D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Vaalingrade]

I'm way more willing to accept hardware, storage and computer design limitations for a videogame over a DM imposing their tastes and desires on me just 'cause. Fascinating.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

I think this a case of a small number of people making a lot of noise, not something common in actual play.

And one thing I can say about anyone who implies anything is "bad wrong fun" is they are absolutely, and categorically, WRONG.

BG3 has been a big hit. But consider.

Curated list of phb options.
PHB races plus Githyanki only. DM changed them as well.

This is just because Larian chose to allocate more resources to creating a polished game than creating an endless list of player options (Owlcat). There is no reason why the BG3 PC couldn't be a tabaxi artificer, other than the resources required to add those options to the game.

Capped at level 12

I've rarely played past this level, it seems like a pretty close match to the effective tabletop soft cap to me.

Only floating ability scores from Tashas.

You aren't using those yet? BG3 should sell you on them.

No feats at level 1 allowed.

Was always an optional rule. As are Feats. Plenty of games play with no feats at all.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think we'd see some problems with the content of the campaign itself. Have you ever seen a thirstier D&D campaign where almost every important NPC is set on nailing the PC?

Given that the companions are basically PCs controlled by the computer, rather than actual NPCs, yes, I've seen campaigns like that. And it is quite common in streaming games.

In Act 1 of the BG, you come across a bugbear raw dogging an ogress which is something I can scarcely imagine happening in a published D&D adventure these days.

My PCs walked in on a couple of NPCs a couple of months ago. Whilst playing a published adventure. Sex is something that exists in the world, just like all the many other details that aren't written down, it's the DM's job to fill them in should they become relevant.

Would any D&D campaign today make it a viable option to kill the Tieflings and destroy the Druid's Grove? That pretty much goes for any of the evil stuff you can do to advance the plot.

I wouldn't disallow it. And the point in having a human DM is that if the players decide to do something that isn't accounted for, they can create it as required.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think this a case of a small number of people making a lot of noise, not something common in actual play.

And one thing I can say about anyone who implies anything is "bad wrong fun" is they are absolutely, and categorically, WRONG.

This is just because Larian chose to allocate more resources to creating a polished game than creating an endless list of player options (Owlcat). There is no reason why the BG3 PC couldn't be a tabaxi artificer, other than the resources required to add those options to the game.

I've rarely played past this level, it seems like a pretty close match to the effective tabletop soft cap to me.

You aren't using those yet? BG3 should sell you on them.

Was always an optional rule. As are Feats. Plenty of games play with no feats at all.

We use floating scores. Next game I want to limit Tashas (power creep) but we will use floating scores.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I feel this forum would be more welcoming of restrictions (though there are some from if I recall past threads correctly). If you really want pushback, Reddit is the place to go. People hated my suggestion that maybe, a druid can't turn into a dinosaur if they don't exist in my game world. Some people were like "everything in the books must be available!"

I made the mistake of commenting on a Reddit thread concerning detrimental status effects (petrification, paralyzation, and so one), where a few posters were arguing that they should never be used against characters because that might mean (gasp!) the affected players would be unable to play the game for a round or two. I was really surprised at the insistence on absolute player agency by those posters, where the DM is merely there to fulfill the players' whims and not inhibit them in any way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ultimately yes. Don't like it run your own game.

Again, Consciously Useless Advice for 1000.

Telling someone to run a game when they want to play something is like telling someone to start their own basketball team if they want the home team to play well. It's completely pointless. I want to PLAY! How does RUNNING a game help me PLAY something?

Seriously. You are giving advice that is intentionally irrelevant and acting like it's somehow profound or useful or in any way revelatory. It's not. It never has been. You already know that.

My current game is ancient Greece. If it wasn't available in 432BC its banned. Spotlighted races human, demihuman.

So, no elves, dwarves, nor halflings? No magic of any sort? Because I find that extremely unlikely.

Races allowed are the AD&D ones. I don't have any more in that game system anyway to pick from.

So it isn't actually "if it wasn't available in 432 BC." It's "If it wasn't available in 432 BC, and I haven't grandfathered it in."

 

[MarkB]

Again, Consciously Useless Advice for 1000.

Telling someone to run a game when they want to play something is like telling someone to start their own basketball team if they want the home team to play well. It's completely pointless. I want to PLAY! How does RUNNING a game help me PLAY something?

It might satisfy your need to be the one setting the rules. It might also gain you some needed perspective.

And if you're so desperate to play something, why not play the thing you signed up to play, within the parameters you agreed to, instead of trying to play something different?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It might satisfy your need to be the one setting the rules. It might also gain you some needed perspective.

Do you think I don't run a game? Because I do. Admittedly, it's Dungeon World and not D&D, but close enough. (Indeed, I feel like I barely talk about anything else around here. I'm almost certain we've both posted in threads where I've mentioned how I run devils in my game.)

Doing so has made me even more convinced that it is vital beyond words for DMs to actively and passionately cultivate genuine, sincere player enthusiasm at every stage of play, and that by far the best way to do that is to be as supportive as possible for their ideas, particularly when it comes to baseline "what am I allowed to be?" and "what am I allowed to attempt?" stuff. I still expect my players to sell me on it (that's part of the process of supporting genuine and sincere enthusiasm, not abusive, coercive, or exploitative behavior), but my players know for absolute, 100% fact that if they have a reasonable request, I will find a way to make it work, though it may take on new forms or new interpretations before things are settled and ready.

(And, though it should go without saying, just because they can attempt a thing does not mean they will succeed--but I will never, absolutely genuinely never, tell them that they can try something and then play games to ensure that their success chance is effectively zero. If they can attempt it, it has a fair chance of success. If it's an "effectively zero" chance, I'll tell them that--but "effectively zero" means maybe it can be improved to be "unlikely but achievable," if they can succeed at other things first. The difference between mostly dead and all dead and such.)

Also, I love how "I just really like X, can we talk about ways to make that happen?" is now "[my] need to be the one setting rules."

Do you not see how hilarious that turn is? How you have vilified even the questioning, even the attempt at discussion (to say nothing of compromise)? You have literally painted me as some insane control freak simply because I want to sit down and talk with the DM about some limits to see if there's something we can work out. I would genuinely think you were having a laugh if I didn't know better, and it makes me sad that you are completely serious.

And if you're so desperate to play something, why not play the thing you signed up to play, within the parameters you agreed to, instead of trying to play something different?

Because I have never--not once--"signed up for" playing only one specific thing. Literally every time I have ever played a game, it has been, "Hey, you wanna do some D&D? We can talk about character stuff" or someone posting a proposal online and, because they aren't foolish, not massively limiting what things people are allowed to play.

Because it turns out having adult conversations with people is actually really important if you want people to play in your games. As opposed to declaring that your word is law and those who question that are dangerous, subversive elements that must be exiled posthaste.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Except that I find that, in the vast majority of cases, the reason given isn't, "Because I have a really cool concept I want to express through this campaign and including the thing you mentioned isn't really compatible with doing so. Could we talk it out and maybe find something that works for both of us?"

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."

And yes, I have had people say something essentially identical to that. More than once. Because the poor, beleaguered DM with absolute power and zero accountability slaves so hard for their group, while the players who literally can't do anything without DM approval are living large doing only the things they're allowed to do, going to the places they're allowed to go, and (all too often) misled into believing they have any real agency whatsoever.

Edit:
Hence why I said in another thread that I find the pattern today is one of avoiding accommodation as much as humanly possible. It is viking hat all the way, my-way-or-the-highway, "no, hell no, and never darken my door again" (something someone actually said about a request for something not explicitly approved in their games, on another forum.) All shall love DM Empowerment, and despair.

wow, given that i had interpreted the original comment i responded to as to mean 'nobody would ever object to curation of a game world' imagine my surprise when i come back to find a response that says 'GMs only curate to keep things they personally hate/think are stupid out of the game, I should be allowed to play whatever i want because my preferences as a player are more important than the GMs'

 

[EzekielRaiden]

wow, given that i had interpreted the original comment i responded to as to mean 'nobody would ever object to curation of a game world' imagine my surprise when i come back to find a response that says 'GMs only curate to keep things they personally hate/think are stupid out of the game, I should be allowed to play whatever i want because my preferences as a player are more important than the GMs'

Given the way people talk about it around here? Yeah, I really do believe most GMs who "curate" things are basically just kicking out the stuff they don't like.

I have yet to see a single person articulate actually good, serious reasons why things have to be diamond-perfect exactly their vision and nothing else. And yes, I am thinking of actual users on this very forum who have explicitly said that their "vision" is much more important than player choices.