D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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

It remarks like this that make me feel you haven’t read. Your bizarre passive aggressive tone and misinterpretation. I’m not trying to dismiss your argument

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

It would be nice if you thought everyone had such dispensation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It remarks like this that make me feel you haven’t read. Your bizarre passive aggressive tone and misinterpretation. I’m not trying to dismiss your argument

It would be nice if you thought everyone had such dispensation.

Why should everyone get to be a petulant jerk? That's literally what "my way or the highway" is. It means a refusal to even discuss. It is an ultimatum. "No discussion is necessary or allowed".

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Double post

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Why should everyone get to be a petulant jerk? That's literally what "my way or the highway" is. It means a refusal to even discuss. It is an ultimatum. "No discussion is necessary or allowed".

Because people, whether DM or Player, can be jerks. It is not an issue of always being jerk though. I don’t think anyone is claiming that. But people can be jerks

 

[mamba]

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

not at all the same thing. Neither side can force the other to do anything. Not sure why the player would show up for the next game if they are not playing a char however, and not doing so was their choice.

 

[ezo]

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.

This is your opinion, of course, what you believe it should be.

For myself, it shows a lot of disrespect for the DM (the one who made the adventure, etc., and likely organized the game). The DM shows respect by listening to the player's request, but the player respects the DM by accepting the DM has final judgement.

That is my opinion, of course.

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.

I don't know about eager... But I feel it is certainly the DM's right.

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."

They aren't meaningless. You're exaggerating. Many times players make requests where the DMs allow it, changing their game world and/ or the adventure to accomodate them.

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."

Nothing I would care to play in... or run as DM.

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.

Not "nearly" unlimited power, but absolutely unlimited power.

I disagree with the bolded sentence. Many times myself, and others I've talked to, DM because no one else wants to, not necessarily because they want to DM.

 

[mamba]

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?

how is you playing a dragonborn not a whim? How open are you really to a discussion, in your own example you ended up playing a dragonborn and called getting everything you asked for a compromise…

I believe you were asked this before, would you leave the game if you could not play that dragonborn?

What if I offered you a Lizardman with a poison spit in lieu of a breath weapon (assuming that is why you wanted dragonborn), would you take it?

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.

This is all nice conceptually, but how can you enforce it? Without that you are back to what I described.

 

[mamba]

There is no "agree to disagree", there is "play these races or don't play".

that is the exact same thing… why do you think it ended with them parting ways…

 

[mamba]

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.

I agree with this. The problem is that you seem to interpret the mere existence of the option that the two sides cannot agree to somehow be license for the DM to never compromise. To me it is a possible and acceptable outcome

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.

so you are at it still. Please explain how you want to square these two paragraphs. How is failing to get an agreement that is acceptable to both sides then not also implicitly the freedom of the DM (and player btw) to reject a proposal? You cannot have one without the other.

 

[MGibster]

Does anyone remember when this thread was about BG3?