D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Oofta]

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.



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. Whether it is how it would be IRL, it is entirely possible for the DM to do/allow in game and won't break the game at all.

I think the whole "that is not how it would be IRL" is a bit overblown in a game with Fireballs and Dragons (or walking skeletons if you don't have dragons).

Just because it doesn't matter to you, there's no reason to be dismissive of what matters to other people. I try to think what the world would be like if magic was real and things really did go bump in the night.

You don't care? Fine. I do, and I feel like my campaigns are better for it.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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?

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.

You have a certain view of what constitutes internal consistency of a game world. That view is different from what others consider consistent. Both are okay. Yours does not trump theirs though; it's just different.

 

[mamba]

I think @ECMO3 is making the point that D&D games/world don't have to be based on our own (human) reactions, history, or assumptions about what reactions a common person would have to a dragonborn.

sure, emphasis on don’t have to.

A DM could run a world like a Star Wars cantina if they wanted, and be perfectly right to do so.

and if they did, they probably would not have rejected Dragonborn in the first place, so chances are they do not, or we would not have this discussion

 

[mamba]

Again, this is highly unlikely. Both in Antiquity and the Medieval Period, there was an outright expectation that there could be Incredibly Weird Things in areas sufficiently far away to be exotic.

an expectation that they exist somewhere far away is very different from a tolerance of them when they show up in your hometown

 

[Neonchameleon]

A lot of good points…and…educational and interesting. And:

What do you think a real world European settlement in the 1100s would do if they encountered a person with horns and a tail?

I think the average American has one breast and one testicle; neither people nor groups are monocultures. I think a lot of medieval Europeans believed people from far off lands had animal heads - and we don't have magic in the real world.

I think that when you talk about "a real world European settlement" the answer could be literally anything from "lynch them on sight" to "swear their immortal souls to them on sight" and the most common answer is going to be "watch to see how they behave".

 

[mamba]

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.

or because the player insisted on playing a dragonborn, even when it was clear that they would be seen as a ‘freak’

Also, so we are now at the point where the DM cannot run the game in a way they consider realistic / in line with the setting, because a player insisted on a race that was not allowed in the first place and the DM accommodated them, great.

Makes a good case for why it should not have been allowed in the first place

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

I want to see that if I use it in a way that does not benefit the players… you basically told me not to play the innkeeper the way I wanted to, if that means they do not just shrug at the abomination walking in through their door

 

[ezo]

sure, emphasis on don’t have to.

Yep, which is why I put the have as italics.

and if they did, they probably would not have rejected Dragonborn in the first place, so chances are they do not, or we would not have this discussion

Yep again, if the DM has their world work that way and not at all based on the conceptions we have due to our behaviors in real-life history, etc.

Or a DM could base their world more on historical-type real world human behaviors. Works either way, of course.

Which I'm pretty sure was the point @ECMO3 was making. You could have common folk respond with fear and/or distrust against dragonborn, tieflings, etc. because you believe that is how "human"(oids) would react, or have such creatures well-known and just as trusted as any other race in your game.

 

[ezo]

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.

or AND because the player insisted on playing a dragonborn, even when it was clear that they would be seen as a ‘freak’

Both are true.

In my own games, dragonborn and tieflings are treated with suspicion, as are half-orcs. Drow are treated with distrust and fear. Many times I allow these races, but I forewarn players choosing these races that NPCs will typically act in such a manner. The player accepting that as a role-playing challenge knows what they are getting into.

 

[mamba]

Or a DM could base their world more on historical-type real world human behaviors. Works either way, of course.

I am ok with it working either way, but it is the DM who decides how it works in their world, and if they do not change their setting to welcome a new race as ‘nothing to see here’, that is their prerogative

Which I'm pretty sure was the point @ECMO3 was making.

pretty sure it was not, but rather they wanted to just accept the dragonborn and treat them like any other customer

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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

That's not true at all. You're being defensive. You have the power in this situation; you can choose to feel sorry for yourself, or you can take a few simple actions to make your life better. Ball's in your court.