D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Divine2021]

Man, I was originally excited to talk about why BG3 wouldn’t make a good DnD module in 2024, but instead people are arguing about Dragonborn? Cmon, what year is it, 2008?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't even know what work the word "acceptable" is doing here.

I'm just saying that, to me, a world in which polymorphing wizards and wild-shaping druids raise no eyebrows, it doesn't seem obvious that Dragonborn would do so.

Who says those things don't raise eyebrows? Someone's making assumptions about other people's tables, and it's not me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not passing judgment on what people should or should not do. I will state that if your practical goal is to actually run games in a setting and have it appeal to anything except a carefully selected group of participants then I would avoid incorporating the sorts of realism which would including racism, slavery, what we would consider extremely constrained roles for women (or men for that matter, it is fantasy after all), etc.

There's an awful lot of fiction that includes those things. I doubt they all appeal to a carefully selected group of participants. I expect you'll say that's different, but it's not IMO that different.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See, I agree with you, but then you cannot have it both ways! Either things are explained by an appeal to realism or they are explained by how they provide a workable basis for play.

Some things are explained one way, and other things in a different way.

 

[Oofta]

I mean it'd attract attention but like.... Its D&D. There's far weirder. Dragons can already talk and given the existence of stories, folks absolutely have probably heard some equivilent of "Down on her luck person is friendly to random person coming by, turns out he's a respledent gold dragon, she becomes fabulously wealthy". To say nothing of "Here's Bahamut, the dragon god of dragons, who's a good good who likes to hang around with a bunch of other good gods you may worship" also existing. A dragon person in D&D is basically just, about the same as a tall kobold, or a half dragon, or a lizardman, or some guy who's come by the local church of Bahamut. The archetype's exised for decades and there are some form of 'yeah that's a dragon-y person' predating dragonborn in most settings

In our world it'd be weird, sure, but our world isn't the D&D world.

So you know the one true way everyone should run their game? Good to know.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I include races, and monsters, that I think make sense for the world.

Obvious gotcha question is obvious.

NOTHING about @Remathilis question is a 'gotcha'. The argument for banning players from specific options is 'setting integrity'. If leaving a monster in 'limbo' as to its existence isn't detrimental to that, then why is leaving a PC option in limbo so antithetical. It's an inconsistent position to take. If Xvarts can be undefined why not Dragonborn?

 

[Oofta]

NOTHING about @Remathilis question is a 'gotcha'. The argument for banning players from specific options is 'setting integrity'. If leaving a monster in 'limbo' as to its existence isn't detrimental to that, then why is leaving a PC option in limbo so antithetical. It's an inconsistent position to take. If Xvarts can be undefined why not Dragonborn?

Because neither xvarts nor dragonborn fit my vision of the world.

How about this? I don't tell you how to run your game, which is something I've never done and never will, and you don't tell me how to run mine?

 

[Maxperson]

I was only touching on settings and social/political/ethical sorts of factors, nothing else. Obviously your game could, in theory at least, perfectly present an entirely consistent and potentially fully realistic set of physical laws and the concomitant weather, geology, etc. which would have to consistently follow. AND YET it could still be entirely unrealistic in the social dimension! I was merely pointing out that gamist considerations virtually compel that lack of realism at a practical level. I would say that is also true of physics and such, though that has more to do with the amount of detail vs the fidelity to reality, so its a bit different discussion. Ultimately my point is that discussions of realism in terms of societies in RPG settings just doesn't make sense, they serve other masters besides realism.

Sure, but even so it's still a spectrum. Physics cannot be modeled exactly in a game, but it can be unrealistically modeled on the spectrum as more or less realistic. Falling and taking no damage models gravity VERY unrealistically. Falling and taking 1d6 damage no matter how far you fall is also very unrealistic, but less so than no damage. Falling and taking 1d6 per 10 feet capping at 20d6 is still not modeling reality, but is much more realistic than the prior two methods. And you can refine farther towards reality if you want. The same applies to social/political/ethical factors. You aren't going to reach reality, but you can still be more or less realistic depending on how you try to model it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Gotcha.

Mod Note:

That is right at the line for making it personal. Making it personal agitates other posters and make beaches of civility more likely.

Let’s all step back from the line, shall we?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Would that really be telling to most people though? I don't think most associate Tabaxi with their 5E storyline specifics or being created by gods, I think its 'I want to be cat person/Hrothgar/Khajiit", that sheer archetype. Like, not just in fantasy, in sci-fi the archetype goes back absolute decades as well, plus D&D's had them for yonks with Rakasta alone

People cool for the setting specific changes, they just want to play a cat person. So it could come from the cat lord, be a bunch of people from a war-torn land who ended up travelling once their homeland was destroyed, or a really complicated bunch of desert dwellers with questionable links to elves, maybe? (and frankly, I don't think tabaxi are hard to slot into settings given how wide the animal person archetype already is)

I don't want to put words in the mouth of an Ordovician Agnathan, but this is how I see your point is for people like @Oofta do you really have some sort of principles that you could express which describes WHY Tabaxi, for example, are inconsistent and inappropriate for your setting? Or is it simply some sort of nebulous 'artistic vision'? If the later, OK, but then understand that tastes are personal and the players may not share yours or particular understand or appreciate them.