D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[W'rkncacnter]

Reading through this thread, I'm sure that both sides of this debate have had a similar thought "thank God I don't have to play with these people".

i'm not even on a side and i've thought that several times reading this thread. god.

 

[pemerton]

Well I, for one, really enjoy playing RPGs so that I specifically don't get to do what I want. It's so fulfilling.

As long as you don't get too entitled in your longings for what you don't want!

But seriously, as long as someone's "what they want" isn't to deliberately ruin somebody else's fun (and I've definitely seen that), I try to be cool with people doing what they want. I will admit that when some of my players made fairly gonzo characters for what I hoped would be a more horror-oriented series of adventures, I had some adjusting to do, but I did, and so far it's worked out okay. We've had plenty of scares, and some gonzo moments, and it's fine.

That sounds reasonable enough to me!

In my game of epic fantasy adventure, I wouldn't have an Elven PC called Fea-bella; on the other hand, is that any worse than Bigby, Rigby, Digby, (Medium) Rary, Drawmij, Tenser or Serten (with neither of those latter two to be confused with Ernest, and the former of them being notorious for transformations)? All of them are canonical NPCs in the World of Greyhawk.

And then, is Torchbearer really as serious as all that? Two of the PC archetypes - Halfling Burglar and Dwarven Outcast - are Bilbo and Thorin with serial numbers covered in a light coat of paint (certainly not filed off!).

In my 4e game, the paladin of the Raven Queen slept standing up (on the principle that he will lie on his back once dead). Silly, or awesome? Who's to say? I remember one encounter where it helped him in mechanical terms, in that the PCs were attacked at night and he didn't have to spend any actions standing from prone.

As I posted upthread, this stuff is all pretty low-stakes. I don't think it behoves anyone to be too precious about it.

 

[pemerton]

So everyone, run your games how you want. And stop worrying how others are running their games, because there will always be differences, and you have no ability to force a change in that.

I don't see how you are disagreeing with me: you are reiterating my point that there is no normativity applicable in this context.

 

[pemerton]

Actually they do. No DN no gane. No player go without or get another one.

No players, no game.

It's basic supply and demand.

Even if I accepted that framework of analsysi, it wouldn't entail normativity. Those who control the in-demand commodity don't have an entitlement or right in respect of it; they merely have a power to determine the basis on which they ration it out to others.

 

[Zardnaar]

No players, no game.

Even if I accepted that framework of analsysi, it wouldn't entail normativity. Those who control the in-demand commodity don't have an entitlement or right in respect of it; they merely have a power to determine the basis on which they ration it out to others.

It was player number 5 or 6 looking at joining an existing game.

I pointed out similar gods in Midgard, linked to the pantheon but 100% had to be the raven queen.

May have been a critter.

Context spent $200 odd usd at the time shipping 3 books to NZ. Basically doubled the PHB option in size.

We also had a death cleric of Anubis.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

No. What I said is that notions like "OK" or "standards" have no work to do here. We are talking about people coming together for a voluntary leisure activity. So normativity - beyond the general norms for any human social interaction - just isn't applicable.

I've only ever been speaking about the general norms for any human social interaction. In this particular case, a social interaction for, as you said, a voluntary leisure activity. The rule here is: be respectful of everyone's wishes. If someone makes a request, it can be a 'yes, but' or a 'yes, and'. The vast majority of groups would absolutely listen to a request. But the request might not generate any options palatable to the group. And if someone presses the point after the group has decided the request is a no go, then there's a problem with the requestor.

I'm genuinely not sure what you think you're contradicting about what I've said. It sort of feels like you're having a completely different discussion despite the fact that you're responding to me.

There is no being upsetting - it is not upsetting to let someone play a dragonborn; nor is it upsetting for someone to not want to GM a dragonborn. All there is a difference of preferences - for the aesthetics and/or mechanics of play - which has to be resolved the way any similar difference of preferences would be resolved.

Not sure where this focus on the word upsetting is coming from. Yes, all there is is a difference of preferences, agreed. Again, not sure why you feel you are presenting a counterargument.

If the GM sticks to their guns - or in other words, puts their wants above others' - that's their prerogative. If the player sticks to their guns - or in other words, puts their wants above others' - that's their prerogative too. Maybe the GM yields because they also want the player. Maybe the player yields because they also want the GM. Maybe everyone finds some middle way. Who knows? The stakes are incredibly low, and it's no one's concern but the individuals involved.

Agreed. Never said otherwise.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Actually, you (or me, or anyone else), as an outsider to other groups, have no right or entitlement to say how those other groups run their own games. Every group has its own unique agreed-upon rules for interacting among themselves. If the group agrees that the DM does have those ultimate rights and entitlements, then that's how that group does things, and that's OK. If the group agrees on ultimate player agency with the DM little more than a figurehead, then that's how that group does things, and that's OK.

I mean (and I've stated this before), what (and why) are we arguing about all this in this thread? Posters are saying what other groups should be doing, but there's absolutely no way to enforce those views on other groups, and attempting to do so would rob those other groups of the agency to chose for themselves how they set up their own unique dynamics. Posters are also attempting to defend how their groups do things, but there's no need to do that. Your group does as your group wishes, and there's no reason to be obligated to defend your choices. What each group decides to do is perfectly correct and acceptable for that group, and no outsider has the right to tell that group it's wrong.

So everyone, run your games how you want. And stop worrying how others are running their games, because there will always be differences, and you have no ability to force a change in that.

I don't know if anyone is telling anyone else how to run their games. I do see a lot of folks describing and even defending how things work at their tables. It's called a discussion! I'm finding this pretty fascinating actually. I could do without reading some of the lack of civility and borderline hostility though, but people be people.

 

[Maggan]

Like Tom Bombadil, Beorn, Bard Bowman, Aragorn, Sauron, Gollum, or the literal entire point of The Hobbit.

All placed by the "DM".

 

[mamba]

You should probably reconsider that, because by being DM, you do have special authority over who plays what. After all, you are running the game...

no, you really don’t have any authority to tell them what to play, that is a lot stronger wording than I would use

 

[mamba]

Reading through this thread, I'm sure that both sides of this debate have had a similar thought "thank God I don't have to play with these people".

not really, apart from maybe one on either side, we are all saying ‘live and let live’