D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[mamba]

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."

The two are one and the same here. ‘I do not want to run a campaign with Dragonborn’ is the same as ‘I don’t want you to play a Dragonborn’

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

no, that is not really a compromise at all, the player ‘won‘.

A compromise would be the player being a Lizardman with a special feature or something

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

The setting can belong to the DM without it being a novel / the DM controlling everything. The PC’s actions still matter.

There is a difference between being dropped into a world and being tied to a railroad

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Because that's not the premise. This is the player ignoring the premise and suggesting something completely different. To me it is an indication that they're not interested in the premise, thus this campaign is not going to be a good fit for them.

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.

The difference here is that the player was not ignoring the premise, they were riffing on it. They got the tone of the humanocentric religious medieval setting, and chose something that complemented it.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

It was a thing in 4E. Was it a common house rule before then? It's a good house rule (inasmuch as it makes using potions actually viable... a bit damaging to verisimilitude for some, but I see them as being tiny vials, not these Big Gulp 7/11 type of things), so I'm not surprised that it's widespread. It could be that a 4E gamer propagated it to a 3E/Pathfinder/whatever game and it spread from there I suppose.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The two are one and the same here. ‘I do not want to run a campaign with Dragonborn’ is the same as ‘I don’t want you to play a Dragonborn’

No they aren't. "I don't want to run a campaign with Dragonborn" is the same as "I don't want to play in a campaign with orcs as adversaries". In both cases it's reaching over the DM's screen to control what the other side does.

no, that is not really a compromise at all, the player ‘won‘.

The player of course had a reasonable expectation. You are only saying they "won" because they went in without unreasonable demands.

If the player had gone in with the starting position that "I want to play a dragonborn who comes from a nearby dragonborn city and is very close to their family" then it would be a compromise to say "OK I will play an isolated dragonborn". All your focus on whether it's a "compromise" is doing is encouraging outrageous demands as starting positions for the negotiation so reasonable expectations suddenly become compromises. Meanwhile if the people are behaving like reasonable adults you don't do that and things are a lot less adversarial.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Because that's not the premise. This is the player ignoring the premise and suggesting something completely different. To me it is an indication that they're not interested in the premise, thus this campaign is not going to be a good fit for them.

True.

The difference here is that the player was not ignoring the premise, they were riffing on it. They got the tone of the humanocentric religious medieval setting, and chose something that complemented it.

But again to be fair to @EzekielRaiden, this is also the position he's advocating. The problem arises when you get a player who only accepts:

1. What they want, and none of what the campaign outlines.
2. Some of what they want, with some modification of what the campaign outlines.

But not:

1. Only what the campaign outlines.

Which seems to be where he is getting friction.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

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.

People have repeatedly done that, in this very thread. I'm not speaking hyperbolically if I'm literally describing what people are doing, in this thread.

Cool.

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.

Well, let's see...

Players who don't like it should either learn to live with it or find another DM.

This one's from page 1, so not exactly starting off on a high note. But wait, there's more!

I assume you could find a cool concept that does fit the DM's world, why not do that?

This, at least, tries to soft-sell it. But it's still, "You don't get to pick anything. Do what the DM tells you, or don't play."

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'

Any objection whatsoever is, of course, instantly you being a problem, and can't possibly be a request for discussion! You obviously have to be a nasty, petulant, demanding jerk.

Ultimately setting creation is an artistic endeavour. And I don't think an artist should compromise on their vision.

Read: DMs never need to compromise. Only players do.

If you really want some feature from a different race, we'll talk and figure out if there's something I can do to make it work. But the result has to look and, for all practical purposes, be one of the existing races. So yes, I've had Devas and Aasimaar in my game because they are just humans with unique features and backstories. But no, I will never have a Tabaxi even if I played one in someone else's campaign.

"You can have what you want, it just can't actually look or behave any different from not getting any of what you want."

That's at least three people explicitly saying you don't get to have anything you want (well, one of them saying you can, as long as it has zero impact and isn't physically/mechanically distinguishable from not getting what you want in any way.) And at least two others strongly implying it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because that's not the premise. This is the player ignoring the premise and suggesting something completely different. To me it is an indication that they're not interested in the premise, thus this campaign is not going to be a good fit for them.

It depends how they do it. And on the group. If you always have That Guy Who Plays Dwarves (I'm sure you've had something of the sort at some point) then you can accommodate them or break the group. If you're not willing to accept the group it's a bad pitch.

If they want to be a dwarf miner rather than a travelling dwarf the way some vikings did that's a different story. But stranger in a strange land isn't inherently a bad pitch. It depends how it's done.

The difference here is that the player was not ignoring the premise, they were riffing on it. They got the tone of the humanocentric religious medieval setting, and chose something that complemented it.

Again it depends how they do it. "I want to play an outsider to the setting to give a character that we can explain basic things to and can ask certain questions, and to show this they learned from very visually distinct traditions" can work well.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Read: DMs never need to compromise. Only players do.

No one needs to compromise. No one is forcing you to play in their dragonbornless game and no one if forcing me to run a game with centaurs in it. It is just about finding the people who want to play the same game to begin with.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ultimately setting creation is an artistic endeavour. And I don't think an artist should compromise on their vision.

Ultimately character creation is also an artistic endeavour. So by your logic players should never compromise on their vision.

But I am going to disagree hard with you. Setting creation for an RPG is a collaborative artistic endeavour. And even if you are claiming it to be a solo one then it is created specifically for an audience of the players. Any artist who does not take into account their audence is as bad an artist as the chef who refuses to modify their dishes for the tastes of the eaters when there are only half a dozen eaters.

You might be a good writer if you hold to your vision but not working with the players doesn't speak highly of your DMing skills.

Players will get plenty of choice in any case; in this our world of humans we have eight billion unique individuals.

You think the DM doesn't get more choice?

 

[mamba]

No they aren't. "I don't want to run a campaign with Dragonborn" is the same as "I don't want to play in a campaign with orcs as adversaries". In both cases it's reaching over the DM's screen to control what the other side does.

Limiting available races is not limiting what the player does

The player of course had a reasonable expectation. You are only saying they "won" because they went in without unreasonable demands.

no, I am saying so because they play exactly what they wanted to play.

I also do not see excluding a race as unreasonable at all.