D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[jasper]

......
....

We're kind of seeing the above dynamic being played out in this thread, with strong negative reactions by both sides.

Now, the following is an observation, not an attempt to prove my point (because using this to attempt to prove my point would be an Appeal to Authority fallacy): I've been playing (and DM'ing) for about 40 years now, and have seen many players and DMs disagree about whether or not to allow certain things. In most situations, this ended one of five ways:

• 1. The DM didn't really have a problem with the player's request. There was no real conflict here and the player was allowed to do what they wanted. Sometimes the campaigns went well, sometimes they didn't, but I didn't see any issues specific to the 2. request since there was no real conflict.
• 2.The player backed down and let the DM's word be final. I have seen this happen many times and in each case, the group dynamic was not strained, and the campaign went on and all had a good time, including the player whose request was denied.
• 3. The DM had a problem with the request but backed down and let the player do what they wanted anyway without an appeal to the group. In every case it turned out that player had a severe case of "main character syndrome" and quickly alienated the rest of the players - the campaigns dissolved within a few sessions and everyone else (DM, other players) were resentful toward that player and did not invite the player back for future campaigns.
• 4. The DM had a problem with the request and did not back down but the player appealed to the group and won. In most cases, it turned out the player had a case of "main character syndrome" that alienated the rest of the players, but in every case, the campaigns dissolved within a few sessions as the DM either was not enthusiastic about running the game or became adversarial (since most dissolved before it could be determined whether the player had "main character syndrome" I can't say that "main character syndrome" was always the problem). Everyone left with a bad taste in their mouths.
• 5.The player did not back down, appealed to the group and lost. The player left the group soon after, but the campaign chugged along just fine without the player.

....

Point 3 and 4 are the reasons i say "I do not like it" as being a valid reason for a DM to not allow things.

6. Most experienced DMs can deal with running something they aren't fond of for 3 or 4 sessions.

So based on the anecdotal evidence I have seen, I would suggest that you can certainly ask a DM "can I do this thing" and if he doesn't have a real problem with it, there's generally no issue. However, if you find yourself at odds with a DM who tells you, "no, you can't do that" the outcomes are as follows:

• Humbly accept the ruling and continue in the game. You are very likely to have a good time anyway.
• Insist you be allowed to do it anyway, appealing to the group if necessary. You will soon have no campaign (either the campaign will fold or you will appeal, lose, and be asked to leave the group) and also run the risk of alienating most of the people at the table.

....

Point 6 should include running with a player they not fond of.

 

[jasper]

You have clearly not had that many groups where a player was having an actively bad time. Negative energy can very quickly metastasize. Especially if it comes from something one or more players see as inflexible, obstinate behavior on the DM's part.

You need to edit that to be " obstinate behavior on the DM's or Player's part. "

 

[Micah Sweet]

You have clearly not had that many groups where a player was having an actively bad time. Negative energy can very quickly metastasize. Especially if it comes from something one or more players see as inflexible, obstinate behavior on the DM's part.

Not many, but not zero either. In any case, if it comes down to either a player or the DM being unhappy, I have to say let it be the player. The other result leads inevitably to a bad game.

 

[pemerton]

At least, not for them. That's the thing: one unhappy player does not necessarily make a bad game, but an unhappy DM does.

This seems to assume very GM-centric play!

 

[Micah Sweet]

You need to edit that to be " obstinate behavior on the DM's or Player's part. "

Yeah, otherwise it looks like @EzekielRaiden is always on the player's side.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This seems to assume very GM-centric play!

Yeah, it does. That's how I and many others play. Certainly one unhappy player can bring the whole game down too, but again, the DM controls the NPCs, frames the scenes (to use parlance you seem fond of), in short does everything in the game except control the PCs. A sinking tide lowers all ships.

I know many of your chosen games don't operate quite this way, but many, many others do.

 

[ezo]

I know many of your chosen games don't operate quite this way, but many, many others do.

Every game I've ever played in.

 

[Zardnaar]

Was that from the kick-starter? I remember spending quite a bit on it as well, the difference is that I haven't used it, or at least not much of it. Think I used some spells from the book.

No I bought them from KPs store. Wanted to give them money directly.

 

[Zardnaar]

Jump is not an action at all in 5E, it is movement.

I love barrelmancy, I think that is actually supported in the 5E rule set, although not in the 5E adventures because the barrels of smpoekpowder themselves don't exist in an appreciable quantity.

If the barrels are there though, the rules would support you blowing them up I think.




But not enough places to wear them. In 5E I can wear 2 cloaks and 10 rings simultaneosly!

Yeah that's a DM setting up terrain for PCs to interact with.

 

[Zardnaar]

Is this not what I repeatedly said was demanded?

"Meekly submit, and you will always be happy. Show any defiance, and you will be a destructive saboteur who is personally responsible for ruining not just your experience, but everyone's experience."

Is there any wonder why I responded as I did? This is saying the quiet part out loud! But no, I was the monster here. I was the problem. I was somehow saying things I had explicitly rejected. I was advocating for something horrible and stupid and dangerous.

If you dont accept the DMs decision that's on you. And yes that makes you a destructive player. More if you keep pushing repeatedly after the no has been said.

More annoying is if the DM has a printed players guide for the campaign and you're joining it after it's started and you've read it. And then keep pushing.

Some things can be accommodated in game. Eg if the race you want to play is the "phantom menace" you can be one once they've been discovered or become forming knowledge (i would allow you to retire old PC and come in same level).

Ask away but if I say no that's the end of it. If it's a RAW issue and bring it up after the session and I'll go with that moving forward.

But it also depends on why things aren't included. Atm a hard no is Twilight Cleric and flyers. Order and Peace may be joining them. That's due to mechanical reasons.

Midgard will probably be Midgard, PHB and Xanathars allowed. If there's two or more versions of a race (eg WotC and KP) players can pick. Eg I'll allow 3 versions of Dragonborn/kin.