D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Oofta]

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.

I think it just depends. Let's say for a moment that aliens start visiting earth. At first, we're likely pretty cautious around them, but after a while we accept them. Meanwhile some of the aliens are okay. Vulcans are a bit stodgy but okay. Betazoids are a bit annoying when they sense emotions.

But then there are the dumb crossover aliens. Xenomorphs from Aliens that use people as hosts. Predators that come to earth to hunt people just for fun. Heck, look at the reaction to seeing Borg in Star Trek, or in the most recent series the Gorn. Look at the aliens from a dozen other movies where the aliens are homicidal maniacs who are out to eliminate humans for one reason or another.

Then an alien you've never seen that looks and awful lot like a xenomorph shows up. Do you really think people would accept them with open arms? Reactions to unknown creatures are going to vary from campaign to campaign. In a world where Mos Eisley's cantina was commonplace, maybe it wouldn't be a big deal. In a world where only a few known "safe" races exist and many monsters are intelligent and may look humanoid even if the book classifies them as fiends, I think the reaction is going to be different.

It's up to the DM to decide what the reaction is going to be based on established lore.

 

[Maggan]

So seeing a person with horns, or a talking cat, or any number of other supernatural things? Probably a bit spooky in some cases, but hardly worthy of losing your mind over. You had too much stuff to do to worry about that.

Yet people were literally burned at the stake for being witches due to superstition.

 

[pemerton]

That is exactly how I meant it. Cohesion or internal consistency.

And there is no lack of internal consistency in a world in which, "over there", killer kangaroos (or whatever) are to be found. So why does introducing such things on a whim undermine consistency?

I don't know what to say to this.

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

<snip>

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.

What I posted has everything to do with what is being discussed. Introducing new stuff on a whim (a player's whim, a GM's whim, a collaborative whim) doesn't reduce the internal consistency of things. That's my point, and (part of) @AbdulAlhazred's.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Star trek is a curate dm session

I sincerely hope this was a joke, because this is incredibly funny.

Star Trek. The show that practically made the "rubber forehead aliens" trope, and technobabble, is a "curated" setting?

The advice I would give you

If the problem were amenable to logic, it would not be a problem in the first place.

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.'.

IMO, if someone is "too tired" to have a good-faith discussion, they shouldn't be DMing. Period.

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 have seen it enough to need more than a random internet person's promise, sorry.

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.

And here you are assuming that any discussion must, necessarily, be disruptive--which is exactly what I had called out previously. Was I not correct then, that the presumption is that any form of request is necessarily an attack against the group, the game, etc.? Because if that is in fact true, that sounds like one of the so-called social "fallacies."

 

[pemerton]

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.

The implication of this seems to be that the players of non-Dragonborn PCs are not allowed to perform actions that might lead to them being seen as spies, or prophets, or of interest to local MUs. Or anything else that would change the social dynamics from a sort of "status quo" in which the PCs make few ripples on the world.

I would not want to play with that sort of GM. (And the last time I did, around 25 years ago now, I left the game because of it.)

 

[pemerton]

Yet people were literally burned at the stake for being witches due to superstition.

But in most D&D worlds are not! Even if they can wildshape or polymorph. So why are Dragonborn going to make such a difference of impact?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, we've been over this before. I've had many games where no one would volunteer to DM, so I got stuck with it by default. If I didn't DM, there would be no game. Not much of a choice and I am certainly not "volunteering" as you seem to think in those cases.

So you wanted a game to happen and made a choice to run one.

What there coercion? Were there threats?

If no, you were not forced. You could have said no.

 

[Maxperson]

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!)

I explained exactly why it would bother me. There is reason.

In order for a player to play a dragonborn, I'd have to give that PC and that PC alone(since the others are playing normal races) like +6 to strength, +4 to con, +5 to int, +4 to wisdom, +4 to charisma, resistance to weapons, and more.

 

[Maggan]

But in most D&D worlds are not! Even if they can wildshape or polymorph. So why are Dragonborn going to make such a difference of impact?

I'm not the GM of most D&D worlds.

And I really don't see why my campaign world would have to follow something that "most D&D worlds" do.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yet people were literally burned at the stake for being witches due to superstition.

Burn all wizards!

Halflings all steal

Unusually strong people are clearly in league with Satan!

Make everyone's game experience uncomfortable and full of harassment and discrimination!