if, given that we were clearly doing non-canonical stuff, Gandalf could be a woman. I expressed a preference for orthodoxy, and the player accepted that.

If he'd pressed the point, I probably would have relented. It's not that big a deal.

In my current Torchbearer 2e game, one of the PCs has an obsession with explosives, having come from a Forgotten Temple Complex where the religion is explosives-oriented. The same PC, named Golin, has an enemy also called Golin - as the player wrote up Golin's backstory, evil Golin cheated on exams and hence got the apprenticeship position, leading to PC Golin leaving the temple complex to go adventuring.

That's all sillier than what I would come up with if left to my own devices, but does no harm to the game. In early sessions I found the explosives theme very easy to incorporate (the rulebook has rules for alchemical creations), and the Forgotten Temple Complex has been developed by me as this game's version of the (abandoned and forgotten) Temple of Elemental Evil.

Each situation has its own context, its own difference of opinions about what the fiction should be, or should include. I don't think we need standards to resolve these, or to explain to one another how we have dealt with these differences when we've encountered them.