D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Oofta]

I certainly see the merits in the dinner party analogy, but it also has its limits, because:

1. Many DMs run for at least some players they didn't know well beforehand. Most of my groups have been like that. And, of the people I personally know, most groups they've played in have included at least one such person. Anecdotes aren't data, but like...what I have available to me says this is hardly uncommon. If you're preparing dinners for people you don't know, it's probably wise to avoid things like pork, given there's quite a few people who won't eat it.
2. The "guests" at this ~~D&D game~~ dinner arrangement aren't just getting a single, one-off meal. They're getting, in some sense, a once-a-week meal plan indefinitely (and most want that to be "many months" at least.) If we tweak the analogy so that it becomes "hey, come over and have dinner at my place once weekly for a year," doesn't that profoundly change the meaning of refusing to consider the dietary needs and preferences of the "guests"?
3. If you're going out seeking people to come to a party, I don't see how that reduces the need to be accommodating. If anything, it would seem to me that nothing changes on that front. If you don't know what preferences your guests might have, the wise course is to prepare for likely ones. E.g. when you're planning a party for something like a class of students, there's a good reason "pizza party" is so popular--just picking a couple of common flavors

So, while there is something to consider with the "host making something" concept, there are issues with the analogy that, when fixed, seem to reverse the conclusions we should draw from it. Note that I am not rejecting the argument by analogy in principle. I am accepting it, but noting that it left out something very important.


Then it sounds to me like, in this hypothetical, you've come to a conclusion without any effort to discuss it or find a solution, and thus it is pretty clearly on you for that. From where I'm standing, this could be summarized as, "I thought it over, I'm completely against it and won't discuss it further."


Though it's worth noting, you can play everything in the PHB. So it's not like the game is particularly limiting...especially compared to the kind of stuff already floated in this thread.


Nope. I literally said otherwise upthread.


Yes. Though I expect that to come from people having adult, respectful conversations with one another, well in advance, and with an actual effort to sell people on it, rather than the usual way this is presented, the whole "alright, you get none of those things, take it or leave it."


Except that that's literally not what I said, and I said opposite things repeatedly.

See, folks, how twisting words is only a problem when I do it. Other people doing it to me is just fine! I can literally spend entire posts talking about how people should propose alternative approaches and heed counter-proposals, and still be characterized as "nope, I have to exactly play this specific thing with 100% of the attendant stuff and if you don't accommodate absolutely all of that you're a horrible person."

It's quite fun to be vilified for the things people frequently do in this thread.

No on one any thread on this topic has ever given you a good enough reason to ban a race. By that logic you, as a player, have the final say because as far as I can tell you will always reject the reasons the DM gives. Is there any reason why a race could be banned in your opinion? Just one example? Because "No justification is ever good enough" is the same as "No", no matter how much you hide behind "discussion options".

I let people know when I invite them to my game what my restrictions are. Meanwhile we discuss what direction the campaign is taking before we start the game and repeatedly during the campaign. However, there are some things I'm not willing to compromise on. I have a list of races that exist, have always existed and have a history and a place in my campaign world. Choose from one of those or a race that can pass as one of those races. Maybe that means that I'm not the DM for you, but if you are so insistent on that it's an indicator that you will likely argue about other decisions I make as well.

What about my strict no evil policy? I wouldn't enjoy running an evil campaign, so do we have to have to have a "discussion" about that?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

By George, I think he finally got it.
Thanks for summing up my post I would have made but I would have been a little bit more diplomatic.

And people wonder why I take the attitude I take on this topic.

It doesn't take long for someone to come along and demonstrate.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then it sounds to me like, in this hypothetical, you've come to a conclusion without any effort to discuss it or find a solution, and thus it is pretty clearly on you for that. From where I'm standing, this could be summarized as, "I thought it over, I'm completely against it and won't discuss it further."

It was a summary. I am not going waste my time writing a long imaginary conversation about imaginary game here, am I? Imagine the conversation is longer, the points are considered, but the GM still says no in the end. Then what? Who decides was the request reasonable, who decides whether the GM's reasons for denying were good enough? Who is going to force these people play together if they cannot agree on a game they both find satisfactory?

 

[ezo]

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

Again, you exaggerate (you seem to do this a lot!)...

The DM isn't "telling a story" -- the DM is setting it up. Once the game actually starts, I get to take part in that story. My actions direct the story, to a point, as do the actions (and choices of course) of the other players, and the DM (through the control of the NPCs and the game world).

Now, the DM can be a jerk at this point, using their control of the NPCs/world to intentionally screw with a player and the choices their character makes, but that is a different issue and a sign of a poor DM IMO.

But banning a race, subclass, or class even (I don't allow Artificers, and neither do the other DMs I play with), for whatever reason (I don't have that race in the game world, that subclass (or class) is OP, etc.) is done prior to the game beginning and completely the right of every DM.

that is not at all what they said, when do you stop twisting everything as far as possible to make it suit your imagined narrative

Apparently they can't help it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No on one any thread on this topic has ever given you a good enough reason to ban a race.

Because, in essentially every case, it boils down to:

"I didn't think of it, so I won't allow it, there will be no discussion"
"I don't like it, so I won't allow it, there will be no discussion"
or
Claiming the thing is overpowered when it demonstrably isn't.

In nearly every case, discussion is shut down long before it could even potentially begin. That is the problem I keep having. Consider:

I let people know when I invite them to my game what my restrictions are. Meanwhile we discuss what direction the campaign is taking before we start the game and repeatedly during the campaign. However, there are some things I'm not willing to compromise on. I have a list of races that exist, have always existed and have a history and a place in my campaign world. Choose from one of those or a race that can pass as one of those races. Maybe that means that I'm not the DM for you, but if you are so insistent on that it's an indicator that you will likely argue about other decisions I make as well.

There will never be discussion--ever. No reason, no explanation, not even an attempt to meet halfway. Take it or leave it.

That's exactly the kind of thing I oppose. If you have players who put up with that sort of attitude, more power to you.

It was a summary. I am not going waste my time writing a long imaginary conversation about imaginary game here, am I? Imagine the conversation is longer, the points are considered, but the GM still says no in the end. Then what? Who decides was the request reasonable, who decides whether the GM's reasons for denying were good enough? Who is going to force these people play together if they cannot agree on a game they both find satisfactory?

When you elide out the discussion, it looks rather a lot like no discussion ever occurred.

In which case, I find your hypothetical strained at best. In essentially all cases, something can be worked out. And in nearly all of the cases something can't be worked out, it's because there was some kind of failure along the way. Perhaps a failure of game design, or of communication. Truly, completely irreconcilable differences are extremely rare--and it is nearly always worthwhile to work out reconcilable ones.

It's like asking what the plan should be if you've been struck by lightning, and a meteorite, as part of CPR training. Like...yes, those are events that occur, and thus it is theoretically possible for them to occur simultaneously. But they aren't worth spending any time thinking about, because they are too rare to be worth investing any time into.

Particularly when--in both cases--the answer seems to be "DOA." First aid for meteorite strikes is pointless.

 

[mamba]

Except that that's literally not what I said, and I said opposite things repeatedly.

See, folks, how twisting words is only a problem when I do it. Other people doing it to me is just fine! I can literally spend entire posts talking about how people should propose alternative approaches and heed counter-proposals, and still be characterized as "nope, I have to exactly play this specific thing with 100% of the attendant stuff and if you don't accommodate absolutely all of that you're a horrible person."

here is what you did say

Instead, it is, in almost every instance, "I just think <X> are stupid, so I don't let people play them in my games." And when I propose all sorts of alternative options--not just "a village a short ways away," but things like being a one-off (e.g. someone mutated by magic or alchemy, or an alien trying to get back to their own people, or the result of someone's efforts to bring two opposing entities closer together, or coming from a parallel universe, or...) I am shut down, every single time. Not because any of those options are incompatible--it is, in nearly every case, because the person simply doesn't like them and thus nobody should ever get to play one in their games. "My preferences are simply more important."

as I pointed out then, nothing you did propose was in any way, shape or form a compromise. Everything was just to make it more palatable to the DM for you to play exactly what you wanted

And what was your reply to that?

How is that not compromise? Seriously. How is it not? How could it POSSIBLY be anything else?

So yes, you did in fact call you getting what you wanted a compromise on your part

 

[nevin]

Over the years I have noticed a phrase "player entitlement" thrown around.

My tastes last few years gave been themed games. Stuff that doesn't fit is excluded. According to the forums that's bad wrong fun.

BG3 has been a big hit. But consider.

Curated list of phb options.
PHB races plus Githyanki only. DM changed them as well.
Capped at level 12II
Only floating ability scores from Tashas.
No feats at level 1 allowed.
Curated list of Xanathars options.

Game like that would get you crucified here on the forums since I'm a tyrannical LN type DM.

Next game will be magitech themed (warforged and gear forged prominent) or Norse (add bearfolk and troll kin as prominent races).

Damn Lawful types DM's. That BG one is brutal.

I want to exclude most of Tashas.

I'll say this. None of the friends I have playing it play D&D the way BG does. I wouldn't play it that way.

 

[mamba]

Because, in essentially every case, it boils down to:

"I didn't think of it, so I won't allow it, there will be no discussion"
"I don't like it, so I won't allow it, there will be no discussion"
or
Claiming the thing is overpowered when it demonstrably isn't

ok, so you never will accept a ‘no’ then, because a ‘do not exist in this world’ is also just a ‘I do not like it’. Thanks for proving the point.

And this despite your argument for the race being ‘I want to’, which is no better than the reasons you present for the DM…

 

[nevin]

The OP did say such a curated game would get you crucified on online forums rather than in the real world. When I ran Curse of Strahd both times I restricted the players to the races available in the PHB without nary a complaint.

Honestly no matter how the table runs, there aren't enough DM's and most who don't want to DM aren't going to argue too much with those who do. They just want to play and generally you play the game offered or you find another. Only on D&D forums do people rant and rave about it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When you elide out the discussion, it looks rather a lot like no discussion ever occurred.

It is rather difficult to come up with a hypothetical discussion about hypothetical game where one needs to invent hypothetical arguments hypothetical people might make. Sure, I could do it, but I'm not gonna. I don't care about this matter that much.

In which case, I find your hypothetical strained at best. In essentially all cases, something can be worked out. And in nearly all of the cases something can't be worked out, it's because there was some kind of failure along the way. Perhaps a failure of game design, or of communication. Truly, completely irreconcilable differences are extremely rare--and it is nearly always worthwhile to work out reconcilable ones.

The issue seems to be that you effectively do no see any reason for GM to say "no" as legitimate.

I think it is fine that people have different preferences, and not every game needs to be for everyone. That people like different things is no one's "fault." It is perfectly fine for people to amicably agree to disagree and move on to search games that better suit their tastes. Granted, in real life I have never encountered disagreements regarding trivial matters like these, they tend to be about more substantive gaming style preferences.

As for world building, I take it rather seriously, and I like playing in games of GM's that do the same. So when I am invited to play in someone's homebrew world, I am eager to explore it and see what is unique in it.