D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[mamba]

Does anyone remember when this thread was about BG3?

no, not really, I don't think it ever really was. It started with how we would hate all the restrictions, and it still is about that

 

[jgsugden]

This is kind of a weird thread, but I see a lot of discussion of who has power ... but not the right discussion about whether the power should be used.

In my experience:

1.) The DM has the power. If they do not want to DM, the game will not happen - and it is easier to find players than DMs - especially DMs that put in the work. Players can refuse to play the DM's game - and thus have some power ... but as it is generally easier to find players than DMs, the player that leaves is easily replaced most of the time.
2.) Almost every DM I've known that has made use of that power to dictate the type of game that will be run - and where that type of game is not in tune with what the players wanted to play - has run a lousy game. They're frustrated the players are not engaged, the players go through the motions of playing, but lament that it isn't what they wanted. I've only seen a few situations where players were pleasantly surprised by the game that they were 'forced' to play being a great experience. I've seen this way too many times.
3.) Every DM that sat down with their players prior to a campaign and discovered what the players wanted to play - and then designed/redesigned their campaign ideas around the desires of the players has run a good to great game that the players enjoyed. Even when the DM lacked skills, the player interest was higher and they dragged the DM up by triggering opportunities through their engagement with the story, setting, and rules.
4.) Players that do not engage, even when you give them the opportunity to tell the type of story they want to tell in the game, can have fun ... but it is more the type of fun a groupie has - not the type of fun the main act does. To that end, a DM that does everything they can to get the player to engage is going to improve the quality of the fun being had.

 

[cbwjm]

Does anyone remember when this thread was about BG3?

Oh yeah...

 

[Zardnaar]

This is kind of a weird thread, but I see a lot of discussion of who has power ... but not the right discussion about whether the power should be used.

In my experience:

1.) The DM has the power. If they do not want to DM, the game will not happen - and it is easier to find players than DMs - especially DMs that put in the work. Players can refuse to play the DM's game - and thus have some power ... but as it is generally easier to find players than DMs, the player that leaves is easily replaced most of the time.
2.) Almost every DM I've known that has made use of that power to dictate the type of game that will be run - and where that type of game is not in tune with what the players wanted to play - has run a lousy game. They're frustrated the players are not engaged, the players go through the motions of playing, but lament that it isn't what they wanted. I've only seen a few situations where players were pleasantly surprised by the game that they were 'forced' to play being a great experience. I've seen this way too many times.
3.) Every DM that sat down with their players prior to a campaign and discovered what the players wanted to play - and then designed/redesigned their campaign ideas around the desires of the players has run a good to great game that the players enjoyed. Even when the DM lacked skills, the player interest was higher and they dragged the DM up by triggering opportunities through their engagement with the story, setting, and rules.
4.) Players that do not engage, even when you give them the opportunity to tell the type of story they want to tell in the game, can have fun ... but it is more the type of fun a groupie has - not the type of fun the main act does. To that end, a DM that does everything they can to get the player to engage is going to improve the quality of the fun being had.

This us basically what I do. Our curse of Strahd Game is winding down I'm in the DM seat next.

You pick a theme from curated list. We use group chat on messenger. They can suggest a theme my Greek C&C game was new player suggestion put about 20 hours of development into it (research, youtube, Google maps etc.

5E groups roughly 50/50 on Norse and Magitech. Magitech is going to be more permissive blending Ravnica and Eberron. They've all said they would play the other.

 

[MNblockhead]

The only thing new I have to add to this 22-page thread is thankfully for-hire DMs are readily available these days. If you are a player that wants absolute control over a game's setting, allowed options, and how things should be ruled, and if you can can find some like-minded players (or be willing to pay for 4+ seats to play solo), you can absolutely do that. You can have full control and absolute power over the game world.

I'm not letting anyone dictate how I'm going to run a game I'm running for fun on my personal time. You are not paying me. Once it starts to feel like work, once it isn't fun for me, I'm out.

How much compromise I make to my campaigns has changed. My first 5e campaign, I put out a call for players stating the type of setting I was running, I have an intro to my homebrew world, and listed all of the optional rules, allowed character options, etc. I had some back and forth with potential players and was willing to incorporate their character concepts that deviated from my initial limitations where I felt that they would work without significantly changing the kind of game I wanted to run.

Once I had a core group of players, once my first campaign completed, I discussed options for the next campaign. We ran Curse of Strahd and I basically allowed any official options available at that time.

My next campaign was Rappan Athuk in the Lost Worlds setting. There were not any official character option limits, but I ran it as XP for GP and laid out what optional rules from WotC books would be used and what third-party and homebrew rules I would be using. All of us discussed and agreed that this was the campaign we would play.

There is another campaign I've floated over the years that my players have decided they were not interested in. It would be set in my homebrew setting and be a wizard-focused party in a time and place where arcane magic has all but disappeared and arcane magic users, when discovered, were killed. The group would be part of secret organization trying to discover and preserve arcane magic. All PC would either play as a wizard class or another class that was basically providing support to the goals of the organization. The campaign would strictly enforce using spell components, and material components would have to be tracked. Also, the only PC races allowed would be humans, halflings, dwarves, and half-elves for story/setting reasons.

It is more important for me to continue playing with my current group of players than it is to run that campaign, so it has been back-burnered for years. If I had more time, I would consider running it as a second campaign. If I did, I would put out a call for players, like I did back in 2015. I would be completely comfortable with a high level of inflexibility and would only seriously consider players who demonstrate strong interest in playing in such a campaign. There simply is no need for me to make adjustments in this scenario.

If I took this approach with my main, current game, I might lose some of my existing players and continuing to play with a great group of players is more important than a specific campaign idea. There are many campaigns I would be interested in running. But I got all of these players from a fairly inflexible call for players nearly a decade ago. Whether someone who wants a great deal of control over their PC options considers me a problematic DM likely depends on which campaign of mine they joined over the past (nearly) 10 years.

I liken it to someone hosting a dinner party. If the host is preparing a specific type of meal and someone starts making requests for all manner of accomodations, well, maybe they should skip this meal. If the host is preparing something for a group of fiends they know well, then they'll likely plan in accommodations as they are going to be more concerned about bringing together and spending time with friends. But it is totally up to the hosts on how what accommodations they are willing to make and guest that are not interested are free to decline the invitation. Nobody is in the wrong here. That's just how nearly all informal social engagement work.

 

[Zardnaar]

The only thing new I have to add to this 22-page thread is thankfully for-hire DMs are readily available these days. If you are a player that wants absolute control over a game's setting, allowed options, and how things should be ruled, and if you can can find some like-minded players (or be willing to pay for 4+ seats to play solo), you can absolutely do that. You can have full control and absolute power over the game world.

I'm not letting anyone dictate how I'm going to run a game I'm running for fun on my personal time. You are not paying me. Once it starts to feel like work, once it isn't fun for me, I'm out.

How much compromise I make to my campaigns has changed. My first 5e campaign, I put out a call for players stating the type of setting I was running, I have an intro to my homebrew world, and listed all of the optional rules, allowed character options, etc. I had some back and forth with potential players and was willing to incorporate their character concepts that deviated from my initial limitations where I felt that they would work without significantly changing the kind of game I wanted to run.

Once I had a core group of players, once my first campaign completed, I discussed options for the next campaign. We ran Curse of Strahd and I basically allowed any official options available at that time.

My next campaign was Rappan Athuk in the Lost Worlds setting. There were not any official character option limits, but I ran it as XP for GP and laid out what optional rules from WotC books would be used and what third-party and homebrew rules I would be using. All of us discussed and agreed that this was the campaign we would play.

There is another campaign I've floated over the years that my players have decided they were not interested in. It would be set in my homebrew setting and be a wizard-focused party in a time and place where arcane magic has all but disappeared and arcane magic users, when discovered, were killed. The group would be part of secret organization trying to discover and preserve arcane magic. All PC would either play as a wizard class or another class that was basically providing support to the goals of the organization. The campaign would strictly enforce using spell components, and material components would have to be tracked. Also, the only PC races allowed would be humans, halflings, dwarves, and half-elves for story/setting reasons.

It is more important for me to continue playing with my current group of players than it is to run that campaign, so it has been back-burnered for years. If I had more time, I would consider running it as a second campaign. If I did, I would put out a call for players, like I did back in 2015. I would be completely comfortable with a high level of inflexibility and would only seriously consider players who demonstrate strong interest in playing in such a campaign. There simply is no need for me to make adjustments in this scenario.

If I took this approach with my main, current game, I might lose some of my existing players and continuing to play with a great group of players is more important than a specific campaign idea. There are many campaigns I would be interested in running. But I got all of these players from a fairly inflexible call for players nearly a decade ago. Whether someone who wants a great deal of control over their PC options considers me a problematic DM likely depends on which campaign of mine they joined over the past (nearly) 10 years.

I liken it to someone hosting a dinner party. If the host is preparing a specific type of meal and someone starts making requests for all manner of accomodations, well, maybe they should skip this meal. If the host is preparing something for a group of fiends they know well, then they'll likely plan in accommodations as they are going to be more concerned about bringing together and spending time with friends. But it is totally up to the hosts on how what accommodations they are willing to make and guest that are not interested are free to decline the invitation. Nobody is in the wrong here. That's just how nearly all informal social engagement work.

Paid is different. Yes boss hell I would run 4E for the right price lol.

 

[cbwjm]

This us basically what I do. Our curse of Strahd Game is winding down I'm in the DM seat next.

You pick a theme from curated list. We use group chat on messenger. They can suggest a theme my Greek C&C game was new player suggestion put about 20 hours of development into it (research, youtube, Google maps etc.

5E groups roughly 50/50 on Norse and Magitech. Magitech is going to be more permissive blending Ravnica and Eberron. They've all said they would play the other.

I think this is important, if people have agreed to play a specific setting, and they all know the restrictions of the setting, they shouldn't then turn around and ask to play something outside that setting. It's disrespectful to the DM and the other players who all agreed and built within said restrictions.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think this is important, if people have agreed to play a specific setting, and they all know the restrictions of the setting, they shouldn't then turn around and ask to play something outside that setting. It's disrespectful to the DM and the other players who all agreed and built within said restrictions.

Yeah I always offer generic/anything goes.
Usually Midgard, FR or Eberron.

Looks like Norse.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

"One side can just say 'no, screw you, we do it my way" is not acceptable. Period. Neither side gets license for that.

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.

I do not know how to explain it any simpler or differently.

If the DM can, at any time, unilaterally reject anything and everything the player says, regardless of reason or sense, then they are the only one who actually has any agency or control. The players are simply present for the experience. If the DM happens to feel like granting something, it has literally nothing to do with their responsibility to listen to requests. It has, only and exclusively, to do with them deciding what to do with their unilateral ability to declare what is and isn't. The player request is a grace note, nothing more.

If the DM is required to listen to any reasonable request, and to do what they can in context to fulfill those requests, then (by definition) there must occasionally be times where the DM would rather not do a thing (or do a different thing), but they are obliged to do so because the player has a reasonable request that can be fulfilled in context. Likewise, if the player is obliged to keep their requests reasonable and to adjust within reasonable limits to that game's context, then there must (by definition) occasionally be times where the player would rather not do a thing (or do a different thing), but they are obliged to do so because the request isn't reasonable or cannot be fulfilled in context.

Neither side gets a get-out-of-discussion-free card. Neither side gets to dictate terms to the other. Both must recognize reasonable limits and both must accept that they might be obliged to do something other than what they would prefer. Rendering default judgment solely because someone is DM (or player, or whatever) is declaring that the other side must, always, put up or shut up, unless the dictating person is so gracious as to not raise a stink about it.

Being dependent exclusively on someone else's graciousness to get anything at all that you want is not a discussion, nor does it mean requests matter. It means you are acting purely on that person's positive feelings, and the instant those feelings are gone, you get nothing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

So...you genuinely just want to be a witness for the story your DM feels like telling?

Seems like it would be a much more efficient use of your time to play a video game (if the interactivity part matters) or read a book (if it doesn't.)