D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[pemerton]

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.

Well I've been GMing FRPGs for around about 40 years, and playing (less often) for the same amount of time. I don't think I need to reconsider my view that there is no normativity here, and that the "issue" is simply one of participants in a leisure activity having to find a way to reconcile their different preferences.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's real interesting how in the argument, the DM morphs into 'everyone else'.

The terrible power dynamic between DM and players seems to be uniquely D&D. I don't really see any other TTRPGs where the players are just expected to sacrifice all their agency to the GM.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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?

LotR is really not the best example of a setting that can't handle a wholly unique super-special weirdo just showing up one day and playing against the established aesthetic.

Like Tom Bombadil, Beorn, Bard Bowman, Aragorn, Sauron, Gollum, or the literal entire point of The Hobbit.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Actually they do. No DN no gane. No player go without or get another one.

It's basic supply and demand.

Generally I ban stuff if they don't fit or are mechanically to strong or weak.

Eg most times I allow Dragonborn but prefer the player picks the Fizban ones. Flyers are the only default hard ban. Mechanical reasons.

6 playable races or less I consider restrictive, 7-12 maybe 15 spotlighted races.

If I've spent 20 hours prepping a campaign and spent hundreds of dollars on material and running it who gets that choice?

Generally for each phb race not allowed one should replace them with another spotlighted race.

If it's 6 or less you probably need to explicitly state that up front eg a restricted Ravnica or Theros game. B/X only using RC rules ir whatever.

 

[Zardnaar]

LotR is really not the best example of a setting that can't handle a wholly unique super-special weirdo just showing up one day and playing against the established aesthetic.

Like Tom Bombadil, Beorn, Bard Bowman, Aragorn, Sauron, Gollum, or the literal entire point of The Hobbit.

Note a few of them are villains?

Existing and available are two different things espicially if DM has a "Phantom Menace" race (eg Drow originally, Dray in Darksun).

My ancient Greece game really only has one spotlighted race and 3 others with much development (Elf, Dwarf, Halfelf).

 

[Demetrios1453]

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.

Actually, you (or me, or anyone else), as an outsider to other groups, have no right or entitlement to say how those other groups run their own games. Every group has its own unique agreed-upon rules for interacting among themselves. If the group agrees that the DM does have those ultimate rights and entitlements, then that's how that group does things, and that's OK. If the group agrees on ultimate player agency with the DM little more than a figurehead, then that's how that group does things, and that's OK.

I mean (and I've stated this before), what (and why) are we arguing about all this in this thread? Posters are saying what other groups should be doing, but there's absolutely no way to enforce those views on other groups, and attempting to do so would rob those other groups of the agency to chose for themselves how they set up their own unique dynamics. Posters are also attempting to defend how their groups do things, but there's no need to do that. Your group does as your group wishes, and there's no reason to be obligated to defend your choices. What each group decides to do is perfectly correct and acceptable for that group, and no outsider has the right to tell that group it's wrong.

So everyone, run your games how you want. And stop worrying how others are running their games, because there will always be differences, and you have no ability to force a change in that.

 

[cbwjm]

Reading through this thread, I'm sure that both sides of this debate have had a similar thought "thank God I don't have to play with these people".

 

[Zardnaar]

Reading through this thread, I'm sure that both sides of this debate have had a similar thought "thank God I don't have to play with these people".

Well I'll you don't tend to meet the players deserve anything types. I've only encountered maybe 1 and they didn't join as I said no to Raven Queen as a deity (( Midgard ancient Egypt themed game. Spotlighted Deities were the Mot Egypt ones, acceptable ones were any other Midgard deity).

Not this was a few years back and I had just bought Midgard. $300 buck to ship it here. After paying that I wanted to use it.

 

[SableWyvern]

Actually, you (or me, or anyone else), as an outsider to other groups, have no right or entitlement to say how those other groups run their own games. Every group has its own unique agreed-upon rules for interacting among themselves. If the group agrees that the DM does have those ultimate rights and entitlements, then that's how that group does things, and that's OK. If the group agrees on ultimate player agency with the DM little more than a figurehead, then that's how that group does things, and that's OK.

I mean (and I've stated this before), what (and why) are we arguing about all this in this thread? Posters are saying what other groups should be doing, but there's absolutely no way to enforce those views on other groups, and attempting to do so would rob those other groups of the agency to chose for themselves how they set up their own unique dynamics. Posters are also attempting to defend how their groups do things, but there's no need to do that. Your group does as your group wishes, and there's no reason to be obligated to defend your choices. What each group decides to do is perfectly correct and acceptable for that group, and no outsider has the right to tell that group it's wrong.

So everyone, run your games how you want. And stop worrying how others are running their games, because there will always be differences, and you have no ability to force a change in that.

With this kind of level-headed, open-minded comment, you're merely setting yourself up to be attacked by all sides.

 

[niklinna]

You say this like it's a bad thing! If someone will only play a RPG if they get to do what they want, I don't really see a problem.

Well I, for one, really enjoy playing RPGs so that I specifically don't get to do what I want. It's so fulfilling.

But seriously, as long as someone's "what they want" isn't to deliberately ruin somebody else's fun (and I've definitely seen that), I try to be cool with people doing what they want. I will admit that when some of my players made fairly gonzo characters for what I hoped would be a more horror-oriented series of adventures, I had some adjusting to do, but I did, and so far it's worked out okay. We've had plenty of scares, and some gonzo moments, and it's fine. (Now if only we could manage to meet more often than every 6–8 weeks....)