D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[CleverNickName]

So if a player was willing to write up twenty thousand words of setting material and/or general game aids then they would have the right to play whatever race they wanted? Since they undertook some of the DM 's prep load off of them?

Since many people argue that all the extra work DMs put into running the game entitles them to restrict PC options??

Weird flex but sure, I'll bite. Because it worked for me.

It wasn't 20,000 words but it was several Google Docs of lore about goliaths and their lands, their customs, and their beliefs. They hailed from their own lands, an archipelago of frozen islands "somewhere off the north edge of the map," he said. Nomadic culture based on whaling, ice-fishing, and reindeer hunting. No need for a whole new pantheon, either--he decided that goliaths practiced ancestor worship. He had drawn up sketches of the archipelago on hex paper. He had a family tree, and a custom "Whaler" background (a variant of Sailor).

He didn't earn the right to play Goliaths, as you put it, but it definitely helped him present a strong case for including them. At first I said "Goliaths aren't part of this campaign, sorry" but he really changed my mind.

 

[MNblockhead]

I find that one way to be respectful, and to avoid insulting others, is to not imply that those GMs and groups who easily accommodate player requests lack pride in their work, do not care if the fiction is logical or consistent, or a playing "kitch-sink" campaigns that are hard to take seriously.

As I just posted, I easily accommodate Golin, his explosives cult, his nemesis Golin, and the other elements of that PC's backstory, into our Torchbearer campaign (which is set in Greyhawk). And anyone who wishes to confirm the logic, coherence and depth of the campaign world can do so by reading the actual play reports.

True. It goes both ways. Ultimately, this is a voluntary activity we do together to have fun. As long as we are all having fun nobody is doing it wrong.

 

[Jaeger]

Since many people argue that all the extra work DMs put into running the game entitles them to restrict PC options??

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

Once again, I'm curious where the line is here...

Let's say a GM decides to run a game using The Lord of the Rings™ Roleplaying for 5e.

Everyone says that they're down; but come game day one player breaks out the standard PHB...

Because it is a D&D based game; do you feel it is valid for a player to be able to create a PC from the D&D PHB that would otherwise not be typical in the setting of Middle Earth?

If not, why?

 

[Vaalingrade]

But you're happy with your friends putting limitations on what you find fun? And what your other friends find fun?

I'm the one that volunteered to entertain them. It'd be really weird to invite everyone over to make them watch me entertain myself and if they have something they want to do, I tell them to sit there and deal.

 

[MNblockhead]

So if a player was willing to write up twenty thousand words of setting material and/or general game aids then they would have the right to play whatever race they wanted? Since they undertook some of the DM 's prep load off of them?

Since many people argue that all the extra work DMs put into running the game entitles them to restrict PC options??

Probably not your point, but that would be interesting. If there was a player who was a world builder and loved building worlds but didn't, for some reason, like running games, I could see running a game in their world. It would be something to be approached carefully and there would need to be a lot of discussions on how comfortable they were with changes I may make based on the adventures I design for that world.

More to your point, however, is some groups do build their setting in a collaborative fashion. Certainly, with that approach, the players have much more room to say what races, classes, type of locations, etc. are going to be in that setting.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Once again, I'm curious where the line is here...

Let's say a GM decides to run a game using The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying for 5e.

Everyone says that they're down; but come game day one player breaks out the standard PHB...

Because it is a D&D based game; do you feel it is valid for a player to be able to create a PC from the D&D PHB that would otherwise not be typical in the setting of Middle Earth?

If not, why?

On a personal level, I honestly don't care. I'm not willing to argue with a player over it.

If I'm willing to talk, I would first ask why and go from there. The player's reasoning would affect my reaction.

Ideally, there would be good communication and we would each understand the desires of the other. From there, we could reach a compromise that would satisfy everyone.

How can players and DMs communicate so that there is mutual understanding???

 

[mamba]

So if a player was willing to write up twenty thousand words of setting material and/or general game aids then they would have the right to play whatever race they wanted? Since they undertook some of the DM 's prep load off of them?

Since many people argue that all the extra work DMs put into running the game entitles them to restrict PC options??

I'd certainly be a lot more inclined to accommodate them than if someone just stomped their feet and said 'but I want to', as in, they most likely get their wish (unless it is something really out there...)

 

[ezo]

The idea that the GM, by running the game, becomes entitled to special authority over who plays what in the game isn't one that I give much credence too.

You should probably reconsider that, because by being DM, you do have special authority over who plays what. After all, you are running the game...

If you don't want to, that's cool, but most DMs IME run their games this way.

Less likely when trying to take a dominant stance over them.

One has nothing to do with the other.

If you can't have fun because someone is playing a thing you don't like, well.. too bad.

If they can't have fun because they don't get to play a thing they like, well.. too bad.

So if a player was willing to write up twenty thousand words of setting material and/or general game aids then they would have the right to play whatever race they wanted? Since they undertook some of the DM 's prep load off of them?

Since many people argue that all the extra work DMs put into running the game entitles them to restrict PC options??

LOL, I wouldn't even require 20000 words!

If a player familiarizes themselves with my D&D world, and creates a way to introduce a race not allowed in a way that doesn't create extra work for me and fits within my D&D world, I would be very interested in reviewing it, presenting it to the group, etc. and allowing it, adding new material to the world!

I'm the one that volunteered to entertain them. It'd be really weird to invite everyone over to make them watch me entertain myself and if they have something they want to do, I tell them to sit there and deal.

DMing isn't often a volunteer role. A couple of us take turns, but for the most part the vast majority of players I meet don't want to DM. Period. So, 90% of the time, one of us is stuck with it. We accept that, and they accept the limitations we impose on the game. Very rarely have I ever had to actually try to accomodate a player on anything. (See my above post for the few instances it came up.)

 

[pemerton]

I'd like to see your side, but your counterarguments are not horribly convincing. What I'm hearing you saying is that it's okay for one person to put their wants above everyone else's.

No. What I said is that notions like "OK" or "standards" have no work to do here. We are talking about people coming together for a voluntary leisure activity. So normativity - beyond the general norms for any human social interaction - just isn't applicable.

There is no being upsetting - it is not upsetting to let someone play a dragonborn; nor is it upsetting for someone to not want to GM a dragonborn. All there is a difference of preferences - for the aesthetics and/or mechanics of play - which has to be resolved the way any similar difference of preferences would be resolved.

If the GM sticks to their guns - or in other words, puts their wants above others' - that's their prerogative. If the player sticks to their guns - or in other words, puts their wants above others' - that's their prerogative too. Maybe the GM yields because they also want the player. Maybe the player yields because they also want the GM. Maybe everyone finds some middle way. Who knows? The stakes are incredibly low, and it's no one's concern but the individuals involved.

 

[pemerton]

The DM isn't kicking anyone out of the game. They're refusing to honor a player request to make use of a particular character option that is not part of the setting they designed. The player is welcome to make another choice.

As I've said, this is just the GM acting on a preference - the GM has no right or entitlement or desert, any more than the player does.

I mean, the GM is also welcome to make other choices too. There is nothing elevated about their preferences about the setting, compared to the player's preferences about the character that they will be using for the next N hours/weeks/(in some cases) years of play.