D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Forgive me if the argument form "I have invalidated your reasoning simply by redefining all the terms" is not particularly impressive!

You're right: the terms were being redefined... just not by me!

 

[Mecheon]

Or ... they could find another campaign to join if they want to play something not on my list. I have plenty of players without running a game I don't want.

Is a cat person all it takes for it to be a game you don't want? Animal people have been in this game since day 1 with the original pig orcs, and gnolls became hyena people, cynocephs (dog-headed people) are more medievally accurate than halflings or orcs even existing, and 'cat person' is a massive archetype that's well rooted in fantasy to the point I didn't even bring in Warcraft's one (both the 'actually known about' Saberon and the 'rolled out every new race hopeful for the past 20 years' Tigon)

Hypothetically, let's say I've been okay with your stuff in the past. But I have a friend, and they did not give any concern about D&D until I told them that Tabaxi exists and suddenly, hey, they want to play. I want to play with my friend, and I'd love to invite them to you, but your hard stance on what, to us, seems a minor thing, given D&D's long and noted history of cat people, is an insurmountable barrier. Well, to play with my friend, I'm leaving your game and seeking one elsewhere, because they want to play tabaxi, and I want to play with them. I can't play your game and play with them, so that's just, potentially breaking up that group.

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

D&D's a social game, this is hardly something that's debatable. A DM can design the fanciest world they want, but if they can't get players interested in playing it, it doesn't matter.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Well, it IS probably different, but this is a pretty complex issue. I mean, you can talk to Norman Spinrad about that (The Iron Dream)! Obviously authors can write about things they don't approve of. GMs COULD also do that, but interactive RPG fiction is a bit different than a novel. However, as a GM I've been around since basically forever, and I am totally confident in my experience telling me that if I make, say, racism, an everyday occurrence in my game WRT certain PCs that this will create dissent and friction. I mean, sure, it may be interesting at first, but it will get SUPER OLD really really fast. For some specific player bases it will get a LOT more contentious than just tiresome, trust me! I don't claim to be any expert on the subject, but I have had people of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds as players. So, obviously you may have no issues, and I have no idea who the people you typically play with are or what their tastes are. I just made a general statement and I'm happy to stand by it as such.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is a cat person all it takes for it to be a game you don't want? Animal people have been in this game since day 1 with the original pig orcs, and gnolls became hyena people, cynocephs (dog-headed people) are more medievally accurate than halflings or orcs even existing, and 'cat person' is a massive archetype that's well rooted in fantasy to the point I didn't even bring in Warcraft's one (both the 'actually known about' Saberon and the 'rolled out every new race hopeful for the past 20 years' Tigon)

Hypothetically, let's say I've been okay with your stuff in the past. But I have a friend, and they did not give any concern about D&D until I told them that Tabaxi exists and suddenly, hey, they want to play. I want to play with my friend, and I'd love to invite them to you, but your hard stance on what, to us, seems a minor thing, given D&D's long and noted history of cat people, is an insurmountable barrier. Well, to play with my friend, I'm leaving your game and seeking one elsewhere, because they want to play tabaxi, and I want to play with them. I can't play your game and play with them, so that's just, potentially breaking up that group.


D&D's a social game, this is hardly something that's debatable. A DM can design the fanciest world they want, but if they can't get players interested in playing it, it doesn't matter.

How is the friend needing to play a cat person any less hard of a stance than the DM not wanting cat people in their game? Doesn't seem like a minor thing if their requirement to play at all is to play a cat person.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

So, players can say they want to explain things a different way too! right?

 

[Mecheon]

How is the friend needing to play a cat person any less hard of a stance than the DM not wanting cat people in their game? Doesn't seem like a minor thing if their requirement to play at all is to play a cat person.

I mean, both hard requirements, but one is "Hey, this game has supported this particular option in every edition except 4E, its not considered overpowered, I would like to play it", and the other is "This realm is solid enough that this re-occurring Dungeons and Dragons monster type cannot and can never exist here", when even orcs have occaisonally crept into Dragonlance once or twice

Catfolk have existed in one form or another since Isle of Dread and they were just people back then. They've been in the game longer than I've been alive. They're hardly core, but if something's been in the game over 40 years, I think its worth raising a few eyebrows at it being left out

 

[mamba]

nvm

 

[mamba]

D&D's a social game, this is hardly something that's debatable. A DM can design the fanciest world they want, but if they can't get players interested in playing it, it doesn't matter.

sure, but this cuts both ways, you can come up with the fanciest character design, if you cannot get the race past the DM, you either change it, or you are not playing

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

D&D's a social game, this is hardly something that's debatable. A DM can design the fanciest world they want, but if they can't get players interested in playing it, it doesn't matter.

For sure. Has any DM posting here been in that situation though? Seems like you're arguing against a hypothetical scenario.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You're right: the terms were being redefined... just not by me!

If we were talking about most other posters, I might agree with you, but attempting to say that about @pemerton ? Come on, he's almost surely the poster on EnWorld with the single most consistent and extensive record of all. His terms are rooted in long debate and discussion and are entirely consistent, both internally and with major recognized bodies of RPG scholarship.