D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I find this attitude selfish personally. The DM has created a world for the group to play in. Effort has been made to give this world an ambience and tone. Part of establishing this tone is establishing a framework for the game world... which may or may not include certain restrictions or allowances.

Scenario: a player comes in and wants a character that goes against the tone of the game world. A good citizen player should first make an effort to create a character that actually fits into the rules of the game world that has been accepted by the group. If this player absolutely insists (man, these italics are something else...) on his character stepping outside the game world's framework:

• The DM has to put in extra effort to adjust the framework to accommodate this specific player's request.
• The rest of the group has already bought in to the way the game world works for this campaign. Now they have to buy in to the request made by one specific player.

This problem is exacerbated if multiple players now ask for specific requests.

My view is this: as a player, making a request like this in the first place is rude and disruptive. Would it really kill you to make a character that fits into the game world? Is it really worth disrupting the rest of the group's fun for your personal request? I mean, you are free to ask... maybe your request is a small tweak that doesn't disrupt the flow of the game for all of the actual human beings who have given up their free time to play this game together. If that's the case, all good. If the DM can make a non-disruptive accommodation, that's ideal. But if the DM says no... that should be the end of it. Your freedom ends at the point where it starts interfering with the freedom of others.

I DMed a lot, and there is always the risk that you end up creating something that isn't as much fun to the players as it is to you. It might have been a lot of effort and I put a lot of thought in it - but if it doesn't work for the players, that doesn't do any good. The goal as DM isn't just to create a story or campaign - it's to have his players play in it, so they can have fun together. It might be an uneven distribution of work, but having players run through a campaign is also a fun experience for the DM. And it can only be really fun if the players are having their fun.
That isn't a disrespect or selfishness. DMs and players like what you like, and if they want to play together, they are going to have to find common ground. Maybe sometimes DM and player interests are too far apart, but I think most of the time they can work something out.

 

[mamba]

You asked me to provide examples of people saying the thing you said no one had said. I provided them.

by taking them out of context

 

[Neonchameleon]

I find this attitude selfish personally.

"This attitude" is coming from a near perma-DM. So I'm being selfish because I want to engage the players in the world and let them play what they want? How does this work?

The DM has created a world for the group to play in. Effort has been made to give this world an ambience and tone. Part of establishing this tone is establishing a framework for the game world... which may or may not include certain restrictions or allowances.

And yet by treating players like adults and empowering them I've found that consistently when they have picked something I hadn't forseen it has been because, like the Tiefling example in a religious campaign, they've found a way of enhancing the themes I'd set up. Meanwhile every single time I've seen a DM try to keep a tight grip on things like races they've been precious about the rest of the setting leading to a much less fun campaign. I even used to do this myself when I started DMing.

Meanwhile I have learned from experience that players, good and bad alike will look at what you point at as DM.

• When you explicitly restrict races that is the strongest signal you're sending. And will immediately draw attention.
• When you don't the strongest signal you send is the pitch, so everyone is going to try to create characters based on the pitch
• Players who are used to over-controlling DMs who are allowed to go wild will for the first character after. But this lasts one character

Which means I ban basically two types of characters. Brooding loners who don't want to join with others, and characters brought in from other campaigns. And this works at an open table for all levels of experience.

Scenario: a player comes in and wants a character that goes against the tone of the game world.

When/what/how are they doing this? Like I've said I've almost never seen a player pitch something that wasn't inspired by what I laid out for them. But a ban list is an attention grabbing part of the pitch. (Incidently telling people what not to do is considered bad teaching for the same reason). Meanwhile the people that don't fit are both good adventurer fodder and working out what happens to them adds depth to the worldbuilding.

A good citizen player should first make an effort to create a character that actually fits into the rules of the game world that has been accepted by the group. If this player absolutely insists (man, these italics are something else...) on his character stepping outside the game world's framework:

• The DM has to put in extra effort to adjust the framework to accommodate this specific player's request.

You mean you don't work characters into the game world?

• The rest of the group has already bought in to the way the game world works for this campaign. Now they have to buy in to the request made by one specific player.

This problem is exacerbated if multiple players now ask for specific requests.

So apparently now the players didn't actually accept the "rules of the game world". They are chafing at them. It sounds as if you're having to use a lot of brute force for your pitch.

My view is this: as a player, making a request like this in the first place is rude and disruptive.

My view is this; as a DM, making a request that people don't do things is rude and treating them like children. It both speaks to poor DM skills and an unwillingless to allow player agency. And I say this as a near-perma DM.

 

[mamba]

Mamba. My words have been twisted, repeatedly, in this very thread, to depict me as some horrible nasty player that is actively trying to destroy other peoples' joy.

The word twisting began several dozen posts ago.

that does not make you doing so any more right, does it?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One thing I never understand about this whole argument is how freakin' obsessed people are with picking a race. Compared to all the decisions you can make during the character build phase, much less the freedom of direction and choices you make during a campaign, it's really danged insignificant.

Perhaps, to you, it is.

To me it is not. It significantly influences my experience of every event to come after, in much the same way that class and ability scores do. Hence why I care so much about all three things. They are both soil and seed. How the plant itself actually grows, of course, will depend on the actual campaign, as it should. But to tell me that it makes no difference whether I plant a rose or a daffodil is silly at best.

Such as banning historical games with human PCs?

I genuinely have no idea what you're saying here.

The big lesson from this discussion is that many of the people here hate the people that they play with. They'd rather fight with them about D&D then actually play D&D.

As I have said elsewhere, I tried. For over a year. Slowly, slowly loosening my expectations until it became "literally anything, even 5e, that actually offers something vaguely like the kind of game I might enjoy." I came up empty. If I am bitter, it is because I literally cannot find games that offer what I'm looking for. Despite constant, weekly or even daily effort.

that is what happens when you cherry pick one sentence out of several posts between us… let me refresh your memory


that one is the premise of what you quoted

and here some parts about my opinion from that same post

“

agreed, no one is more right, but if neither one is willing to compromise, then I tend to side with the DM, it's their game after all


ideally that would be the case”

It is the "ideally" here that ruins it for me--and the "if neither one is willing to compromise, then I tend to side with the DM." You are giving the DM carte blanche to refuse to compromise, which means you expect players to capitulate. It is a nice thing, an ideal, a pleasant notion if that doesn't happen. But if it does? You give the DM license to ignore compromise as much as they like.

Nobody should get such license. Not players, and not DMs. Nobody. It's not merely a faraway ideal to be dreamed of.

that does not make you doing so any more right, does it?

Perhaps not. But I genuinely did not mean to twist your words. It genuinely--as I have just quoted above--came across as indicating that compromise really is only for players, and that it's a pipe dream to expect it from DMs. I am absolutely, completely sincere when I say I believed you meant that it is an unachievable ideal, and thus players necessarily must always capitulate.

 

[mamba]

One thing I never understand about this whole argument is how freakin' obsessed people are with picking a race

same, I do not care one bit what race I play, name me your options and I am sure to find at least one I have no problems with. I’d certainly never insist on a specific one. The whole thing is weird to me

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I DMed a lot, and there is always the risk that you end up creating something that isn't as much fun to the players as it is to you. It might have been a lot of effort and I put a lot of thought in it - but if it doesn't work for the players, that doesn't do any good. The goal as DM isn't just to create a story or campaign - it's to have his players play in it, so they can have fun together. It might be an uneven distribution of work, but having players run through a campaign is also a fun experience for the DM. And it can only be really fun if the players are having their fun.
That isn't a disrespect or selfishness. DMs and players like what you like, and if they want to play together, they are going to have to find common ground. Maybe sometimes DM and player interests are too far apart, but I think most of the time they can work something out.

That is a situation that can and often happens. There's a big difference between the scenario you described and what's being outlined here though. You're talking about the DM having a singular view that's objectionable to the entire table. The discussion here is about a single player creating a situation potentially disruptive to the rest of the table.

@EzekielRaiden and @Neonchameleon ... thoughts on this? How does this line up with what you're saying?

 

[Queer Venger]

I think we'd see some problems with the content of the campaign itself. Have you ever seen a thirstier D&D campaign where almost every important NPC is set on nailing the PC? In Act 1 of the BG, you come across a bugbear raw dogging an ogress which is something I can scarcely imagine happening in a published D&D adventure these days. Would any D&D campaign today make it a viable option to kill the Tieflings and destroy the Druid's Grove? That pretty much goes for any of the evil stuff you can do to advance the plot.

I wanted to see more raw-dogging, but alas, I will have to settle for that one scene.

 

[ezo]

"Providing input" is irrelevant if the GM can just go on their merry way doing whatever they like and players are expected to put up or shut up.

Then I have no idea how you are not saying that players are always expected to compromise, while DMs are never expected to.

Because the input a player provides CAN be accepted by the DM, since I wrote the DM might or might not accept it.

If the DM agrees, everyone is happy. If the DM doesn't, then the player has to put up or shut up.

Like everything in D&D, the DM makes the final decision on all things. Personally, most DMs IME only "drop the hammer" if it is something vital to their game world or style of play--otherwise they go with the flow or offer things up to a vote of the table (and break ties if necessary).

The big lesson from this discussion is that many of the people here hate the people that they play with. They'd rather fight with them about D&D then actually play D&D.

LOL I think that is hardly the case, though I see your point.

I think once you find people who agree on your houserules, homebrew, or whatever, everything is fine. Those people might already be friends (who know what to expect) or become friends (or friendly anyway), if they agree to it after joining.

I've had new players leave because they can't accept those things, which is fine with me. I'd rather they find a game they can enjoy and be happy with it!

 

[Neonchameleon]

sure, that is the nature of being the DM. That does not mean the DM has to agree to everything a player wishes, to ‘even the odds’

The DM does not need to - but every time the DM feels they are required to reject something that someone requests and that the basic rules would allow then that is a failure by the DM. Whether one of sharing their vision or one of being overcontrolling. Or just imbalance and bad game design.

So we're clear then: the player's desires must always be accommodated for character creation? If there's a conflict, the DM should just suck it up? What's the point of the "discussion" then, if we know how it's going to go? Sounds like the player is just informing the DM of how it's going to be.

The players' desires don't always have to be accommodated - but where they aren't then something has failed. If it's on balance grounds then the designers have failed. (Twilight Clerics being the main 5e example). If it is to fit the tone and theme and the DM has been clear then the DM should then reflect on why their pitch and communication has failed and where they could have done better.