D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[pemerton]

I see. Something else can certainly exist, the notes can never be exhaustive. But one might assume that they would contain major points and we should extrapolate from those. Tolkien not mentioning warforged doesn't mean that them existing in the Middle-Earth is a logical extrapolation; quite the opposite.

If a player really wants to play a warforged and comes up with an explanation "Feanor, Morgoth, or Saruman made a handful as an experiment" to me that would not be out of line for Middle Earth at all. It's something they might have done - and the actual world being modelled is much deeper and richer than any one author or handful of authors can convey. Just because Tolkien didn't mention something doesn't mean it can't work.

And a little googling tells me that my understanding of the themes of Middle Earth is entirely correct here and Tolkien explicitly did mention Morgoth (then going by Melkor) creating something not too far from warforged.

It's also worth noting that dwarves were explicitly made by Aule and were initially soulless. Iluvitar then objected and gave them souls.

I thought a similar thing to Neonchameleon, although didn't do the Googling.

My other thought was that I don't generally accept that a hobbyist GM's campaign setting has the same sort of intellectual and aesthetic depth and integrity as JRRT's. I think a better comparison is REH's Hyborian Age - these worlds are somewhat ad hoc "containers" for fantasy adventure to take place in.

 

[pemerton]

If the entire group (including the DM) want to allow evil PCs, that's fine. But in my experience the players that really wanted to play evil PCs did so to go gonzo evil. Which, without going into details, was disturbing. Even if it doesn't go to that level while I get that a lot of people enjoy evil anti-heroes, I don't.

But the other aspect is that I want the group to be able to come together as a group and far too often a mix of players who's outlook on life is what we would consider good and the other evil it just leads to PvP conflicts. It leads to unwelcome stress for a lot of people in a game that supposed to be relaxing escapism. Maybe not as big of a deal for one shot or short term campaigns, but I run long term campaigns.

All this is pretty different from my GMing experiences. But then so are your concerns about drow or dragonborn visiting taverns.

 

[MichaelSomething]

People don't do curated races to get something or out of laziness. DMs do it because it fits their vision of their world, because they think it will work best for the type of campaign they want to run. There is no quid pro quo here, nothing the player has to exchange.

You may not understand that or like it, but do you not understand how the DM is just using it to punish and/or get bribes from a player is condescending?

I mean those tactics are designed to deter players who DON'T understand the importance of curated races.

Edit: as in using Bluff to solve a social situation when diplomacy might not work.

 

[Oofta]

All this is pretty different from my GMing experiences. But then so are your concerns about drow or dragonborn visiting taverns.

What can I say, different strokes for different folks. We have different experiences and different preferences. What makes the fiction come to life at the table is going to vary.

I don't see why any of that is at all controversial.

 

[Oofta]

I mean those tactics are designed to deter players who DON'T understand the importance of curated races.

Edit: as in using Bluff to solve a social situation when diplomacy might not work.

That was not at all clear, but for some people a stint behind the DM screen won't change anything.

 

[MichaelSomething]

That was not at all clear, but for some people a stint behind the DM screen won't change anything.

No problem. Which is why I clarified.

Just offering different tools to help further negotiations.

I take it you wouldn't ultilize my suggestion of settling it via an (in character) duel?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Has anyone ever read this? I came across this article a few years ago and there have been comments in this thread that have pointed my thoughts in its direction.

I have. I don't personally think it is of much value here. Someone saying you can't play an Illrigger Flumph because this is a Planejammer campaign, not a Spellscape campaign, is not being an "ostracizer," which seems to me to be the only one of the five alleged fallacies (which are actually just falsehoods) even remotely related to the topic at hand.

I could see a--weak--argument that #2, "Friends accept me as I am," might be claimed if one is asserting that a refusal to permit X is a denial of your identity. I just...don't think that that is true. I am not a dragonborn. I like them; I appreciate their style, aesthetics, and prototypical culture; I enjoy analyzing how their different physiology would affect them culturally vs humans; but I am not one. If a person genuinely believes that "dragonborn" is part of their actual identity, they have much bigger problems than the alleged Geek Social "Fallacies."

That said, the author does point at the actual fallacy which underlies the use of these falsehoods: the motte-and-bailey. Anything you can summarize as, to quote the article, "It’s difficult to debunk the pathological [claim] without seeming to argue against its reasonable form", is a textbook motte-and-bailey fallacy, which is a specialized subtype of the fallacy of equivocation, as it treats an unobjectionable true (but often trivial) claim as being identical to a much stronger but quite debatable claim.

Totally missing the point of a curated list of races.

Howso? You yourself said...

If you feel so strongly about allowing any race, run your own game.

If you genuinely think that this option is "missing the point" with regard to your preferences, it seems strange that you don't think it is missing the point with regard to others'.

 

[Zardnaar]

I have. I don't personally think it is of much value here. Someone saying you can't play an Illrigger Flumph because this is a Planejammer campaign, not a Spellscape campaign, is not being an "ostracizer," which seems to me to be the only one of the five alleged fallacies (which are actually just falsehoods) even remotely related to the topic at hand.

I could see a--weak--argument that #2, "Friends accept me as I am," might be claimed if one is asserting that a refusal to permit X is a denial of your identity. I just...don't think that that is true. I am not a dragonborn. I like them; I appreciate their style, aesthetics, and prototypical culture; I enjoy analyzing how their different physiology would affect them culturally vs humans; but I am not one. If a person genuinely believes that "dragonborn" is part of their actual identity, they have much bigger problems than the alleged Geek Social "Fallacies."

That said, the author does point at the actual fallacy which underlies the use of these falsehoods: the motte-and-bailey. Anything you can summarize as, to quote the article, "It’s difficult to debunk the pathological [claim] without seeming to argue against its reasonable form", is a textbook motte-and-bailey fallacy, which is a specialized subtype of the fallacy of equivocation, as it treats an unobjectionable true (but often trivial) claim as being identical to a much stronger but quite debatable claim.


Howso? You yourself said...

If you genuinely think that this option is "missing the point" with regard to your preferences, it seems strange that you don't think it is missing the point with regard to others'.

Ultimately if preferences are diametrically opposed the DM usually wins if push cones to shove. They're often the ones paying for everything, running the game, designing the game, providing or organizing the venue.

And one of the compromises is you play anyway and next game suggest the theme/campaign.

We usually mix things up. After CoS undead there git vetoed by everyone.

If something is very restrictive eg Darksun 1991 version its because the group has chosen to play it.

 

[MNblockhead]

i'm not even on a side and i've thought that several times reading this thread. god.

While I often have these thoughts when reading forum arguments, I also realize that IRL I would likely have no problems playing with most of the people who get a bit over the top in their posts. I'm pretty much up to game regardless of the system, style, or theme. Also, I find I enjoy I enjoy playing in games run by opinionated DMs. I like it when someone has a strong vision for how a game should be run and what their world is. Going to a restaurants with a large menu and that is willing to accommodate custom orders is fine, but going to a sushi bar where you eat whatever the sushi chef decides you are going to eat can be a special experience.

About the only thing that turns me off is frequent inconsistency. Its a bit of a hang-up of mine. I can adjust to nearly any homebrew rules and setting limitations, but too many rulings that conflict with the rules I was led to expect, annoy me. I'm a bit of a hypocrite here, in that I'm not great at remembering all the rules in crunchier games, but I mitigate that by outsourcing some of this to my players. I'm a pretty pro rules lawyer DM. I see myself more as a judge than a master or referee. If a player thinks I made a wrong ruling, they are free to bring it up, and I will quickly make a ruling. If it requires a lot of discussion, I save that for between games.

As a player I try not to be a rules lawyer or lore purist, unless I know that the DM is down with that. But too much inconsistency on a DMs part saps my enjoyment of the game.

 

[MNblockhead]

People don't do curated races to get something or out of laziness.

Sometimes they do. I think laziness is an entirely valid reason for a DM to impose restrictions on their game. Only running a game to a certain level comes to mind. My last campaign went from 0-20 and lasted 5 years. Running high-level games is a lot more work than low-level games (for me at least). I feel fully justified to state that I'm going to run a shorter, lower level campaign for no other reason than I don't want to put in the work.

I'm just as comfortable not allowing classes or spells that I'm unfamiliar with or am familiar with, but find more difficult to run games where they exist, for no other reason than I find it harder to do so and don't feel like putting in the effort to familiarize myself with them or work around them.

Actually, laziness is perhaps the best reason for me to disallow something in a game I'm running. I'm doing this for fun. If it starts feeling like work, I'm not doing it.