D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[AbdulAlhazred]

So the fact that setting integrity doesn't matter to you means that it's silly that it matters to anyone? What makes your preference on the matter any better than someone else's?

I'm saying people are losing sight of the point if they are so adamant about it that they've made the satisfaction of the whole group subservient to it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It isn't really about player vs. DM. That's just sort of how the dynamic plays out on the internet when people divide into camps and set their heels.

In the real world everyone at the table should be looking out for the enjoyment of everyone else. That means that if a player knows that the DM's fun would be negatively impacted by playing a dragonborn, it would be crappy for that player to arrive at the game the DM set up and try to play one. Similarly, if it doesn't really matter to the DM or setting for a warforged to exist, but the DM has said they don't exist, it would be crappy of the DM to deny the player his fun character.

The fantastic thing about RPGs is that there are tons and tons and tons of very fun concepts to play. If one is going to be unfun for someone(DM or other player), don't play it and choose something else. If nobody else's fun but the player asking for an exception is going to be negatively impacted by saying yes, the DM should say yes.

I entirely agree with you on this. Everyone can afford to be flexible and it is really no big deal. Who ACTUALLY gives or takes in a specific situation is going to be specific to that one situation and I think we're entirely on the same page. It may well be that a given player in a given situation might be best served by adopting your attitude and saying "well, I can play any of 100 different characters today, why argue about it?" That's GENERALLY me, BTW. I mean, basically if you hand me a character sheet I'm going to play it and it is unlikely I'll enjoy the game less or more simply because of that. OTOH as a GM I really try to avoid dropping a bunch of preconceived notions of things on the players' heads either. If I REALLY have a very specific concept I want to run, I just pitch the whole thing up front and it gets taken up or not. Heck, the most memorable games I can recall were all ones where I, or someone else, did that, and then the rest of the participants grabbed hold of it and reimagined it.

 

[pemerton]

Well, it literally was what he posted actually. What do you mean?

Literally what he posted is this:

Yup. The whole idea that some random GM has produced this wonderful work of art of world building which must be appreciated like the fine thing it is and set on a pedestal. Sacrilege, you will introduce an ELF into my fine artistic setting masterpiece! Guys, stop being so stuck on yourselves and go have fun. I drew a map in 1976 or so, I still use it, I mean, sure I imagined all sorts of stuff and history and all that jazz back in the day. It was fun, never paid it much attention in play. I'd get out the map and me and my sister and/or my buddies would decide "Well, hey, maybe there's killer kangeroos over here!" I mean so what? Sure its silly. We felt like being silly that day. Maybe a year later we ignored that. Its just a tool for having some fun with.

Nothing in there is a statement about setting integrity.

There is a statement about using the same map in multiple games, and having some other overlapping setting elements in those multiple games.

This is not very dissimilar from how I use the WoG.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So the fact that setting integrity doesn't matter to you means that it's silly that it matters to anyone? What makes your preference on the matter any better than someone else's?

Arguably the most conformist culture on this non-magical single species earth has tattooed yakuza members and elegant gothic lolita schoolgirls. Very few settings are weird enough to be realistic, especially if there is (unlike the real world) only a single creative mind behind most of it; when a setting is strongly conformist and people start being precious about the integrity of the setting I start wondering if it's going to be a Pleasantville (or other SF high concept) style satire rather than a living breathing world with some realism.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There is no such fact. That is not what @AbdulAlhazred posted.

Yeah, 'setting integrity', what does that mean? I mean, say, the players and GM are aiming to run a game in a very specific genre or setting, I think it is perfectly understandable that this would mean only certain things are going to be in that game. Sure. I wouldn't describe that in terms of 'setting integrity' though, I'd describe in terms of the premise of the game having certain characteristics. Its a superhero game, you don't have ninjas as PCs or something like that (well, superheroes certain can have a lot of weird stuff, but lets say Arthurian Romance, there aren't ninjas).

 

[wicked cool]

Another thing I would love about a Bg3 campaign is withers
There’s been so many adventures where I wished instead of taking say a Druid in a dungeon I had taken a rogue

 

[mamba]

If a DM is unwilling to budge on something so small, it’s an indication that they are unwilling to budge on pretty much anything.

Doesn’t that cut both ways? The race has so little impact on the overall character, why not compromise?

 

[mamba]

Why would we think DMs are evil?

you will have to ask @EzekielRaiden why they phrased their posts like that then, I go by a plain reading of them.

Maybe they think there are a ton of tyrannical DMs out there, and they are the exception

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, 'setting integrity', what does that mean?

Brings to mind shelves full of action figures you can't play with or take out of the box.

This isn't for playing with. It's for admiring from afar.

 

[mamba]

So, who’s on the other side of that issue? @EzekielRaiden has adopted the most extreme position, but even he is arguing that only a good-faith discussion is required.

they went way beyond this repeatedly, you cannot claim one thing and then argue a completely different one each time and still have me believe your claim

Don't you think the DM should ever "get their way"?

Yes? I just think players should too. Because that's extremely achievable. As in, essentially all of the time.

which really is a long way of saying ‘no, never’