D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Warpiglet-7]

That's because 99% of the hypotheticals being bandied about in this thread will never happen in real life among even slightly reasonable people.

I am laughing because good lord! Yes!

What kind of bizarre power struggles are people having? I think the key is having a group you like—-you kind usually find a way forward.

If you are playing with some people as player or DM its game over before you started regardless…

The way I see it DM A has a longstanding curated world and it sounds fun hop aboard! If not the answer is not to ask them to change it.

In other circumstances if someone is starting up a campaign it makes sense to all discuss what each is interested in.

We used to say I want to play evil, etc and we would all talk, dm and players alike and get to it.

In other situations and I am joining and ongoing campaign I am not telling the dm what to change! I am making a decision about if I want to do participate!

One example is I like to play pretty standard raw. A friend of a friend liked to mix editions and wing it. A lot. Not for me. So do I argue with him about “no, I want more pure 3e?” Of course not. I just move along and would do the same with curated campaign that did not suit me.

I cannot fathom telling someone to change their established campaign…

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why does that bother you so much???

Because people behaving that way is bad regardless of context.

Don't you think the DM should ever "get their way"?

Yes? I just think players should too. Because that's extremely achievable. As in, essentially all of the time.

If someone tells you they 'deserve' to have the lion's share of the decisions making about a communal activity, don't do that activity with them.

Exactly.

Exactly. If someone always has to go against consensus they should self select out, whether player or DM.

Everyone wants to play football but you. That should not follow that everyone else goes and gets their baseball gloves.

You don’t like it—-volunteer to dm. You don’t want the workload? Feel free to sit this one out.

You don’t “voluntell” someone else what to create.

So, the question becomes: If the DM dislikes a thing, but the group overall likes it or is at least generally positive toward it, who's the disruptive one?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am laughing because good lord! Yes!

I mean, I literally said above that these hypotheticals were, at heart, almost pure fabrication with little relevance to reality, and was lambasted for it. Because apparently you absolutely have to have a plan for them or you're the apologist for every player sin under the sun and actively antagonistic to the concept of joy.

I cannot fathom telling someone to change their established campaign…

View attachment 342366

Have we been speaking about "established campaigns"? Because as far as I could tell literally everyone here has used examples of a game starting. That, to me, doesn't sound "established" at all. It sounds like it's only just cleared the "good enough to get started" hurdle.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean, I literally said above that these hypotheticals were, at heart, almost pure fabrication with little relevance to reality, and was lambasted for it. Because apparently you absolutely have to have a plan for them or you're the apologist for every player sin under the sun and actively antagonistic to the concept of joy.


Have we been speaking about "established campaigns"? Because as far as I could tell literally everyone here has used examples of a game starting. That, to me, doesn't sound "established" at all. It sounds like it's only just cleared the "good enough to get started" hurdle.

IDK how it works in your area. With me you have several weeks and a messenger group chat to discuss what's what.

Most of the time phb stuff is default. Exception would be Darksun or something similar.

A compromise would be play whatever group decides. If design hasn't started advocate with the other players to pick the theme. FR and Eberron are essentially unrestricted except flyers and other OP bits and pieces.

Things are looking grim for large chunks of Tashas though due to power levels. Mostly that's archetypes.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Because people behaving that way is bad regardless of context.


Yes? I just think players should too. Because that's extremely achievable. As in, essentially all of the time.


Exactly.


So, the question becomes: If the DM dislikes a thing, but the group overall likes it or is at least generally positive toward it, who's the disruptive one?

I don’t know but the onus is on the dissatisfied player to find what suits them not to force the dm into compliance.

Similarly, it’s on the dm to make a campaign that others want.

If you don’t want to participate with the set parameters, don’t. Start your own campaign. And if your answer is I want it this way but I want someone else to do it…I don’t know what to tell you other than seek it out and good luck.

The business of making others change what they are actively doing is not something that makes sense to me.

And I will stand by this—if one person keeps feeling disappointed that others don’t follow them (repeatedly) that person might need to self reflect (dm or player).

I do think the person running a campaign has more say so over what they create and how they adjudicate. The players have say so over whether they engage with that creation.

 

[ezo]

Because people behaving that way is bad regardless of context.

It isn't bad, it is their right to act that way. You don't like it, that is your right, but just because you don't agree with them doesn't make it "bad".

Yes? I just think players should too. Because that's extremely achievable. As in, essentially all of the time.

Most of the time, maybe.... but not "essentially" all the time.

When one person wants one thing, and another wants something else, yes they can compromise possibly, but if not (which happens often enough), one or the other must give way or they part ways.

In D&D, sometimes this means a player doesn't get to play in that particular game since it is unlikely the DM won't DM it.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, I literally said above that these hypotheticals were, at heart, almost pure fabrication with little relevance to reality, and was lambasted for it. Because apparently you absolutely have to have a plan for them or you're the apologist for every player sin under the sun and actively antagonistic to the concept of joy.


Have we been speaking about "established campaigns"? Because as far as I could tell literally everyone here has used examples of a game starting. That, to me, doesn't sound "established" at all. It sounds like it's only just cleared the "good enough to get started" hurdle.

The game may just be starting, that doesn't mean it's not an established campaign world.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I mean, I literally said above that these hypotheticals were, at heart, almost pure fabrication with little relevance to reality, and was lambasted for it. Because apparently you absolutely have to have a plan for them or you're the apologist for every player sin under the sun and actively antagonistic to the concept of joy.


Have we been speaking about "established campaigns"? Because as far as I could tell literally everyone here has used examples of a game starting. That, to me, doesn't sound "established" at all. It sounds like it's only just cleared the "good enough to get started" hurdle.

Well I posted that if it is emerging campaign you all discuss it and come up with something that suits you. Or don’t.

If that happens a lot to someone across groups chances increase they are being unreasonable or have very niche interests.

You don’t force people to run a campaign you like. They offer what sounds fun to run that they are interested in running. It’s an offer. Feel free to pass and someone in the majority can counter offer to run a game that is more pleasing to the group.

I do give more latitude to the person who is creating writing and working between sessions to create the game even though I don’t exercise a lot of limitations when I run a game myself.

I am not sure I would even think about more or less disruptive. It’s more about finding a match.

 

[mamba]

I just think players should too. Because that's extremely achievable. As in, essentially all of the time.

so in other words, the DM should never get their way, essentially.

Makes sense for someone who calls getting what they want a compromise

 

[haakon1]

I don’t think you are correct about getting crucified here at least. I feel EnWorld supports bespoke game worlds where not everything is allowed.

Seems like opinions very on any given topic.