D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[pemerton]

The entire post is about how unimportant the framework of the setting is e.g. "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?"

I'm sure that's the definition of setting integrity that @Micah Sweet was using (he can correct me if I'm wrong) i.e. the game world has parameters/rules. @AbdulAlhazred 's post was basically saying, hey, don't worry about those rules, just have fun! Which is a perfectly acceptable way to play. Other tables aren't down with that.

I don't see what any of this has to do with integrity.

I mean, presumably there are rules that describe the earth (our actual human homeland) but some of them are not known, some perhaps are unknowable, and most people know none of them and even the greatest scholars know only a handful of them each.

So if someone uses parameters/rules to decide what to include in a setting, well good luck to them, but equally they might do what REH did - which is just pinch stuff from the real world and overlay a bit of fantasy fiction - and the setting may well be just as realistic (taking the earth as an example of something realistic because real) and have just as much integrity.

I mean, in my first session of Torchbearer we decided that there is a Wizard's Tower on the south side of the Bluff Hills, and a Forgotten Temple Complex on the edge of the Theocracy of the Pale just north of the Troll Fens. That was done spontaneously by me and the players, with no reference to rules or parameters other than the general Torchbearer rules for settlements.

In today's session, the PCs met with Lareth the Beautiful, who is the half-brother of one of them. This was put to Lareth, and there was more discussion of the family and family origins of the Elven PCs. There was also information about the Forgotten Temple Complex (which some might call a former Temple of Elemental Evil) relayed to the PCs by Lareth. These various bits of information about the setting have been authored primarily by me, over the past few sessions. The method is not wildly different from @AbdulAlhazred and his sister and friend's method, of what would make for fun play in these circumstances?

I can tell you that the setting of our game has integrity, and you can refer to the actual play linked to above to see the evidence.

And if by "setting integrity" is mean not changing the setting from game to game, that's an odd usage. "Setting continuity" or "setting repetition" would both see more apt.

 

[Zardnaar]

Why not just use Race as Class to mechanically emphasis how unusual a race is? I'd it's good enough for Gygax it's good enough for me!

Might consider that for powerful races eg Athasian Half giant.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Because it doesn't have so little impact from the player's perspective. I get one character. One race. One (starting) class. That's all I get. I'm not playing anything else. The DM has a world, or even an entire universe.

I just don't see how the impact can compare. My character is the entirety of my ability to interact with the setting. It is, at most, 1/nth of the DM's interaction with the party...and as several DMs in this thread have touted, their worlds progress without references to that party, so that 1/nth is even less of a share of the DM's experience of play.

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

No, it isn't. I would very much appreciate it if you reacted to what I was saying, and not these unrelated soundbytes.

 

[Maggan]

I guess I just find it really hard to believe that "one person is playing a dragonborn" is such a horrific, onerous burden that it would "negatively impact" the DM's fun.

Let's say I let a player play a dragonborn in my campaign where no dragonborn have existed before.

From my viewpoint it could change the dynamics of the world dramatically. Almost everywhere that PC would go, people would be either terrified or fascinated. The common people might see it as a devil or a benevolent being out of their folk tales, but either way the appearance of a dragonborn would cause concern or curiosity. Rumours would spread (more or less quickly) about this unique individual and the governing powers would want to find and question this marvellous creature. Where does it come from? Are there more of the same kin? How powerful are they? Are they enemies or potential allies? Is the PC a spy?

Depending on the role of religion in the campaign the dragonborn could be seen as being sent by a god as a prophet, or seen as an abomination sent by an opposing god or power. Powerful religious leaders might send bounty hunters after the PC to bring it to the powers that be for a trial to determine its status. Blessing or abomination? The theological debates would rage and could very well result in religious conflict, even war.

And magic-users would sit up and take notice. The wizards would want to find this fantastical being, either for their own gain or for the sake of furthering the pursuit of knowledge about magic. A new fantastical being they didn't know about? What might that mean for the magic of the realm? Could this mean that dragon magic is also being made available to all others? Can we steal dragon magic from the dragonborn?

So introducing a dragonborn could potentially change the entire dynamic of the campaign and I find it perfectly understandable if a DM doesn't want to deal with that, or put in another way, would not have fun dealing with it. And I also understand that a DM could hand-wave it and just have everyone react to the dragonborn just lika any other PC, but that could put a strain on the feeling of verisimilitude of the DM and the other players. And there are of course other ways of handling it, not all DMs or games are the same or have to be the same. My fun is not everone's fun

I can also see a fabulous campaign where all this happens, but from another perspective as a DM I'd be loathe to let one single player have that amount of spotlight at the detriment of the other players, unless they are all comfortable with the dragonborn being the center of attention and a driver of how the campaign develops. Maybe everyone plays a dragonborn?

Also, the above example presupposes that exotic races (e.g. dragonborn, tieflings, owlin, loxodon, aaracokra, tortle) are rare. If the Mos Eisley cantina is default in a setting, a dragonborn wouldn't even register as being out of the ordinary, but I'd wager a guess that several DMs who are limiting e.g. dragonborn aren't big on other exotic races being part of the campaign either.

The bottom line is that there are campaigns where introducing an exotic race would have large consequenses on the setting (e.g. my WFRP campaign), and there are campaigns where it wouldn't ruffle any feathers at all (e.g. my Pirate Borg campaign or in a Planescape dampaign). There are even campaigns where the entire premise is a new exotic creature being introduced and how this changes the world (e.g. Dragonlance, sort of).

 

[mamba]

No, it isn't. I would very much appreciate it if you reacted to what I was saying, and not these unrelated soundbytes.

First of all, these soundbytes are not unrelated, they are about this topic. Second, you made so many soundbytes that to me this is precisely what you are actually saying, and the other soundbytes are you trying to sound more reasonable than you actually are.

But we can address this, give me an example where you think the DM is in the right to reject a player proposal about the player character (with that char being a vanilla, by the rules, PHB + XGtE + TCoE character), or for simplicity when would you accept that Dragonborn are not allowed and what would be an acceptable compromise

You have been asked repeatedly and never answered. If you still do not answer I will take this as confirmation that you really mean ‘never’, just like I already concluded.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren't. I find that the vast majority of campaigns that stick to the "core four" races haven't bothered to make them in any meaningful way different from "Tolkien-esque with the serial numbers thoroughly filed off." It's one (of several) reasons why I expect, as part of any pre-campaign discussion, that the DM actually...y'know, make a case, sell me on all this stuff they've put so much time into. And why the rather dogmatic "I'm the DM so what I say goes, like it or lump it" attitude leaves me so cold--that very specifically reflects a refusal to bother selling the player on stuff, and from what I've seen, a rather lethargic attitude toward having the stuff you'd need to make a sales pitch in the first place (beyond, y'know, "I wrote it," which...yeah that's not exactly a great sales pitch.)

I think the argument from that group is that it is a lot time and effort is expended by a DM to put together a game world, a campaign and the adventure for each session. They likely have a family, a job, etc. that also demands their time. They are saying: 'I am out of gas... please do not make this any harder than it needs to be. We're just here to have fun, so let's just do that.'.

Sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren't. I find that the vast majority of campaigns that stick to the "core four" races haven't bothered to make them in any meaningful way different from "Tolkien-esque with the serial numbers thoroughly filed off." It's one (of several) reasons why I expect, as part of any pre-campaign discussion, that the DM actually...y'know, make a case, sell me on all this stuff they've put so much time into. And why the rather dogmatic "I'm the DM so what I say goes, like it or lump it" attitude leaves me so cold--that very specifically reflects a refusal to bother selling the player on stuff, and from what I've seen, a rather lethargic attitude toward having the stuff you'd need to make a sales pitch in the first place (beyond, y'know, "I wrote it," which...yeah that's not exactly a great sales pitch.)

See what I wrote above. I don't think it's about 'DM dogma'. It's simply that there are only a certain number of hours in a day; let's just play. If a certain player has a request or issue that requires the whole train to stop so it can be dealt with, that's an impact on everyone in the group.

As someone with social anxiety, I can promise you that it is a defense mechanism. Think of it this way: People you do not know are threats. Unknown people will hurt you. Hence, you must keep unknown people at arm's length, so they can't hurt you. But if you've forged a connection with someone, if you've been able to lower your guard enough to let them in, well. Now they're inside the castle. Letting someone in, only for them to then do something upsetting, feels like the same hurt that caused all this fear and anxiety to begin with. Hence, to "betray" friendship is a pretty horrible offense. Likewise, if you trust person A to be good to you, and you trust person B to be good to you, well, they have to get along, right? You know they're people who don't hurt others, therefore they can't hurt one another.

Almost all of this is rooted in maladaptive coping mechanisms, often as a result of ostracism and unresolved feelings of inadequacy, coupled with a particularly pointed desire for socialization (since the avoidant behavior leaves the person starved for social interaction and, in many cases, regular human affection, outside of family members.)

I see. These are terrible experiences, and they do have lifelong consequences. You have hurdles to overcome that others don't. Unfortunately, though, life is not fair. Personal happiness has to be driven by your own engine, regardless of your life circumstances. That sucks... but it's the way it is.

The advice I would give you is to not give a crap. Meaning, first off, people don't want to hurt you. If you do or say something awkward, and you think 'omfg what have I done???'... don't worry about it. Just literally don't. The odds that someone has noticed what you think is the end of the world is minimal. Even if they did notice, they almost certainly did not permanently colour their view of you because of it. And on the off, off chance that they did... so what? Just don't worry or even think about it. The corollary effect of that is that self-confidence you have just exhibited is attractive to others.

On the other hand, if you act as you described, where you behave as if all strangers are enemies, you're going to make those you engage with keep their distance. A self-fulfilling prophecy. Ouroboros will begin eating its tail. Don't do that.

As said, I don't personally think it's relevant. For me, this is not about identity, but rather, about being respectful to one another. A respectful person does not throw their weight around in this way, regardless of their position within a group. Many here have made a great deal of the extra "work" or "responsibility" of the DM, which I personally think is more than a little overblown (having been a DM for several years now). Further, I think such harping on that to the exclusion of other information is ignoring the fact that the DM is the one with most of the power in this social dynamic. Thus it is incumbent upon them to use that power judiciously, with caution, restraint, and magnanimity. I see rather a dearth of all three in most descriptions of blanket bans, particularly given the disinclination, or even outright hostility, to the very idea of the player asking for a good-faith discussion with both sides trying to achieve consensus.

I would suggest you're bringing some of the baggage discussed in my previous comment into this. I promise you that the view you have described here is not what is actually happening.

I guess I just find it really hard to believe that "one person is playing a dragonborn" is such a horrific, onerous burden that it would "negatively impact" the DM's fun. That notion is genuinely baffling to me. They have an entire world--an entire universe--at their fingertips. But one player playing a race they aren't into is now, apparently, enough to spoil the experience. That's just...I genuinely cannot think of any other way to describe that but "petty." It just feels petty to have an experience irreparably damaged by something that small in comparison to what the DM personally is engaged with. As if the mere presence of an avocado dish at a banquet were enough to ruin the guest of honor's appetite, because they find avocado greasy and mealy. (Which, for the record, I do!)

Again, see above. The burden is having to stop the play for the entire group just to deal with a single person's issue. To me, this is selfish behaviour. This one person puts their own desires above everyone else's. If you are a person making a request like this, please make sure it's important enough to warrant making the game experience more unpleasant for the rest of the group. Maybe it is; but make sure beforehand. Do unto others, etc.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I don't see what any of this has to do with integrity.

I don't know what to say to this.

I mean, presumably there are rules that describe the earth (our actual human homeland) but some of them are not known, some perhaps are unknowable, and most people know none of them and even the greatest scholars know only a handful of them each.

So if someone uses parameters/rules to decide what to include in a setting, well good luck to them, but equally they might do what REH did - which is just pinch stuff from the real world and overlay a bit of fantasy fiction - and the setting may well be just as realistic (taking the earth as an example of something realistic because real) and have just as much integrity.

I mean, in my first session of Torchbearer we decided that there is a Wizard's Tower on the south side of the Bluff Hills, and a Forgotten Temple Complex on the edge of the Theocracy of the Pale just north of the Troll Fens. That was done spontaneously by me and the players, with no reference to rules or parameters other than the general Torchbearer rules for settlements.

In today's session, the PCs met with Lareth the Beautiful, who is the half-brother of one of them. This was put to Lareth, and there was more discussion of the family and family origins of the Elven PCs. There was also information about the Forgotten Temple Complex (which some might call a former Temple of Elemental Evil) relayed to the PCs by Lareth. These various bits of information about the setting have been authored primarily by me, over the past few sessions. The method is not wildly different from @AbdulAlhazred and his sister and friend's method, of what would make for fun play in these circumstances?

Excellent! I love it! Also, nothing to do with what's being discussed!

Sometimes requests can be accommodated easily. Some DMs have more talent to improvise than others, which ups the odds that a request can be accommodated. You seem to be in this group. Sometimes, though, the request is colouring too far outside the lines. Maybe the DM isn't talented enough to work it in. Maybe some of the other players just can't buy into the side effects of the request. Whatever the reason, sometimes, at real tables (that aren't yours), this happens.

I can tell you that the setting of our game has integrity, and you can refer to the actual play linked to above to see the evidence.

I have actually. Super entertaining!

And if by "setting integrity" is mean not changing the setting from game to game, that's an odd usage. "Setting continuity" or "setting repetition" would both see more apt.

I didn't use the term in the first place, but I don't think it's an odd usage at all. Integrity, in the sense of 'cohesion or internal consistency', as opposed to 'sticking to a set of moral/ethical standards', is how it seems to have been used here.

 

[ezo]

You have been asked repeatedly and never answered. If you still do not answer I will take this as confirmation that you really mean ‘never’, just like I already concluded.

LOL, I've been waiting for DAYS for a response about this---and nothing but absolute silence on it.

 

[Oofta]

First of all, these soundbytes are not unrelated, they are about this topic. Second, you made so many soundbytes that to me this is precisely what you are actually saying, and the other soundbytes are you trying to sound more reasonable than you actually are.

But we can address this, give me an example where you think the DM is in the right to reject a player proposal about the player character (with that char being a vanilla, by the rules, PHB + XGtE + TCoE character), or for simplicity when would you accept that Dragonborn are not allowed and what would be an acceptable compromise

You have been asked repeatedly and never answered. If you still do not answer I will take this as confirmation that you really mean ‘never’, just like I already concluded.

One example of a "good enough" reason from @EzekielRaiden would end the argument. In addition they are perfectly okay with banning evil characters because they understand why a DM may not want them in a game. Which, ultimately, boils down to the DM saying "I don't want them". We can justify it and explain it all we want. Our reasons may be completely logical and sound or we could just be looking for justification after the fact without even realizing it.

Ultimately though? Whether it's no evil PCs or a curated list of races, it comes down to someone making a choice and doing the best they can to run a fun game. What makes a campaign work for the DM and player is going to vary from table to table and there's nothing wrong with different approaches.

 

[ECMO3]

Let's say I let a player play a dragonborn in my campaign where no dragonborn have existed before.

From my viewpoint it could change the dynamics of the world dramatically. Almost everywhere that PC would go, people would be either terrified or fascinated. The common people might see it as a devil or a benevolent being out of their folk tales, but either way the appearance of a dragonborn would cause concern or curiosity. Rumours would spread (more or less quickly) about this unique individual and the governing powers would want to find and question this marvellous creature. Where does it come from? Are there more of the same kin? How powerful are they? Are they enemies or potential allies? Is the PC a spy?

Depending on the role of religion in the campaign the dragonborn could be seen as being sent by a god as a prophet, or seen as an abomination sent by an opposing god or power. Powerful religious leaders might send bounty hunters after the PC to bring it to the powers that be for a trial to determine its status. Blessing or abomination? The theological debates would rage and could very well result in religious conflict, even war.

And magic-users would sit up and take notice. The wizards would want to find this fantastical being, either for their own gain or for the sake of furthering the pursuit of knowledge about magic. A new fantastical being they didn't know about? What might that mean for the magic of the realm? Could this mean that dragon magic is also being made available to all others? Can we steal dragon magic from the dragonborn?

So introducing a dragonborn could potentially change the entire dynamic of the campaign and I find it perfectly understandable if a DM doesn't want to deal with that, or put in another way, would not have fun dealing with it. And I also understand that a DM could hand-wave it and just have everyone react to the dragonborn just lika any other PC, but that could put a strain on the feeling of verisimilitude of the DM and the other players. And there are of course other ways of handling it, not all DMs or games are the same or have to be the same. My fun is not everone's fun

I can also see a fabulous campaign where all this happens, but from another perspective as a DM I'd be loathe to let one single player have that amount of spotlight at the detriment of the other players, unless they are all comfortable with the dragonborn being the center of attention and a driver of how the campaign develops. Maybe everyone plays a dragonborn?

Also, the above example presupposes that exotic races (e.g. dragonborn, tieflings, owlin, loxodon, aaracokra, tortle) are rare. If the Mos Eisley cantina is default in a setting, a dragonborn wouldn't even register as being out of the ordinary, but I'd wager a guess that several DMs who are limiting e.g. dragonborn aren't big on other exotic races being part of the campaign either.

The bottom line is that there are campaigns where introducing an exotic race would have large consequenses on the setting (e.g. my WFRP campaign), and there are campaigns where it wouldn't ruffle any feathers at all (e.g. my Pirate Borg campaign or in a Planescape dampaign). There are even campaigns where the entire premise is a new exotic creature being introduced and how this changes the world (e.g. Dragonlance, sort of).

I am not buying this argument. The common people are only fascinated, terrified, see it as a devil or being from their folk tales if the DM decides they do that.

Apon laying eyes on the first Dragonborn, the common tavern owner could just as easily look up yawn and ask if he wants a private room or to stay in the common room.