D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[pemerton]

Let's try to be respectful of how different groups run their tables.

I put thought into my campaign world and want things to be logical and consistent. I know where races come from, I know at least an outline of their culture and history. I have a hard time taking kitchen sink campaigns seriously.

You may not agree with my decisions, but I make them for a reason. And yes, heaven forbid, I take pride in my work. So yes, what people play, what kind of campaign I run, has a tangible impact on me. You don't have to get it, you don't have to understand. But I also hope you understand how insulting your statements are.

I find that one way to be respectful, and to avoid insulting others, is to not imply that those GMs and groups who easily accommodate player requests lack pride in their work, do not care if the fiction is logical or consistent, or a playing "kitch-sink" campaigns that are hard to take seriously.

As I just posted, I easily accommodate Golin, his explosives cult, his nemesis Golin, and the other elements of that PC's backstory, into our Torchbearer campaign (which is set in Greyhawk). And anyone who wishes to confirm the logic, coherence and depth of the campaign world can do so by reading the actual play reports.

 

[pemerton]

It might be voluntary activity for both, and the GM may of taken that position by choice, the player might even be contributing with collaborative world building but out of the two of them the GM is the one putting in vastly more work to make it run, so I’d say their preferences get slightly more weight to them

If the GM takes pleasure from and/or pride in that work, then undertaking the work is its own reward.

If the GM drew the short straw, maybe that affects the social dynamic - although, on the other hand, if they drew the short straw then the player helping to shape the parameters of the setting is lifting some of the burden from them.

The idea that the GM, by running the game, becomes entitled to special authority over who plays what in the game isn't one that I give much credence too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I find that one way to be respectful, and to avoid insulting others, is to not imply that those GMs and groups who easily accommodate player requests lack pride in their work, do not care if the fiction is logical or consistent, or a playing "kitch-sink" campaigns that are hard to take seriously.

As I just posted, I easily accommodate Golin, his explosives cult, his nemesis Golin, and the other elements of that PC's backstory, into our Torchbearer campaign (which is set in Greyhawk). And anyone who wishes to confirm the logic, coherence and depth of the campaign world can do so by reading the actual play reports.

Well, I'm not the one who posted, but I will say that @Oofta is allowed to feel that way about games that don't follow his preferences. Doesn't mean he's right about the implications you're seeing his statements, or even that he intended them. In the case you shared, it seems like you arrived at a solution everyone was happy with, which as I said above is the most important thing.

I admit I often find myself at a loss to find a way to express my dissatisfaction with something you enjoy, even when explicitly doing so as my personal preference, without inadvertently causing offense. Any help on threading this needle would be appreciated, as I enjoy hearing your point of view.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

But this is exactly what a GM who won't change their fiction, or players who reject a flying PC, are doing!

But this is what a player who won't respect the framework that the other players and the GM are happy with is doing.

I mean, how is playing a dragonborn, or an aarakocra, upsetting to anyone?

I mean, how is sticking to guidelines already accepted by a group upsetting to anyone? Is playing an elf, or a dwarf, or a tabaxi instead going to shatter this person's world somehow?

I'd like to see your side, but your counterarguments are not horribly convincing. What I'm hearing you saying is that it's okay for one person to put their wants above everyone else's.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the GM takes pleasure from and/or pride in that work, then undertaking the work is its own reward.

If the GM drew the short straw, maybe that affects the social dynamic - although, on the other hand, if they drew the short straw then the player helping to shape the parameters of the setting is lifting some of the burden from them.

The idea that the GM, by running the game, becomes entitled to special authority over who plays what in the game isn't one that I give much credence too.

The DM isn't kicking anyone out of the game. They're refusing to honor a player request to make use of a particular character option that is not part of the setting they designed. The player is welcome to make another choice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But this is what a player who won't respect the framework that the other players and the GM are happy with is doing.

I mean, how is sticking to guidelines already accepted by a group upsetting to anyone? Is playing an elf, or a dwarf, or a tabaxi instead going to shatter this person's world somehow?

I'd like to see your side, but your counterarguments are not horribly convincing. What I'm hearing you saying is that it's okay for one person to put their wants above everyone else's.

So long as that person isn't the DM.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Of course, new people I meet through gaming might become friends,

Less likely when trying to take a dominant stance over them.

It sets the tone that the DM should give way on anything the players want so they can have fun, but I guess that means the DM can't have fun...

If you can't have fun because someone is playing a thing you don't like, well.. too bad.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Huh. My friends would actually follow the limitations we all agreed on when they said they wanted to play in my established world. Because my friends value the work I put into the campaign. Because... well... they're my friends.

I don't put limitations on things my friends find fun because I'm their friend too.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I don't put limitations on things my friends find fun because I'm their friend too.

But you're happy with your friends putting limitations on what you find fun? And what your other friends find fun?

 

[MichaelSomething]

So if a player was willing to write up twenty thousand words of setting material and/or general game aids then they would have the right to play whatever race they wanted? Since they undertook some of the DM 's prep load off of them?

Since many people argue that all the extra work DMs put into running the game entitles them to restrict PC options??