D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Micah Sweet]

Depends on exactly how it ends up. I might instead just say that it's not a game for me and bow out.

And--notice--that what is required by what you've said here is that, instead, the DM always gets what they want. Can't be a dialogue if it isn't actually a two-way street. If I'm expected to give, I expect give in return. I refuse to accept a dialogue where one person's side is, "Well, you can either get nothing at all of what you want, or you can stop wanting that and choose to want something else instead." And that applies to players just as much as DMs.

Diplomacy cannot begin with, "You can have any color you want as long as the color you want is black."

Not at all. I'm asking if you need to ultimately get what you want from the DM every time? If you want to play a dragonborn and the GM doesn't allow them in their campaign (to use an example I know you're fond of), does the discussion have to end with you playing a dragonborn or you walking, every time? Or can it go one way or the other depending on the situation and keep both sides sanguine enough to play?

 

[Asisreo]

I have a rule:

Non-optional/variant rules are always allowed. No need to ask if you can be a high elf or a conjuration wizard.

Optional/variant rules are very likely to be allowed and you just need to tell me you want them before you commit to it.

Options outside of the PHB are allowed as long as you have access to that book and can let me use it for that session.

Options from adventure books are scrutinized heavily and if it doesn't fit my campaign, we'd try our best to make small adjustments to squeeze it in, but there are no promises.

Homebrew that affects the mechanics of the game are very unlikely to get in as-is, but I'll see if I can give the general premise of the homebrew without making up a whole new character. For example, if the player wants to be a pixie character with lasers, that's not going to happen. But I can allow them to have been a pixie before the archfey turned them into an elf and as they progress throughout the campaign and succeed personal quests, they slowly regain their pixie abilities.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Correct. And, if you look back at what I said, I explicitly did that. I spoke of requests, and of offering a litany of tweaks, alternatives, or reinterpretations--with the expectation that counter-offers would be supplied in kind. I can't predict what counter-offers might be made, so I can't speak for the other side.


Getting a hard no without even the possibility of discussion--indeed, treating the very suggestion of discussion as something suspicious, even dangerous--is what I think indicates a serious problem, yes. And if you look at this thread, that has happened. I explicitly described offering alternatives; I was characterized as trying to destroy others' joy. What else am I supposed to think, but that the very attempt at discussion is being vilified?

And yes, @Micah Sweet, I completely agree that expecting only one side to change what they want is capitulation.

Only one group is asking for that here. Because I'm not saying player preferences are sacrosanct. I said as much in describing how I GM.

But some people here are describing certain preferences as sacrosanct. It's not the people talking about player preferences. Player preferences are the ones expected to bend in every case, always, no matter what. That is demanding player capitulation, by your own definition.

I never said the player always has to give way. I'm all for that discussion. I just don't think this has to be taken to the extreme in either direction.

Again, the DM is giving up on a restriction they wanted for their setting. What is the player giving up?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Discussions can be had, I just feel that generally it is important that everyone is at the table to play the same game, and player wanting something that does not fit the premise to me is an indication that this is not actually the sort of game they want to be playing in.

Like if the GM is pitching a Kung Fu Panda inspired game with various animal people species in an eastern setting and one person wants to play a classic Norse-Scot dwarf then that's just not going to work.

But sometimes things do work. I played a decade in a D&D campaign where the setting was very humanocentric and there was an oppressive intolerant church that hated all sort of deviancy. And the initial idea was that everyone is a human, but one player wanted to be a tiefling. And it actually ended up fitting the setting perfectly. They were literally the only tiefling in the setting, being an offspring of a human and a devil. The church really didn't like the character, but the existence of a literal devilspawn enhanced to the medievally religious feel the GM was going for.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's not compromise if only one side is changing what they want. It's capitulation.

There is also a matter of (a) different power levels and (b) different stakes. "I don't want me to do that" is a very different statement from "I don't want you to do that."

Not at all. I'm asking if you need to ultimately get what you want from the DM every time? If you want to play a dragonborn and the GM doesn't allow them in their campaign (to use an example I know you're fond of), does the discussion have to end with you playing a dragonborn or you walking, every time? Or can it go one way or the other depending on the situation and keep both sides sanguine enough to play?

And a reasonable compromise here in a homebrew universe would involve the player getting to play the dragonborn - and the DM not having to play any dragonborn NPCs. It can go in either direction, but the DM had better have an exceptionally good reason to say no. For example if you are playing in Middle Earth playing a grung would be out of tone. But that's because it's an explicitly pre-established setting.

I never said the player always has to give way. I'm all for that discussion. I just don't think this has to be taken to the extreme in either direction.

Again, the DM is giving up on a restriction they wanted for their setting. What is the player giving up?

The ability to play the character they want to play. Something that is going to have far far more influence on them because it is all they are doing every single minute of play than anything the DM could potentially be giving up. Meanwhile all the DM is giving up is the ability to control and pre-predict every aspect of the universe they are all sharing.

The setting does not belong to the DM exclusively. If you want to control everything write a novel.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Correct. And, if you look back at what I said, I explicitly did that. I spoke of requests, and of offering a litany of tweaks, alternatives, or reinterpretations--with the expectation that counter-offers would be supplied in kind. I can't predict what counter-offers might be made, so I can't speak for the other side.

Cool. See? I understand what you're saying.

Getting a hard no without even the possibility of discussion--indeed, treating the very suggestion of discussion as something suspicious, even dangerous--is what I think indicates a serious problem, yes. And if you look at this thread, that has happened. I explicitly described offering alternatives; I was characterized as trying to destroy others' joy. What else am I supposed to think, but that the very attempt at discussion is being vilified?

I find this hyperbolic though. You (I'm starting to dig this italics thing...) are perceiving the DM's reaction as treating your request as suspicious or dangerous; that doesn't mean that's what's happening. Our life experiences colour our perceptions of the world. Is it possible yours see enemy combatants around every corner? The vast majority of people in this world are reasonable. Sometimes you have to peel a few layers off the onion before you spot it, but it's there.

And yes, @Micah Sweet, I completely agree that expecting only one side to change what they want is capitulation.

Cool.

Only one group is asking for that here. Because I'm not saying player preferences are sacrosanct. I said as much in describing how I GM.

But some people here are describing certain preferences as sacrosanct. It's not the people talking about player preferences. Player preferences are the ones expected to bend in every case, always, no matter what. That is demanding player capitulation, by your own definition.

You sure about that? I haven't seen it. That might be your personal lens distorting what's happening here. If you do have a legitimate example of that that I've missed, please point it out.

 

[mamba]

Diplomacy cannot begin with, "You can have any color you want as long as the color you want is black."

what about you can have any color you want as long as it isn’t black?

They excluded one race (or maybe a few, who knows), you still could pick among the others

 

[Charlaquin]

It's from 4e D&D.

I mean, it was a thing in 4e. That doesn’t mean everyone who uses it got it from there. Most of them probably never even played 4e.

 

[Oofta]

You did so. You (quite obviously) did not mean that I was, physically, a terrorist bomber. But that is--literally--the wording you used. How else am I supposed to interpret "blow up" except in the context of destructive explosions?


I am quite happy to discuss things with people who do not immediately characterize me as a crazy extremist simply because I asked to have a discussion.

Because I actually did that. Repeatedly:

Unredacted posts. And when I gave examples of how I might try to meet a DM in the middle, I was instantly dismissed as a destructive, dangerous element, totally unwilling to compromise or engage in any way.

I'm not the one who doesn't want to have a conversation here. I'm not the one who won't even open a dialogue. Yet I am characterized as doing so, repeatedly, rather than even attempting to actually discuss the point at hand.


Did I ever say that? Did I ever even imply that?

Point to a single post in this thread where I said anything of the kind. As opposed to, y'know, the multiple times I explicitly said I want a dialogue, where I spoke from a DM's perspective (because I am one) about what I expect from my players.

I welcome your response. Because I'm quite confident you won't find what you're claiming I've said. Other than--and this is pretty vital--that I think BOTH the player AND the DM will get what they want, if they actually have an adult conversation about it, rather than one side stamping their feet and petulantly crying "no! You do it MY way!"

But your "dialog" always seems to end with "There's no reason for limitations that are worthy."

After all you've stated

... 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 ...

Then thrown in a whole lot of insulting language about DMs who dare to have established world and races as being

....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.
...

So having any limits at all means taking away all agency of the players? Give me a break.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Discussions can be had, I just feel that generally it is important that everyone is at the table to play the same game, and player wanting something that does not fit the premise to me is an indication that this is not actually the sort of game they want to be playing in.

Like if the GM is pitching a Kung Fu Panda inspired game with various animal people species in an eastern setting and one person wants to play a classic Norse-Scot dwarf then that's just not going to work.

Why not? I mean they are about as out of place as an Iraqi Muslim in a Viking campaign. But this doesn't prevent 13th Warrior from working. However the assumption has to be that in this universe an outlier is exotic and unusual and from a far away land.

But sometimes things do work. I played a decade in a D&D campaign where the setting was very humanocentric and there was an oppressive intolerant church that hated all sort of deviancy. And the initial idea was that everyone is a human, but one player wanted to be a tiefling. And it actually ended up fitting the setting perfectly. They were literally the only tiefling in the setting, being an offspring of a human and a devil. The church really didn't like the character, but the existence of a literal devilspawn enhanced to the medievally religious feel the GM was going for.

And this is why flexing any restrictions is explicitly a good thing. Who doesn't fit should be the subject of any worldbuilding, and if you have no one then you have a dull world.