D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Kurotowa]

The problem here is that there are overlapping and conflicting agencies at play. It's within the player's agency to say who and what their character is. It's within the DM's agency to say what their setting is like and campaign is about. And when those two conflict, the people involved have to navigate an acceptable resolution like mature adults. Yes, I know, a daunting prospect.

The simplest scenario is that the DM clearly defines the limited set of options they feel are appropriate for this specific campaign, the player finds an option within the set they're happy with, and everything proceeds smoothly forward. The more complicated scenario is when the player submits something outside the set of options that they want to do anyway, the player and the DM negotiate enough tweaks to the character concept and exceptional circumstances for the setting to make it acceptable to both of them, and play advances. The final resort is when the player refuses to alter or switch their desired character, the DM refuses to compromise on their vision for the campaign, and they have to settle for the player giving that particular campaign a pass.

How this all goes depends more on the people involved than the specifics of the character, I feel. A long established group will have more tolerance for exceptions than a newer one, to say nothing of a store game. A player with a track record of making oddballs work will get more license than one with a habit of trying to break the tone of campaigns. A DM who's got an idea for a campaign with a specific theme or gimmick may allow less leeway than if they're running more standard adventures.

There's no universal right answer where one party's agency always trumps the other's. It's a dance where both of them have to cooperate. The DM lays out their idea for the campaign, the player submits a character concept, the DM can reject it or suggest alterations, and the player can either act on those or bow out of the campaign as not the right fit for them. The ball goes back and forth, with both people contributing until either an acceptable result is achieved or they decide the player isn't going to play.

 

[Demetrios1453]

"Social contract"? [emoji23]

Laugh and roll your eyes all you want, it is a social contract. If you have a definition of social contract that excludes the agreements made between the various players, and the players and DM, when setting up a game, I would be interested in hearing it.

 

[ezo]

Very nice summary!

However, I must disagree with this:

There's no universal right answer where one party's agency always trumps the other's.

Ultimate agency lies with the DM, who always has final say on all things. Of course most DMs will listen, compromise, etc. but ultimately it is the DMs call in the end. IMO, it should be.

Laugh and roll your eyes all you want, it is a social contract. If you have a definition of social contract that excludes the agreements made between the various players, and the players and DM, when setting up a game, I would be interested in hearing it.

I laugh that you actually call it that.

 

[Zardnaar]

Very nice summary!

However, I must disagree with this:

Ultimate agency lies with the DM, who always has final say on all things. Of course most DMs will listen, compromise, etc. but ultimately it is the DMs call in the end. IMO, it should be.


I laugh that you actually call it that.

Unhappy player they leave.

Unhappy DM no game.

DMs often quit if politics make booting one player specifically to awkward.

Eg DM "I don't want to play" vs "Bob's best friend John is out".

I quit and ditched 3 fish malk type players. They joined another game got booted from that then they couldn't find any games.

Other player got booted turns out they're banned in a 200km radius and moved 800km away. They had some sort of issues though extremely toxic very dark suicide/murder type conversations and RP generally disruptive.

 

[mamba]

Ultimate agency lies with the DM, who always has final say on all things. Of course most DMs will listen, compromise, etc. but ultimately it is the DMs call in the end. IMO, it should be.

No, the DM cannot force the player to play something from the ‘approved list’, so no one has the final say. The two sides can agree to disagree and part ways

 

[Zardnaar]

No, the DM cannot force the player to play something from the ‘approved list’, so no one has the final say. The two sides can agree to disagree and part ways

Basically same thing. Player can't force DM to do anything, DM can force player out of group/not invite them anyway.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

you mean the same whim as you insisting on playing a dragonborn and nothing else?

How is that a "whim"? How is my explicit and repeated insistence that I want to have a discussion, and I am open to compromise and alternatives that?

Why is it I am being demonized here?

if you want to read it that way and walking away also is capitulation, then yes. Not sure what you think the alternative is, to me the only way would be for the player to be able to force their will onto the DM, which is a worse transgression than the DM not compromising

The alternative is for everyone to actually be willing to sit down and have a conversation with one another, where they are willing to consider alternative approaches and ways of doing things that aren't "I literally get everything I want, and if you happen to like it, fine."

Nobody should get license. Not DMs, not players, nobody.

 

[ezo]

Unhappy player they leave.

Unhappy DM no game.

That pretty much sums it up.

DMs often quit if politics make booting one player specifically to awkward.

Eg DM "I don't want to play" vs "Bob's best friend John is out".

That hasn't ever been my experience, since generally it is only a single player that is problematic. I'm certainly not saying it isn't possible, just not what I've seen.

I quit and ditched 3 fish malk type players. They joined another fame got booted from that then they couldn't find any games.

I've only ever had to have four players leave and/or told them not to come back since gaming in the late 80's.

In every case, not only were the players unruly and unreasonable, not only ruining my fun but the others as well.

Other player got booted turns out they're banned in a 200km radius and moved 800km away. They had some sort of issues though extremely toxic very dark suicide/murder type conversations and RP generally disruptive.

I explain up front (for new players) I don't tolerate toxic themes, etc.

No, the DM cannot force the player to play something from the ‘approved list’, so no one has the final say. The two sides can agree to disagree and part ways

If the player wants to play, the DM certainly can. So, the DM has the ultimate agency. There is no "agree to disagree", there is "play these races or don't play". If the player wants to leave, the door is over that way... Drive safely.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, but it goes both ways. I sometimes think you don’t really read a post before you respond.

I assure you that I do. But dismissing my argument by dismissing how I make it is certainly noted.

I also think there is space in our community for all types of games, DMs, and players; and all players and DM do not have to sync with each other. That is just human and natural.

Certainly.

I don’t think a DM or a olayer should have to compromise- if they are not willing to. They can both say “my way or the highway,” and that is ok - but compromise is generally better IMO.

Certainly. It would just be nice if folks in this thread believed that nobody got special dispensation to declare "my way or the highway."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So, the DM has the ultimate agency.

I reject this. That's literally why we disagree. Nobody has ultimate agency. It should be a discussion, a genuine meeting of the minds, every single time. Anything less is a failure somewhere along the line. And if the final decision is that the two sides can't meet, then capitulation--here, either departing or changing the game--is necessarily the result.

Your statements seemed to imply that the players didn't even have the right to ask for a variation/adjustment/addition to the DM's game/world or that the DM simply flat-out says "no" without offering any reasoning whatsoever. You say you didn't include more of my post in your reply above, but you excluded the part before it which justifies the rest. People often do that to try to sway others, so you're not alone...

But that is 100% the result of what you have described. If the DM is absolutely free to always reject literally anything players ask for, then you have given pre-approval for the DM to always say no for any reason or no reason at all. They are, after all, free to reject, regardless of the content, quality, or perspicacity thereof. There is no responsibility--they have perfect, unlimited license to reject anything and everything. And based on the way people describe their home games on this forum and other forums, I find that there are a LOT of DMs who are not only willing and able, but eager to do so.

If the DM has the right to ignore any request, at any time, then player requests are meaningless--it's literally just whatever the DM feels like doing. A request you make that can be dismissed at any time and for any reason isn't changing anything. There's no value in a request for reconsideration if the person receiving that request can just say, "I am not required to respond to requests."

As for what the DM "doles out to them", I have a surprise for you: THAT is pretty much everything in the game. The DM decides the adventure options, the opponents, the magic items, the availablity of stuff in towns, etc. Whether they do that by simply making the decision or rolling randomly (in which case the DM is still setting the odds), the DM decides.

And I am saying that there are other ways of doing this. Other approaches, which don't make it "it's the DM's world, you just happen to be witnessing it."

I will run my games the way I and my players see fit. You, and any other outsider, have no say on that. In attempting to do so, you are attempting to limit my group's agency to do as it wills.

Nah. Honestly kind of hilarious that you consider it an attack on your game or players to say that things should be discussion and collaboration, rather than declaration and ultimatum.

And for some of us (myself anyway), it is not about "group" agency, either. It is ultimately about DM's running the type of game they want to run. As a DM (and all the DM's I've played with), DMs do a lot more work and have much more responsibility towards creating and running an enjoyable game for the entire group (the DM included!), not just for the players.

Whereas for me, I consider both the work and the power. DMs have nearly unlimited power. The game is their oyster. They can do almost anything, almost anytime. They are free to explore a zillion different ideas in a single campaign; they have incredible control over an enormous swathe of things, and essentially never need endure anything they don't care for. I, as a player, have essentially none of that power. I have one character, that I will be playing for quite a while. The DM has dozens, hundreds. I have one story. The DM is continuously engaged with numerous stories simultaneously. I have only the things on my character sheet and in my head. The DM has literally the entirety of the cosmos.

Yes, they do more work. Because they have more power. By taking up the DM's role, they have claimed that power, and claiming that power means declaring they want to do that work. They cannot then use that work as an excuse--they're the ones who wanted the power, and its associated work, in the first place. If they're going to be laying claim to such enormous power, they'd bloody well earn it. And earning that starts with showing restraint, respect, and an earnest desire to work with others, rather than to lord over them. Trust is not automatic. It is earned.