D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[CleverNickName]

I like to be as accommodating as possible when I run a campaign.
Problems tend to be more about the player than the player options anyway, I find.

This is a very good point.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm saying that DS was created as an instance of a certain genre outside the classic genre which D&D was designed to support. I remember when it came out, it required some moderately significant rules hacks to make it work!

So, I don't have much interest in whether it is an 'artistic vision' or not, it was a game design choice/exercise. It still won't be spoiled simply by adding in a few Dragonborn. In fact 4e DS did EXACTLY THAT and I am not aware of any ill effect whatsoever. Heck, you can play eledrin, tieflings, etc. in 4e DS! No biggie...

Yes it would be ruined. THE dragon is a major point of the setting. The other sorcerer kings whose like cannot come again are trying to become a dragon. Reducing them by adding in common dragon people running around is a kick between the legs to the setting.

 

[MNblockhead]

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

Not for you. But most of the time, I suspect, that DM can find a group of players who buy into the terms of the game the DM is running without needing to sea-lion the DM into having a discussion on a decided matter.

 

[MNblockhead]

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!

By Sigmar! You have summed up Warhammer Fantasy!

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm saying that DS was created as an instance of a certain genre outside the classic genre which D&D was designed to support. I remember when it came out, it required some moderately significant rules hacks to make it work!

So, I don't have much interest in whether it is an 'artistic vision' or not, it was a game design choice/exercise. It still won't be spoiled simply by adding in a few Dragonborn. In fact 4e DS did EXACTLY THAT and I am not aware of any ill effect whatsoever. Heck, you can play eledrin, tieflings, etc. in 4e DS! No biggie...

4E DS wasn't very good and those races were shoehorned in ignoring the lore. Same with Warlocks.

Dray don't even have characteristics of the Dragonborn beyond being vaguely dragon people.

The Dray are also hidden menace they nor really supposed to be known about at the tine 4E was set.

This is why 4E died no respect for the lore just dynamite and shoehorns.

Ironically if they had a clue they could have organically fitted them in. Just tweak the timeline a few years picking up where the old revised box left off.

Darksuns still going via fan support. Virtually none of it is 4E and on Darksun groups it's low % still using 4E Darksun (2-4% on the polls iirc).

3.5 Darksun was more popular than I anticipated there's still new DS books released this year downloaded a couple few weeks back.

4E Darksun is dead and buried pretty much.

No Dragonborn allowed on Darksun, Dray where appropriate (FY 11 or so or post CBtSS).

Darksun only added 3 races iirc in its original run.

 

[pemerton]

I really don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that a talking, walking, never before seen dragon-person would ellicit a different response than a common as dirt human.

It might, it might not. Maybe it's just a human wizard who has polymorphed! Maybe the reaction to Dragonborn would be comparable to the reaction to the Halflings in LotR.

I agree with @ECMO3 that the GM can make up (within some pretty elastic limits) whatever they want about how people react to the dragonborn, without creating implausibility or a lack of realism.

 

[pemerton]

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

That's why I don't allow wizards or druids in my game - too disruptive to the social fabric of my world!

 

[Zardnaar]

It might, it might not. Maybe it's just a human wizard who has polymorphed! Maybe the reaction to Dragonborn would be comparable to the reaction to the Halflings in LotR.

I agree with @ECMO3 that the GM can make up (within some pretty elastic limits) whatever they want about how people react to the dragonborn, without creating implausibility or a lack of realism.

Big problem with Dragonborn. Mechanically they suck.

Players must be Fizban ones. Next game they'll get the choice between 3 versions phb, fizbans and Midgard Dragon Kin.

I don't think anyone will take one and they're not a spotlighted race in any event (Trollkin, Goliath and Bearfolk will be).

 

[pemerton]

Forget about the Dragonborn for a minute. You seemed to be implying that a DM applying restrictions to a game world or campaign that they are running results in players not willing to play. That's the opinion I was countering.

I thought the absence of Gnomes from 4e D&D was supposed to be one explanation for some people's dislike of it. If that's true, presumably the same thing could be true if Gnomes are absent not due to a publication decision but due to a worldbuilding decision.

 

[pemerton]

Dragon people look like monsters and would be attacked in towns in a setting that doesn't have them as a race, so a player wanting to play a unique dragonborn PC would just be causing disruption to the game if allowed to do so.

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.

I'm with Mecheon here. I mean, what does "look like monsters" even mean? What do monsters look like? Is it the absence of hair?