D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Micah Sweet]

I must have missed that post, so I apologize.

Though to be honest I find this a bit hyperbolic. Does every tiefling get the powers of Asmodeus as well? Is every elf literally immortal unless killed, and innately magically powerful, especially if they visited the Undying Lands?

I really don't see how you "have" to give out all these crazy bonuses. The blood is thin. That's a pretty stereotypical plot point, isn't it? That the powers of ancient days are long gone. Hence, for example, why I gave the alternative suggestion of playing a lizardfolk character who is trying to awaken a connection to dragons, or who believes he has one (whether or not he really does), or similar sorts of things.

"Why can't you just change how you feel about this issue in order to suit my needs"?

 

[Maxperson]

I must have missed that post, so I apologize.

Though to be honest I find this a bit hyperbolic. Does every tiefling get the powers of Asmodeus as well?

If I used the 5e changes, the tiefling abilities were gained via a deal in the past, so they don't have to be earth shattering. I don't, though, I use the old 2e tiefling lore since it's far better.

Is every elf literally immortal unless killed

Yes. I use immortal elves. In game play the difference between living to 1000 and immortality is nil. I don't make them Tolkien, though.

, and innately magically powerful, especially if they visited the Undying Lands?

There is a reason that I refuse to play D&D Middle Earth. And the equality of races is it.

And it's not hyperbolic, since D&D Dragons are that powerful and those that come from their blood would be very much more powerful than normal races. I'm not reaching into some other world like Tolkien to show how elves somewhere completely different would be stronger.

I really don't see how you "have" to give out all these crazy bonuses. The blood is thin. That's a pretty stereotypical plot point, isn't it? That the powers of ancient days are long gone. Hence, for example, why I gave the alternative suggestion of playing a lizardfolk character who is trying to awaken a connection to dragons, or who believes he has one (whether or not he really does), or similar sorts of things.

If the blood were that thin, they'd look like humans with maybe a few scales or something. They wouldn't be dragonborn in form and would have no breath weapon. Besides, the blood being that weak is what bothers me. It diminishes dragons. I won't have it because it impacts my fun to reduce dragons like that.

 

[CreamCloud0]

sure witchcraft and magic might be normalised in the fantasy world, but so are dragons, terrifying evil vicious chromatic dragons that burn and ravage and steal, so when that one guy walks into town that no-one's ever seen the like of before and who looks weirdly similar to a humaniod version of one of those dragons and has a breath weapon well i might start giving them the side-eye, wonder what's their deal and if i'm going to need to get the dragon attack buckets out or something very similar

 

[Umbran]

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

Mod Note:
A little earlier in this thread, I asked for folks to leave some space in the world for folks to play in ways that are not your favorite.

You have chosen not to. You have chosen the route of hyperbole and attempting to shame people into your preferred mode of gaming.

So, you are done in this thread.

Folks - please stop pushing the words of others to hyperbolic poles. That's not conversation. It is shouting at each other.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

sure witchcraft and magic might be normalised in the fantasy world, but so are dragons, terrifying evil vicious chromatic dragons that burn and ravage and steal, so when that one guy walks into town that no-one's ever seen the like of before and who looks weirdly similar to a humaniod version of one of those dragons and has a breath weapon well i might start giving them the side-eye, wonder what's their deal and if i'm going to need to get the dragon attack buckets out or something very similar

So, I think this is part of a MUCH larger discussion about settings, fantasy ones in particular perhaps, but a lot of settings in general. They are incredibly 'gamist'. I mean, any unbiased reading of human history will lead us to the conclusion that some happy mixture of races, ideologies, egalitarianism, and gender equality is the greatest fantasy of all. Maybe some of those things are realistic, surely they have all existed to a degree in real human history. However it is vastly more likely that what would normally be encountered would be profoundly different from that. BUT we can only work within the model of imagined social/cultural/political acceptability to modern people. My point being that all these settings are so utterly gamist as to make any appeal to 'realism' moot.

 

[Oofta]

So, I think this is part of a MUCH larger discussion about settings, fantasy ones in particular perhaps, but a lot of settings in general. They are incredibly 'gamist'. I mean, any unbiased reading of human history will lead us to the conclusion that some happy mixture of races, ideologies, egalitarianism, and gender equality is the greatest fantasy of all. Maybe some of those things are realistic, surely they have all existed to a degree in real human history. However it is vastly more likely that what would normally be encountered would be profoundly different from that. BUT we can only work within the model of imagined social/cultural/political acceptability to modern people. My point being that all these settings are so utterly gamist as to make any appeal to 'realism' moot.

Because many games are gamist idealized worlds, nobody should even attempt to make something more realistic is not a particularly strong argument.

 

[ezo]

I'm saying it could be like @ECMO3 says, or it could be the other way. If that's what you're saying too, then yes I agree with you.

Yep. I was simply pointing out it doesn't have to be modelled after what we would imagine historical or human or whatever would feel or react like, but that it could be that way, or it could be another way depending on the DM's interpretation of their game world.

 

[Maxperson]

My point being that all these settings are so utterly gamist as to make any appeal to 'realism' moot.

This is one area that we disagree on quite a bit. Realism isn't all or nothing, it's a spectrum. And not only is it a spectrum, but it's modular, so you can plug it in over here, but not over there where the game is more gamist.

I can have realism level 2.3(spells and wizards), realism level 8.1(humanoids have to breathe) realism level 3.6(dragons ahoy!), realism level 7.3(gravity that works, but isn't exactly like real life), and realism level 3.14159(the setting is flat and circular) all in the same game.

The existence of a low realism module does not preclude or invalidate a higher realism module, so cries of, "How can you like realism when there are dragons and spells in the game!?" is a counterargument that fails on its face.

We all draw the realism lines in different areas for different modules. Maybe a Discworld has too little realism for you and you need a setting with a spherical one. Maybe you don't care if a fighter can split a mountain in half with a purely martial ability and don't need those things to be realistic in the least. One thing realism isn't, though, is moot in D&D. It's all over the place to some degree or another, depending on the particular module.

 

[ECMO3]

Correct!

By civil authorities.

Witchcraft was a crime. It wasn't a heresy itself (though it might accompany heresy.)

People are still killed for Witchcraft in various places around the world, and many of those places don't use the rule of law.

This is particularly bad in Nigeria.

 

[ECMO3]

and most of the time they would be exactly that in real life

but all the time they would be exactly like the DM played them to be.

If this causes disruption in a campaign based on NPC reactions it is because the DM wants it to cause such and plays those NPCs like that.

This is essentially a "DM agency" issue. The DM can choose to make all of his NPCs nonpulsed about it just like a player can use his agency to make his PC who never saw a dragonborn non-pulsed. If the DM chooses to have his NPCs get excited about it, that is because he excersized his agency over those NPCs and chose to do that.

I think the whole "that is not how it would be IRL" is a bit overblown. If we are accepting things like Fireballs and Dragons (or walking skeletons if you don't have dragons) then we can accept that these NPCs would act in a certain "unrealistic" way as well .... because if we are comparing this to real life, having an NPC not freak out on seeing "a devil" is actually less of a stretch than the devil, his pal the Elf, a wizard that can cast spells being there in the first place. In that respect it is actually possible in real life for the NPCs not to freak out. It isn't even possible to do many of the things the players are doing.

only if they are used to seeing weird, one of a kind creatures regularly, which I would bet they do not. The innkeeper is not secretly a men in black

No. The DM can make the tavern keeper do whatever he wants in game and he doesn't have to explain it.

This is no different than a brand new PC showing up inside the pocket plane where the last player died with no explanation of how he got there, or at best a flimsy explanation. Then that character you walked into joins and starts helping the other PCs. Whether it is how it would be IRL, it is entirely possible for the DM and other PCs to do/allow in game and won't break the game at all.